Titan engines

[Streamside357]

I know a lot of Kitfoxes are using the Rotax 9 series, but does anyone have an opinion on the Titan engines. I am thinking of the X340 for a 7SS. I was also thinking of overhauling a Lycoming. I fly mostly in the central US but want to head out to Homeland and see the backcountry.

Clarence G.
A&P with IA
Private Pilot SEL

[Eric Page]

It's been done. Many details available in this build thread: https://teamkitfox.com/Forums/thread...ffs-340-Kitfox

[Shadowrider]

What about UL power?

[Billy]

Hello Lauren,

I really like your airplane, congratulations . I like your choice fabricating your own cowl too. I used the carbon cowl from kitfox for the 235 and underestimated the amount of modification I had to do to get the 0-320 inside of it. , had I known, your route would have been a better choice and it looks very nice, so good on you ! can't wait to see your test flight numbers ,hope you can share those with me, Take care, Billy

[Streamside357]

Thanks for the link. I was wanting to know a bit more about the Titan compared to the Rotax. In the link, Jeff talked about how great the climb performance was. He did not mention much about cruise. As I am planning on a Super Sport and not the STi, cruise is just as important to me as climb. When I e-mailed John at Kitfox, he mentioned in his reply that the Titan is heavy and really pushes your CG forward.

As for the Rotax UL power, I think very highly of the Rotax’s. In my years as an A&P tho, I have only really looked at them from a distance. I am more familiar with the Lycomings and Continentals. I know these engines are all reliable, but even Trent Palmer threw a piston rod out the side of a case.

Clarence G
A&P with IA
Private Pilot SEL
Planning 7SS

[Benbell4140]

Originally I was in the same position as you. Based on my research Jeff has the only super sport wing powered by the 320-340 engine. The factory model was an STI and also the guy building up in Alaska has the STI wing. My personal choice was the continental O-200 but John McBean did tell me if I were considering an O-200 then I should just go with the Titan. I chose the O-200 after talking with a few owners that use the O-200 and it saved me a considerable amount of money over the Titan. It’s all about what your mission is. My mission was to outperform a J-3 and have side by side seating and I’m pretty sure my airplane will exceed my expectations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Streamside357]

Thanks Billy and Lauren. I just got to get the kit and get started on building it and someday I will be right up there with you guys. I keep looking at the STi and I am beginning to think that is what I want to build.

Clarence G
A&P with IA
Private Pilot SEL
Planning 7 SS or STi

[Maverick]

I have built two Kitfox 5s, one with a C-O200 and now one with a R912ULS. Maybe not fair to compare with a 7SS but it does level the playing field for comparison of performance from a flying prospective. I find that the R912ULS performs better all around and I attribute that to the lighter weight (777lbs vs. 870lbs). However, I will say that my prior flying experience with a dozen different planes I've owned that everyone of had a Continental motor, I'm far more comfortable with a Continental. It sounds like you might be in the same boat as me thinking that the slow RPM high cubic inch motors have proven their reliability for 80 years so why change. However, with gaining more and more experience in flying behind the R912ULS I am gaining more confidence. And, I've had some high RPM small cubic inch motors that were very reliable in several cars. I guess my stubbornness to accepting the R912ULS is finally giving way to modern technology being applied to aviation. In fact, yesterday I heard of a R912ULS motor with 3,000 hours on it that was torn down and rebuilt and all the parts still met factory specs so the only parts that were replaced were new rings. Is this true? I am not a witness to it but, I believe my source given his 30 years of experience with Rotax engines.

As for the failure Trent Palmer had, yes, he threw a rod but he also admitted that he was flying an old engine that was originally built as an R912UL eighty horsepower engine that had been modified by the prior owner. His admonition was don't modify your engine. Buy the one you want and leave it stock. Now maybe that notion has changed with more modern Rotax engines but, given that these engines were designed to be what they are, buy the horsepower you want in the first place and at least you'll know your engine is most likely to be reliable for a long time.

And, then there's the fuel burn. How many hours can you afford to fly and how fast do you need to get there? What are the performance requirements you have. An TX340 may be necessary if you need to go faster and carry more weight but given the gross weight restrictions you have on the airframe will you even have enough payload to do what you want if you go with the TX340? And, if it's more HP you need the R915iS will give you 140hp. I'm just saying the first time I built, I went with my gut, the second time I went with faith in friends that I have that have flown Rotaxs for 20-30 years. The short of it is, I was satisfied with both but certainly prefer the performance of the Rotax more than the heavier C-O200.

[efwd]

Much appreciated. I utilize this sort of info daily.

[109JB]

Just saw the picture and wanted to point out that it is not a good idea to have that young person or anyone else for that matter standing in the plane of the prop.