Time to get serious about building. At my age I get one shot at this. Whatever I build has to account for a little bit of everything I want in an airplane. That includes a radial engine. Non-negotiable. If I could build any kit-based STOL aircraft out there with no compromises it would probably be a Highlander, probably with Steve Henry's insane turbocharged Yamaha snowmobile engine, but I need quick and simple build AND a radial engine so all my itches get scratched. Obviously not the ideal bush plane, but that's how they did it in 1930. If it worked for those guys it'll work for me.

Anyway, I'm less and less interested in a Rotec the more I read about the company. Especially as I've caught them badmouthing the non-geared Verner design based on arguments that I know to be invalid. (I understand the difference between horsepower and torque, lads.) I'm not impressed by the way the Rotec guys do business, frankly. If you have the goods you don't need to abuse the competition.

I'm looking at the Verner Scarlett 9S specifically. Where the Rotec is geared the Verner is direct drive. 158 hp. TONS of torque. Lazy rpm. REALLY lazy normal cruise at a bit over 1800 rpm, with a high cruise at 2000 and max power at just 2400.

Comparing against a Rotax 914 UL, just for kicks, the Verner is much more powerful and much heavier, but still within reason at 237 lbs. Power to weigh ratio is actually better for the Verner, but only slightly. Probably about sixes once an oil tank is included. That means a 100 pound higher payload for a 914 powered plane, but I can live with that.

Verners were available with electronic fuel injection, but it was a very simple open-loop type that depended on a lot of tinkering and adjusting fuel tables. Verner has gone back to a carb because they were tired of trying to walk everyone through the process. I don't blame them.

The Verner DOES have a geared "mixer" that has a modest supercharging effect.

TBO is 1000 hours for the Verner vs. 2000 for the Rotax. However, the Rotax requires a lot more maintenance than the Verner, is a far more complex machine generally, and properly rebuilding one is beyond most owners. The Verner motor is a relatively simple, old-school radial aircraft engine.

Thoughts? Seem like it would have reasonable STOL performance. I'm not looking to compete. Just to putt-putt around making cool noises. 158 hp with gigantic torque slinging a fat "paddle" prop ought to be plenty for a Kitfox, it seems to me. I would have to do something different about the prop, though. The Verner usually slings a LONG wooden club. Very efficient and takes advantage of all that low-rpm rumbling torque, but not ideal for a bush plane. It would need a 3-blade prop for sure.

-mickey