flysebi
26th Mar 2011, 05:44
.....with 7 cilinders, radial engine. And it's still a microlight.
Kitfox president John McBean says the most popular engine choice for the company’s Model 7 is the popular four-cylinder Rotax 912 that powers most LSAs. But following the trend of classic design features finding a way into new vehicles (think Beetle, Camaro or Mustang), McBean says they wanted to offer customers a vintage look in a modern light sport aircraft.
“We did it for aesthetics,” he says. “We’re going for the retro look of old meets new.”
Unlike many of the retro car designs that use all new technology simply covered in a retro looking design, the Rotec powered Kitfox provides some of the experiences of a vintage engine as well.
“If you don’t want oil burn,” McBean says, ”you probably shouldn’t choose a radial.”
Radial engines from the 1920s through the 1950s are notoriously thirsty for oil. Pilots flying the bigger, 1,000-horsepower radials on a DC-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1830), for instance, measure the oil burn in gallons per hour. The Rotec isn’t that bad, but it does burn a bit more oil than more traditional 100-horsepower aviation engines.
More about this subject here:
Kitfox Proves Radial Engines and Wood Props Rock - Pilot Magazin (http://pilotmagazin.ro/2011/03/kitfox-proves-radial-engines-and-wood-props-rock/)
Kitfox president John McBean says the most popular engine choice for the company’s Model 7 is the popular four-cylinder Rotax 912 that powers most LSAs. But following the trend of classic design features finding a way into new vehicles (think Beetle, Camaro or Mustang), McBean says they wanted to offer customers a vintage look in a modern light sport aircraft.
“We did it for aesthetics,” he says. “We’re going for the retro look of old meets new.”
Unlike many of the retro car designs that use all new technology simply covered in a retro looking design, the Rotec powered Kitfox provides some of the experiences of a vintage engine as well.
“If you don’t want oil burn,” McBean says, ”you probably shouldn’t choose a radial.”
Radial engines from the 1920s through the 1950s are notoriously thirsty for oil. Pilots flying the bigger, 1,000-horsepower radials on a DC-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1830), for instance, measure the oil burn in gallons per hour. The Rotec isn’t that bad, but it does burn a bit more oil than more traditional 100-horsepower aviation engines.
More about this subject here:
Kitfox Proves Radial Engines and Wood Props Rock - Pilot Magazin (http://pilotmagazin.ro/2011/03/kitfox-proves-radial-engines-and-wood-props-rock/)