Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

reliability
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keninalaska(at)gmail.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:25 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"

Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360

Ken Ryan
[quote][b]


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:16 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Ya can't beat the Continental for safety and its track record.. IMHO.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

--------


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
jspc78(at)yahoo.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:24 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Hi Ken/All,

The Rotax and Conti's are long term proven engines. I favor the Rotax due to its modern design, propeller speed reduction (and its far greater low-speed thrust potential over direct drive), preference to consume autogas, and much lighter weight, however the 0-200 has been proven over the decades, and I suspect could survive with poor maintenance and abuse.

I am not familiar with the other engines you mention; perhaps someone with experience in that area could comment.

I believe the "most" reliable engine package will be whichever engine is meticulously installed and maintained according to best practices as developed by the manufacturers in consultation with the brightest, most experienced mechanics.

Reliability begins and ends with the attitude and care brought by the owner/builder. Stop at nothing to ensure, *over time* the powerplant is in the best condition possible, and you will acheive you goal.

-Jim

Jim Clayton
California
Mark-3X, 912ULS.....Building
www.quantumwrench.com/Kolb.htm

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com> wrote:

[quote] From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Re: reliability
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 11:08 AM
Ya can't beat the
Continental for safety and its track record.. IMHO.
do not archive


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

--------


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:37 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Continental o-200...There are just so few moving parts..and what there is, is moving pretty slowly..Smile

Depending on what electrical load you have you could maybe put an SD 8 (amp) alternator on the vacuum pad...Hard to get more reliable/simple.

Frank

From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:16 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Engines-List: reliability

I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"

Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360

Ken Ryan
[quote]

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
ics.com
.matronics.com/contribution

[b]


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:40 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

I would guess the Contininenetal could be had with hardened valvea and seats (all the Lycomings are) that make it equally compatible with mogas..As long as the carb seal/needle floats are compatible.

The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has both water and air cooling, spins faster. Not sure I understand the "far greater low speed thrust potential"????

Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is driving them so what does this statement mean?

Frank

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
jspc78(at)yahoo.com
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:47 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Hi Frank/All,

Regarding the value of propeller speed reductions (PSRU)in STOL aircraft: The Rotax 912ULS has a gear ratio of 2.43 to 1 (as I recall). At a takeof rpm the propeller is turning much slower than 2500 rpm, allowing a much larger prop diameter without breaking the tip speed limit (speed of sound), therby giving greater low speed thrust (think King-Air props: low rpm, high thrust!) A couple of years ago I posted to the Kolb list a discussion of the considerations around direct drive Vs. PSRU. If you are flying an stol machine the concepts will be the same. I will paste in the relavant bits here:
--------
I have the same vision John H. does for the Kolbs, and that drives my choice of engine.

John said: "My impression of the Kolb is a "super"
STOL heavy hauler with respectable
cruise. Not an airplane that will spend its life flying off a 3,000 ft paved strip from point A to point B and back."

So what we are talking about is a plane that can carry near (or better than!) it's own weight out of amazingly short strips and cruise fast enough to get the job done. The Kolbs are certainly no RV-x hot rod, but then as John points out, they don't need 3000 ft. of runway either.

For this mission, an engine that produces high thrust at lower airspeeds is best. The easiest way to produce high thrust at low speeds is to have a large diameter (area) propeller turning at low rpm's.
Propeller speed reduction units (PSU) in front of a piston engine are a proven combination because piston engines are happiest at higher rpm's than is optimum for big propellers.

Rotax is the first major manufacturer to mass produce a reliable 4 cylinder PSRU as the harmonics are far different than larger engines.

A direct drive engine is going to turn the propeller at higher rpms and so the diameter will need to be reduced to keep the tip speed below the limit. What are smaller propellers good at? Going fast! At higher airframe airspeeds the smaller diameter propeller will more efficiently produce thrust making your RV-x or Glassair go very fast, but they are runway gobblers by Kolb standards! In a Kolb, we will never go real fast due to the wing design etc. This will always be a high lift, low speed plane. For my mission, an engine that creates most of it's thrust at high airspeeds will only work best for the top 4 or 5 mph of a Kolb's speed range, and do less efficiently in the lower speeds of the flight envelope.

Hope this helps.

-Jim

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> wrote:

[quote] From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Subject: RE: reliability
To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 1:39 PM
--> Engines-List message posted
by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>

I would guess the Contininenetal could be had with hardened
valvea and seats (all the Lycomings are) that make it
equally compatible with mogas..As long as the carb
seal/needle floats are compatible.

The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has
both water and air cooling, spins faster. Not sure I
understand the "far greater low speed thrust potential"????

Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is
driving them so what does this statement mean?

Frank

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Gilles.Thesee(at)ac-greno
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 2:40 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Frank and all,

Quote:
The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has both water and air cooling, spins faster. Not sure I understand the "far greater low speed thrust potential"????

Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is driving them so what does this statement mean?

There are many Rotax engines flying far beyond TBO in my country, with
virtually no mechanical trouble.
With a Rotax, the prop turns at about 2400 RPM at takeoff and at
2000-2100 RPM in cruise. Propulsion efficiency is higher, and -what is
most important in western Europe- the engine and prop are much much quieter.
FWIW,

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Mark Phillips in TN



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia, TN

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:03 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Have you considered the Jabiru 3300? Jabiru USA is currently
developing a firewall-forward package to install this engine in the
CH750 which should be ready soon. These engines have a proven track
record for reliability- I have flown them for over 500 hours and am
pretty impressed with them. See usjabiru.com for information.

Mark Phillips

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

_________________
From The PossumWorks...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jrccea(at)bellsouth.net
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 1:08 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

I've been running an O-200 on mogas for several years with no problems.
Pistons still look good.
JimC

---


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 6:55 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Ken

The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance would be less.

The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close to Continentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will have the most thrust for weight of all your choices.

The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to really establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from them.

The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If reliability is your number one concern you should stay away from new engines. The 260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be less. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots of thrust.

The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would be a real new engine.

As always the info is worth what you paid for it.

Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
[quote] ---


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
brcamp(at)windows.microso
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:51 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the actual in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field is another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of maintenance and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect. Most of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type substitutes.

Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (something like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent. Costly overhauls certainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engine which has developed some marginal characteristics.

Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling: they don't blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as often


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
zeus45601(at)yahoo.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:11 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a diesel engine that can use Jet A? I plan to start building a CH-801 within a year or so, but I'm not in any hurry until there are a few light weight diesels on the market to choose from. I know Deltahawk seems to be the closest to be marketable, but the last I heard was that they'll take your money for a pre-order but nothing gets delivered yet. Thought is should have been certified by now. I'm still waiting for the engine that sounds too good to be true, the Zoche aero diesel, the wonder engine which is compact in size, lighter in weight that most gas engines, and will probably get you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared down to 200HP from it's natural 300HP http://www.zoche.de/zoche_brochure.pdf ,which the company says they can do easily. Their 150 HP would do nicely in the 750 and maybe even the 701 if geared down getting 5.57 gal/hr, unaltered. Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost certified for the past 15 years according to the owner/developer. What the heck is going on there? The guy's sitting on a gold mine and doing nothing. I'll believe it when I see it. But why can't the other manufacturers develop a radial diesel like the Zoche? Fewer parts and things to go wrong, should be a snap for the other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be cheaper than 100LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Europe.

Jay


From: Bruce Campbell <brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com>
To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:48:36 AM
Subject: RE: reliability


I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the actual in-flight failure rates.   The availability of parts in the field is another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of maintenance and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect. Most of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type substitutes.

Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (something like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent. Costly overhauls certainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engine which has developed some marginal characteristics.

Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling: they don’t blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as often.

I suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience by finding a flight school that operates Katanas. They have been fitted with both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a lot of abuse.

Bruce


From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: reliability



Ken



The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance would be less.



The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close to Continentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will have the most thrust for weight of all your choices.



The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to really establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from them.



The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If reliability is your number one concern you should stay away from new engines. The 260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be less. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots of thrust.



The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would be a real new engine.

 

As always the info is worth what you paid for it.



Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
[quote]
---


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
brcamp(at)windows.microso
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:26 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

I think the delta hawk is being used on a number of velocities.  There is a bunch of info for velocity builders, which gets updated pretty regularly.
 
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Parker
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:04 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability


 
Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a diesel engine that can use Jet A?  I plan to start building a CH-801 within a year or so, but I'm not in any hurry until there are a few light weight diesels on the market to choose from.  I know Deltahawk seems to be the closest to be marketable, but the last I heard was that they'll take your money for a pre-order but nothing gets delivered yet. Thought is should have been certified by now. I'm still waiting for the engine that sounds too good to be true, the Zoche aero diesel, the wonder engine which is compact in size, lighter in weight that most gas engines, and will probably get you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared down to 200HP from it's natural 300HP http://www.zoche.de/zoche_brochure.pdf ,which the company says they can do easily.  Their 150 HP would do nicely in the 750 and maybe even the 701 if geared down getting 5.57 gal/hr, unaltered. Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost certified for the past 15 years according to the owner/developer.  What the heck is going on there?  The guy's sitting on a gold mine and doing nothing.  I'll believe it when I see it.  But why can't the other manufacturers develop a radial diesel like the Zoche? Fewer parts and things to go wrong, should be a snap for the other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be cheaper than 100LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Europe.

 

Jay

 

From: Bruce Campbell <brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com>
To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:48:36 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability
I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the actual in-flight failure rates.   The availability of parts in the field is another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of maintenance and overhaul.  All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect.   Most of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type substitutes. 
 
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (something like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent.  Costly overhauls certainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engine which has developed some marginal characteristics.
 
Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling: they don’t blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as often.
 
I suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience by finding a flight school that operates Katanas.  They have been fitted with both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a lot of abuse.
 
            Bruce
 
 
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability


 
Ken

 

The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance would be less.

 

The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close to Continentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will have the most thrust for weight of all your choices.

 

The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to really establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from them.

 

The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If reliability is your number one concern you should stay away from new engines. The 260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be less. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots of thrust.

 

The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would be a real new engine.

 

As always the info is worth what you paid for it.

 

Rick Neilsen

Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
Quote:

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Ryan (keninalaska(at)gmail.com)

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com (engines-list(at)matronics.com)

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM

Subject: Engines-List: reliability

 

I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"

Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360

Ken Ryan
Quote:
    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution  
0
Quote:
 
1
Quote:
 
2


Quote:
 
3
Quote:
 
4
Quote:
 
5
Quote:
 
6
Quote:
 
7
Quote:
 
8
Quote:
 
9
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
0
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
1
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
2
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
3
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
4
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
5
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
6
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
7
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
8
Quote:
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
9
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
0
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
1
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
2
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
3
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
4
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
5
Quote:
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
6


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Gilles.Thesee(at)ac-greno
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:26 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Jay and all,
Quote:
until there are a few light weight diesels on the market to choose from.

The problem is, a light weight diesel is by no means lighter than a
light weight gas engine. A diesel is heavier by design : more pressure
in the combustion chambers, more torque variations, etc.

Quote:
Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost certified for the past
15 years according to the owner/developer.

"Almost certified" engines are almost suitable for your airplane. Your
airplane will almost fly Wink

Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
mmckenna(at)bellsouth.net
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:41 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

There are a lot of Continental parts available "in the field", maybe more so than Rotax.

It does not cost 20k to overhaul a O-200 Continental. A new one can be purchased at 20 to 22k. Probably 8 to 10k to overhaul.

Continentals have problems with valve leakage by 500hrs. Not a catastrophic failure. Cheap and easy to repair as needed.

The Kantanas in my area started out with Rotax power. They are now using Continental.

I am not at all against the Rotax brand. But your arguments against O-200 Continental do not agree with their long standing, proven track record.

As others have commented. The key to reliable power plants is the owner/operator.


Mike Mckenna






[quote] --


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:53 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

There is a three cylinder six piston Diesel engine with crank shafts on both ends of the engine. I don't remember the name but it is a rework of a WWII German diesel aircraft engine. It is a radical design that is reported to have power weight and price completive with the Continental 0-200 with much lower fuel consumption. I have seen it on display at Oshkosh for a few years and at the LSA Expo at Sebring this year they said it was being installed on a LSA by spring of this year.

Has anyone else heard any more current updates?

Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
[quote] ---


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:38 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

Auto fuel is cheaper then both Jet A and 100LL. I run 91 octane auto fuel, make 300+ HP and get 6.4 GPH at cruise (at) 40% power... Hey, it's an "experimental"... We can do anything we want.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

--------


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:38 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

As far as I know there is ONE Velocity with a Deltahawk in it. That is the test bed. Ya give them a deposit and you "might get a motor.. In 50 years.!!!

do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

--------


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Float Flyr



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 6:08 pm    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

True but stove oil is a lot cheaper... Same stuff as diesel.

Noel

From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of n801bh(at)netzero.com
Sent: 21 May 2009 10:56 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: reliability


Auto fuel is cheaper then both Jet A and 100LL. I run 91 octane auto fuel, make 300+ HP and get 6.4 GPH at cruise (at) 40% power... Hey, it's an "experimental"... We can do anything we want.
do not archive


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

--------


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zeus45601(at)yahoo.com
Guest





PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 2:53 am    Post subject: reliability Reply with quote

That's the story I heard. Some fellow on one of these boards from Australia laid down a deposit or pre-paid with the understanding the engine will follow in a couple months, but as far as I know he still hasn't received his.


From: "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:28:44 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability


As far as I know there is ONE Velocity with a Deltahawk in it. That is the test bed. Ya give them a deposit and you "might get a motor... In 50 years.!!!

do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

--------


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group