---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 05/20/09: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 09:25 AM - reliability (Ken Ryan) 2. 11:16 AM - Re: reliability (n801bh@netzero.com) 3. 01:24 PM - Re: reliability (Jim Clayton) 4. 01:37 PM - Re: reliability (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 5. 01:40 PM - Re: reliability (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 6. 02:47 PM - Re: reliability (Jim Clayton) 7. 03:40 PM - Re: reliability (Gilles Thesee) 8. 11:03 PM - Re: reliability (fiveonepw@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 09:25:25 AM PST US Subject: Engines-List: reliability From: Ken Ryan 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 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 11:16:37 AM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability Ya can't beat the Continental for safety and its track record.. IMHO. do not archive Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Ken Ryan 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 eng ine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engi nes, 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 ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ========= ____________________________________________________________ Get your dream car or truck. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYjRW3vK2TBIWJpAysR GHJej6BHZDhxBlphSZe1mgHbLRKAgQxRiI/ ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 01:24:38 PM PST US From: Jim Clayton Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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@netzero.com wrote: > From: n801bh@netzero.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability > To: engines-list@matronics.com > Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 11:08 AM > Ya can't beat the > Continental for safety and itstrack record.. IMHO. > do not archive > > > Ben Haas > N801BH > www.haaspowerair.com > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Ken Ryan > To: engines-list@matronics.com > Subject: Engines-List: reliability > Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:16:26 -0800 > > 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 > > > =================================== > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List > =================================== > tronics.com > =================================== > www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > Get > your dream car or truck. Click here. > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 01:37:41 PM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability Continental o-200...There are just so few moving parts..and what there is, is moving pretty slowly..:) 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-se rver@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Ryan Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:16 AM Subject: Engines-List: reliability I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, s o most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine fa ilure 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 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 01:40:45 PM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Clayton Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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@netzero.com wrote: > From: n801bh@netzero.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability > To: engines-list@matronics.com > Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 11:08 AM Ya can't beat the Continental > for safety and itstrack record.. IMHO. > do not archive > > > Ben Haas > N801BH > www.haaspowerair.com > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Ken Ryan > To: engines-list@matronics.com > Subject: Engines-List: reliability > Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:16:26 -0800 > > 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 > > > =================================== > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List > =================================== > tronics.com > =================================== > www.matronics.com/contribution > =================================== > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > Get > your dream car or truck. Click here. > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:47:04 PM PST US From: Jim Clayton Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability 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) wrote: > From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) > Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability > To: "engines-list@matronics.com" > Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 1:39 PM > --> Engines-List message posted > by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] > On Behalf Of Jim Clayton > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:23 PM > To: engines-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability > > > > 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@netzero.com > > wrote: > > > From: n801bh@netzero.com > > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability > > To: engines-list@matronics.com > > Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 11:08 AM Ya can't beat > the Continental > > for safety and itstrack record.. IMHO. > > do not archive > > > > > > Ben Haas > > N801BH > > www.haaspowerair.com > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > > From: Ken Ryan > > To: engines-list@matronics.com > > Subject: Engines-List: reliability > > Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:16:26 -0800 > > > > 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 > > > > > > =================================== > > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List > > =================================== > > tronics.com > > =================================== > > www.matronics.com/contribution > > =================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > Get > > your dream car or truck. Click here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Email Forum - > FAQ, > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > List Contribution Web Site - > -Matt > Dralle, List Admin. > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:40:01 PM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability Frank and all, > 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 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:03:12 PM PST US Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability From: fiveonepw@aol.com 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 -----Original Message----- From: Ken Ryan Sent: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:16 am 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message engines-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Engines-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/engines-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/engines-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.