Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:08 AM - Re: reliability (jrc)
2. 07:55 AM - Re: reliability (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
3. 08:51 AM - Re: reliability (Bruce Campbell)
4. 10:11 AM - Re: reliability (Jay Parker)
5. 10:26 AM - Re: reliability (Gilles Thesee)
6. 10:26 AM - Re: reliability (Bruce Campbell)
7. 10:41 AM - Re: reliability (Mike Mckenna)
8. 11:53 AM - Re: reliability (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
9. 06:38 PM - Re: reliability (n801bh@netzero.com)
10. 06:38 PM - Re: reliability (n801bh@netzero.com)
11. 07:08 PM - Re: reliability (Noel)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I've been running an O-200 on mogas for several years with no problems.
Pistons still look good.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability
> <frank.hinde@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.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
To: engines-list@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
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the actu
al in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field is ano
ther 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 Rota
x parts that might be required have automotive-type substitutes.
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (somethi
ng like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent. Costly over
hauls certainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engin
e which has developed some marginal characteristics.
Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling: they do
n'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 fin
ding a flight school that operates Katanas. They have been fitted with bot
h engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a lot of a
buse.
Bruce
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-se
rver@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. It i
s 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 C
ontinentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will have the m
ost thrust for weight of all your choices.
The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to really e
stablish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental engine
s 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 pro
p 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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan<mailto:keninalaska@gmail.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, 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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a dies
el engine that can use Jet A?=C2- I plan to start building a CH-801 withi
n 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.=C2- I know Deltahawk seems to be t
he closest to be marketable, but the last I heard was that they'll take you
r money for a pre-order but nothing=C2-gets delivered yet. Thought is sho
uld have been certified by now. I'm still waiting for the engine that sound
s too good to be true, the Zoche aero diesel, the wonder engine which is co
mpact in size, lighter in weight that most gas engines, and will probably g
et you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared down to 200HP from it's natura
l 300HP http://www.zoche.de/zoche_brochure.pdf=C2-,which the company says
they can do easily.=C2- Their 150 HP would do nicely in the 750 and mayb
e even the 701 if geared down getting 5.57 gal/hr, unaltered. Truly a mirac
le engine,
which has been almost certified for the past 15 years according to the own
er/developer.=C2- What the heck is going on there?=C2- The guy's sittin
g on a gold mine and doing nothing.=C2- I'll believe it when I see it.=C2
- But why can't the other manufacturers develop a=C2-radial diesel like
the Zoche?=C2-Fewer parts and things to go wrong, should be a snap for t
he other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be cheaper than 100
LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Europe.=0A=0AJay=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Bruce Campbell <brcamp
@windows.microsoft.com>=0ATo: "engines-list@matronics.com" <engines-list@ma
tronics.com>=0ASent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:48:36 AM=0ASubject: RE: Engi
nes-List: reliability=0A=0A=0AI suspect there is a bit more to the engine r
eliability thing than the actual in-flight failure rates.=C2-=C2- The a
vailability of parts in the field is another consideration should you have
an issue, as is the cost of maintenance and overhaul.=C2- All of these fa
vour the Rotax, I suspect.=C2- =C2-Most of the Rotax parts that might b
e required have automotive-type substitutes.=C2- =0A=C2-=0AAlso, overha
ul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (something like $5k
vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent.=C2- Costly overhauls c
ertainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engine which
has developed some marginal characteristics.=0A=C2-=0ARotaxes (Rotaces?)
also get something back from the liquid cooling: they don=99t blow c
ylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as often.=0A=C2-
=0AI suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience by
finding a flight school that operates Katanas.=C2- They have been fitted
with both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a
lot of abuse.=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2- Bruce =0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0AFrom:owner-engines-list-serve
r@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
Of Richard & Martha Neilsen=0ASent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM=0ATo: en
gines-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: Engines-List: reliability=0A=C2-
=0AKen=0A=C2-=0AThe Continental 0-200 is=C2-most likely your best choic
e for reliability. It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices s
o performance would be less.=0A=C2-=0AThe Rotax 912 series of engines are
proving to be reliable,=C2-very close to Continentals. The engines are v
ery light and with right prop will have the most thrust for weight of=C2-
all your choices.=0A=C2-=0AThe Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just are
n't enough flying to really establish a real reliability record. If you loo
k at turbo Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so
if=C2-reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from th
em.=0A=C2-=0AThe UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If
reliability is your number one concern you should stay away from new engine
s. The 260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to us
e a shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be le
ss. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots
of thrust.=0A=C2-=0AThe UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would
think this would be a real new engine.=0A=C2-=0AAs always the info is wo
rth what you paid for it.=0A=C2-=0ARick Neilsen=0ARedrive VW powered Kolb
MKIIIC=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom:Ken Ryan =0ATo:engines-list@
matronics.com =0ASent:Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM=0ASubject:Engines-Li
st: reliability=0A=C2-=0AI'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 r
ugged 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 "mo
st reliable:"=0A=0AContinental 0-200=0ARotax 912ULS=0ARotax 914=0AUL Power
260iS=0AUL Power 360=0A=0AKen Ryan=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0Ahref="http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?E
ngines-List=0Ahref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.
com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.c
om/c=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A
=============
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jay and all,
> 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.
> 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 ;-)
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|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 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce Campbell
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:49 AM
To: engines-list@matronics.com
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@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard &
Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
To: engines-list@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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
To: engines-list@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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Engines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.m
atronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronic
s.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Parker
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:03 PM
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@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "engines-list@matronics.com" <engines-list@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=99t 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@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard &
Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
To: engines-list@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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
To: engines-list@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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.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.co
mhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
_ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution" target=_blank
======
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Auto fuel is cheaper then both Jet A and 100LL. I run 91 octane auto fue
l, make 300+ HP and get 6.4 GPH at cruise @ 40% power... Hey, it's an "e
xperimental"... We can do anything we want.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jay Parker <zeus45601@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a d
iesel engine that can use Jet A? I plan to start building a CH-801 with
in a year or so, but I'm not in any hurry until there are a few light we
ight 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 tak
e 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 wh
ich is compact in size, lighter in weight that most gas engines, and wil
l probably get you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared down to 200HP f
rom 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 7
50 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 ther
e? 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 s
nap for the other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be chea
per than 100LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Euro
pe. Jay
From: Bruce Campbell <brcamp@windows.microsoft.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 a
ctual in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field
is another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of mai
ntenance and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect. Most
of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type substitu
tes.
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (some
thing like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent. Costl
y 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=99t blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not n
early 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 wi
th both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a
lot of abuse.
Bruce
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list
-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. I
t is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance wou
ld be less.
The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close t
o 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 reall
y establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental
engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is yo
ur 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 26
0iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a sh
orter 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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
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 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
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/contributio
n">http://www.matronics.com/c http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engi
nes-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/" target=_blank rel=nofollow
>http://forums.matronics.com _ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution" tar
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
======================
____________________________________________________________
Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYjRT2Sl5nYixvQ8W0Q
EHznEzlV7zJcZFFxCrBXWTNlTPzfBqUrVe/
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
As far as I know there is ONE Velocity with a Deltahawk in it. That is t
he 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
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bruce Campbell <brcamp@windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability
I think the delta hawk is being used on a number of velocities.=C2 Ther
e is a bunch of info for velocity builders, which gets updated pretty re
gularly. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:
office:office" />
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list
-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Parker
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a d
iesel engine that can use Jet A? I plan to start building a CH-801 with
in a year or so, but I'm not in any hurry until there are a few light we
ight 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 tak
e 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 wh
ich is compact in size, lighter in weight that most gas engines, and wil
l probably get you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared down to 200HP f
rom 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 7
50 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 ther
e? 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 s
nap for the other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be chea
per than 100LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Euro
pe.
Jay
From: Bruce Campbell <brcamp@windows.microsoft.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 a
ctual in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field
is another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of mai
ntenance and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect. Most
of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type substitu
tes.
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (some
thing like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent. Costl
y 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=99t blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not n
early 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 wi
th both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a
lot of abuse.
Bruce
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list
-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. I
t is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance wou
ld be less.
The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close t
o 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 reall
y establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental
engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is yo
ur 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 26
0iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a sh
orter 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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
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 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
=C2 href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://w
ww.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.c
om">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion">http://www.matronics.com/c=C2 http://www.matronics.com/Navigato
r?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contri
bution http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/" target=_blank rel=no
follow>http://forums.matronics.com=C2 _ttp://www.matronics.com/contribu
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2 =C2
========================
========================
== =B7=9B~=89=ED=B2,=DE=D9=CA%=A2=BD4=D3M4}=A7=1Er=8B=AB=89=EA=E7
{=07(=BA=B8=9E­8^=12x"=9D=EB =8A=CBD=99=A8=A5=16=8A=EE=99K=1E=B6=17=8C
j=DA=E8=9E',.+-=15=E6­=BA=B7=AC5=AB=81=ABh=AE=DA=1B=AE=8C,z=D8^=99
=A9=F2.+-=BA=D8=A5=8A=D8=9E=B2=CB=9C=85=AB =8A=CBT=9F=AEn=C7+=8A=9Bb=A2
p+r=18=AFy'=9A­=C8C=A3 =E5=A1=A7{=AC=81=AE=8C,x(Z=B4P=10>=1A-=A2=C8Z
­=E6=A7vk=9C=86k=9C=86j+y=A8ky=F8m=B6=9F=FF=C3 &j=DA=E8=9E',r=895
=AB=81=ABh=ACI=E0=8Aw=AC.+-=86=DBi=FF=FC0=C2f­=AE=89r=C7(=9B=F3
Z=BE(=1A=B6=8A=C4=9E=08=A7z=C2=B2=DF=DA0=04=D18=D2=02Ia=01=14=E4T1$=9A
=99=E8+y=AB\=A2{^=9E=D6=A5=B2=86=AFj)ZnW=AF=89=ABayg=9B=16=8A=EE=9A=C6=A1
­=E7=E1=B6=DA=FD=FA+=BAk&j=DA=E8=9E',r=89=A1=B6=DA=FD=FA+=BAk&j=DA
=E8=9E',r=89h=B8=AC=B4*'=B6=B8=9B=BA=D8=A8=9Dg=9BJ+^N=16=A7=93*.~=8A=F2
=A2=EA=E0zw=AB=A2=EB,=BA=9Ah=AE=D3=1A=B6=D0=EBjY^.+-=01=D9=A2=9D=A8ky=F8
m=B6=9F=FF=C3 &j=DA=E8=9E',r=89r=89=ED=AE&=EE=B6*'=86=DBi=FF=FC0=C2f&
shy;=AE=89r=C7(=9B=F7(=9E=DAn=EBb=A2=DA=FD=DF=A2{=B7n=87
r=FE=1Bf-=94=81
____________________________________________________________
You have a right to seek justice! Click here to find experienced lawyer
s across the USA.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYbp18eP7W6T7Fu2TGxZ
IrMgYKxdvoBb8RswjGoR2x1pE8zWPVuwd6/
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
True but stove oil is a lot cheaper... Same stuff as diesel.
Noel
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n801bh@netzero.com
Sent: 21 May 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: 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 @ 40% power... Hey, it's an
"experimental"... We can do anything we want.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jay Parker <zeus45601@yahoo.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@windows.microsoft.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=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t 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@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard &
Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
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
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan <mailto:keninalaska@gmail.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
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
_ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution" target=_blank
======
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
tronics.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
____________________________________________________________
Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2242/fc/BLSrjpYYjRT2Sl5nYixvQ8W0Q
EHznEzlV7zJcZFFxCrBXWTNlTPzfBqUrVe/>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|