---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 05/21/09: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:08:13 AM PST US From: "jrc" Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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)" Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:39 PM 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. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:12 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" 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 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:51:51 AM PST US From: Bruce Campbell Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:11:53 AM PST US From: Jay Parker Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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 =0ATo: "engines-list@matronics.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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:26:06 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:26:06 AM PST US From: Bruce Campbell Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability SSB0aGluayB0aGUgZGVsdGEgaGF3ayBpcyBiZWluZyB1c2VkIG9uIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIHZlbG9j aXRpZXMuICBUaGVyZSBpcyBhIGJ1bmNoIG9mIGluZm8gZm9yIHZlbG9jaXR5IGJ1aWxkZXJzLCB3 aGljaCBnZXRzIHVwZGF0ZWQgcHJldHR5IHJlZ3VsYXJseS4NCg0KRnJvbTogb3duZXItZW5naW5l cy1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIFttYWlsdG86b3duZXItZW5naW5lcy1saXN0LXNl cnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgSmF5IFBhcmtlcg0KU2VudDogVGh1cnNk YXksIE1heSAyMSwgMjAwOSAxMDowNCBBTQ0KVG86IGVuZ2luZXMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29t DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogRW5naW5lcy1MaXN0OiByZWxpYWJpbGl0eQ0KDQpTaW5jZSB3ZSdyZSBv biB0aGlzIHRvcGljIG9mIGVuZ2luZXMsIHdoZW4gYXJlIHRoZXkgZ29pbmcgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBh IGRpZXNlbCBlbmdpbmUgdGhhdCBjYW4gdXNlIEpldCBBPyAgSSBwbGFuIHRvIHN0YXJ0IGJ1aWxk aW5nIGEgQ0gtODAxIHdpdGhpbiBhIHllYXIgb3Igc28sIGJ1dCBJJ20gbm90IGluIGFueSBodXJy eSB1bnRpbCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgYSBmZXcgbGlnaHQgd2VpZ2h0IGRpZXNlbHMgb24gdGhlIG1hcmtl dCB0byBjaG9vc2UgZnJvbS4gIEkga25vdyBEZWx0YWhhd2sgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUgdGhlIGNsb3Nl c3QgdG8gYmUgbWFya2V0YWJsZSwgYnV0IHRoZSBsYXN0IEkgaGVhcmQgd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhleSds bCB0YWtlIHlvdXIgbW9uZXkgZm9yIGEgcHJlLW9yZGVyIGJ1dCBub3RoaW5nIGdldHMgZGVsaXZl cmVkIHlldC4gVGhvdWdodCBpcyBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGNlcnRpZmllZCBieSBub3cuIEkn bSBzdGlsbCB3YWl0aW5nIGZvciB0aGUgZW5naW5lIHRoYXQgc291bmRzIHRvbyBnb29kIHRvIGJl IHRydWUsIHRoZSBab2NoZSBhZXJvIGRpZXNlbCwgdGhlIHdvbmRlciBlbmdpbmUgd2hpY2ggaXMg Y29tcGFjdCBpbiBzaXplLCBsaWdodGVyIGluIHdlaWdodCB0aGF0IG1vc3QgZ2FzIGVuZ2luZXMs IGFuZCB3aWxsIHByb2JhYmx5IGdldCB5b3UgYXJvdW5kIDggZ2FsL2hyIHdoZW4gaXQncyBiZWVu IGdlYXJlZCBkb3duIHRvIDIwMEhQIGZyb20gaXQncyBuYXR1cmFsIDMwMEhQIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu em9jaGUuZGUvem9jaGVfYnJvY2h1cmUucGRmICx3aGljaCB0aGUgY29tcGFueSBzYXlzIHRoZXkg Y2FuIGRvIGVhc2lseS4gIFRoZWlyIDE1MCBIUCB3b3VsZCBkbyBuaWNlbHkgaW4gdGhlIDc1MCBh bmQgbWF5YmUgZXZlbiB0aGUgNzAxIGlmIGdlYXJlZCBkb3duIGdldHRpbmcgNS41NyBnYWwvaHIs IHVuYWx0ZXJlZC4gVHJ1bHkgYSBtaXJhY2xlIGVuZ2luZSwgd2hpY2ggaGFzIGJlZW4gYWxtb3N0 IGNlcnRpZmllZCBmb3IgdGhlIHBhc3QgMTUgeWVhcnMgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBvd25lci9k ZXZlbG9wZXIuICBXaGF0IHRoZSBoZWNrIGlzIGdvaW5nIG9uIHRoZXJlPyAgVGhlIGd1eSdzIHNp dHRpbmcgb24gYSBnb2xkIG1pbmUgYW5kIGRvaW5nIG5vdGhpbmcuICBJJ2xsIGJlbGlldmUgaXQg d2hlbiBJIHNlZSBpdC4gIEJ1dCB3aHkgY2FuJ3QgdGhlIG90aGVyIG1hbnVmYWN0dXJlcnMgZGV2 ZWxvcCBhIHJhZGlhbCBkaWVzZWwgbGlrZSB0aGUgWm9jaGU/IEZld2VyIHBhcnRzIGFuZCB0aGlu Z3MgdG8gZ28gd3JvbmcsIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhIHNuYXAgZm9yIHRoZSBvdGhlciBtYW51ZmFjdHVy ZXJzIG9mIGdhcyBlbmdpbmVzLiBKZXQgQSBhcHBlYXJzIHRvIGJlIGNoZWFwZXIgdGhhbiAxMDBM TCBhdCB0aGUgbW9tZW50IGFuZCBtb3JlIHBsZW50aWZ1bCBpZiB5b3UncmUgZmx5aW5nIGluIEV1 cm9wZS4NCg0KSmF5DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpGcm9tOiBC cnVjZSBDYW1wYmVsbCA8YnJjYW1wQHdpbmRvd3MubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbT4NClRvOiAiZW5naW5l cy1saXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20iIDxlbmdpbmVzLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbT4NClNlbnQ6 IFRodXJzZGF5LCBNYXkgMjEsIDIwMDkgMTE6NDg6MzYgQU0NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBFbmdpbmVz LUxpc3Q6IHJlbGlhYmlsaXR5DQpJIHN1c3BlY3QgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBiaXQgbW9yZSB0byB0aGUg ZW5naW5lIHJlbGlhYmlsaXR5IHRoaW5nIHRoYW4gdGhlIGFjdHVhbCBpbi1mbGlnaHQgZmFpbHVy ZSByYXRlcy4gICBUaGUgYXZhaWxhYmlsaXR5IG9mIHBhcnRzIGluIHRoZSBmaWVsZCBpcyBhbm90 aGVyIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24gc2hvdWxkIHlvdSBoYXZlIGFuIGlzc3VlLCBhcyBpcyB0aGUgY29z dCBvZiBtYWludGVuYW5jZSBhbmQgb3ZlcmhhdWwuICBBbGwgb2YgdGhlc2UgZmF2b3VyIHRoZSBS b3RheCwgSSBzdXNwZWN0LiAgIE1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIFJvdGF4IHBhcnRzIHRoYXQgbWlnaHQgYmUg cmVxdWlyZWQgaGF2ZSBhdXRvbW90aXZlLXR5cGUgc3Vic3RpdHV0ZXMuDQoNCkFsc28sIG92ZXJo YXVsIGZvciBhIHJvdGF4IGlzIGRpcnQgY2hlYXAgY29tcGFyZWQgdG8gYSBjb250aW5lbnRhbCAo c29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgJDVrIHZzICQyMGssIGdpdmUgb3IgdGFrZSksIGlmIHNvbWV3aGF0IG1v cmUgZnJlcXVlbnQuICBDb3N0bHkgb3ZlcmhhdWxzIGNlcnRhaW5seSBtYWtlIG9uZSBjb25zaWRl ciBsb25nIGFuZCBoYXJkIGJlZm9yZSBvdmVyaGF1bGluZyBhbiBlbmdpbmUgd2hpY2ggaGFzIGRl dmVsb3BlZCBzb21lIG1hcmdpbmFsIGNoYXJhY3RlcmlzdGljcy4NCg0KUm90YXhlcyAoUm90YWNl cz8pIGFsc28gZ2V0IHNvbWV0aGluZyBiYWNrIGZyb20gdGhlIGxpcXVpZCBjb29saW5nOiB0aGV5 IGRvbuKAmXQgYmxvdyBjeWxpbmRlciBoZWFkcyBvciBjcmFjayBjeWxpbmRlcnMsIG9yIGF0IGxl YXN0IG5vdCBuZWFybHkgYXMgb2Z0ZW4uDQoNCkkgc3VzcGVjdCB5b3UgY291bGQgZ2V0IGFjY2Vz cyB0byBjb25zaWRlcmFibGUgZmlyc3QgaGFuZCBleHBlcmllbmNlIGJ5IGZpbmRpbmcgYSBmbGln aHQgc2Nob29sIHRoYXQgb3BlcmF0ZXMgS2F0YW5hcy4gIFRoZXkgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGZpdHRlZCB3 aXRoIGJvdGggZW5naW5lcywgYW5kIGEgc2Nob29sIHBsYW5lIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgc2VlbiBhIGxv dCBvZiBob3VycyBhbmQgYSBsb3Qgb2YgYWJ1c2UuDQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgIEJydWNlDQoNCg0K RnJvbTogb3duZXItZW5naW5lcy1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIFttYWlsdG86b3du ZXItZW5naW5lcy1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgUmljaGFy ZCAmIE1hcnRoYSBOZWlsc2VuDQpTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgTWF5IDIxLCAyMDA5IDc6NTQgQU0N ClRvOiBlbmdpbmVzLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IEVuZ2luZXMtTGlz dDogcmVsaWFiaWxpdHkNCg0KS2VuDQoNClRoZSBDb250aW5lbnRhbCAwLTIwMCBpcyBtb3N0IGxp a2VseSB5b3VyIGJlc3QgY2hvaWNlIGZvciByZWxpYWJpbGl0eS4gSXQgaXMgZ29pbmcgdG8gYmUg YSBiaXQgaGVhdmVyIHRoYW4geW91ciBvdGhlciBjaG9pY2VzIHNvIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIHdvdWxk IGJlIGxlc3MuDQoNClRoZSBSb3RheCA5MTIgc2VyaWVzIG9mIGVuZ2luZXMgYXJlIHByb3Zpbmcg dG8gYmUgcmVsaWFibGUsIHZlcnkgY2xvc2UgdG8gQ29udGluZW50YWxzLiBUaGUgZW5naW5lcyBh cmUgdmVyeSBsaWdodCBhbmQgd2l0aCByaWdodCBwcm9wIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0aGUgbW9zdCB0aHJ1 c3QgZm9yIHdlaWdodCBvZiBhbGwgeW91ciBjaG9pY2VzLg0KDQpUaGUgUm90YXggOTE0IGlzIHR1 cmJvIGNoYXJnZWQuIFRoZXJlIGp1c3QgYXJlbid0IGVub3VnaCBmbHlpbmcgdG8gcmVhbGx5IGVz dGFibGlzaCBhIHJlYWwgcmVsaWFiaWxpdHkgcmVjb3JkLiBJZiB5b3UgbG9vayBhdCB0dXJibyBD b250aW5lbnRhbCBlbmdpbmVzIHRoZWlyIHJlbGlhYmlsaXR5IHN1ZmZlcnMgd2l0aCB0aGUgdHVy Ym8gc28gaWYgcmVsaWFiaWxpdHkgaXMgeW91ciBtYWpvciBjb25jZXJuIHlvdSBtYXkgd2FudCB0 byBzdGF5IGF3YXkgZnJvbSB0aGVtLg0KDQpUaGUgVUwgZW5naW5lcyBhcmUgbmV3IGFuZCBjb3Vs ZCBoYXZlIHRlZXRoaW5nIHByb2JsZW1zLiBJZiByZWxpYWJpbGl0eSBpcyB5b3VyIG51bWJlciBv bmUgY29uY2VybiB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHN0YXkgYXdheSBmcm9tIG5ldyBlbmdpbmVzLiBUaGUgMjYw aVMgaXMgYSBoaWdoZXIgUlBNIGVuZ2luZSBsaWtlIHRoZSBKYWJpcnUgc28geW91IHdvdWxkIGhh dmUgdG8gdXNlIGEgc2hvcnRlciBwcm9wIHRoYW4gYSBDb250aW5lbnRhbCBvciBSb3RheCBzbyBw cm9wIGVmZmljaWVuY3kgd291bGQgYmUgbGVzcy4gVGhlIENIIDc1MCB3b3VsZCBiZSBoYXBwaWVy IHdpdGggYSBiaWcgc2xvdyB0dXJuaW5nIHByb3AgcHJvZHVjaW5nIGxvdHMgb2YgdGhydXN0Lg0K DQpUaGUgVUwgd2ViIHNpdGUgZG9lc24ndCBldmVuIGxpc3QgdGhlIDM2MCBzbyBJIHdvdWxkIHRo aW5rIHRoaXMgd291bGQgYmUgYSByZWFsIG5ldyBlbmdpbmUuDQoNCkFzIGFsd2F5cyB0aGUgaW5m byBpcyB3b3J0aCB3aGF0IHlvdSBwYWlkIGZvciBpdC4NCg0KUmljayBOZWlsc2VuDQpSZWRyaXZl IFZXIHBvd2VyZWQgS29sYiBNS0lJSUMNCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCkZy b206IEtlbiBSeWFuPG1haWx0bzprZW5pbmFsYXNrYUBnbWFpbC5jb20+DQpUbzogZW5naW5lcy1s aXN0QG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb208bWFpbHRvOmVuZ2luZXMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tPg0KU2Vu dDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXkgMjAsIDIwMDkgMTI6MTYgUE0NClN1YmplY3Q6IEVuZ2luZXMtTGlz dDogcmVsaWFiaWxpdHkNCg0KSSdtIGJ1aWxkaW5nIGEgWmVuaXRoIENIIDc1MCBhbmQgbmVlZCB0 byBjaG9vc2UgYW4gZW5naW5lLiBJJ20gaW4gQWxhc2thLCBzbyBtb3N0IG9mIG15IGZseWluZyBp cyBvdmVyIHJlbW90ZSwgb2Z0ZW4gdmVyeSBydWdnZWQgdGVycmFpbi4gQW4gZW5naW5lIGZhaWx1 cmUgY2FuIGJlIGEgdmVyeSBiYWQgdGhpbmcuIEkgYW0gY29uc2lkZXJpbmcgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2lu ZyBlbmdpbmVzLCBhbmQgd291bGQgbGlrZSBvcGluaW9ucyBhcyB0byB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCBiZSB0 aGUgIm1vc3QgcmVsaWFibGU6Ig0KDQpDb250aW5lbnRhbCAwLTIwMA0KUm90YXggOTEyVUxTDQpS b3RheCA5MTQNClVMIFBvd2VyIDI2MGlTDQpVTCBQb3dlciAzNjANCg0KS2VuIFJ5YW4NCg0KDQoN Cg0KDQpocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vTmF2aWdhdG9yP0VuZ2luZXMtTGlz dCI+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9FbmdpbmVzLUxpc3QNCg0KaHJl Zj0iaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIj5odHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5j b20NCg0KaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiI+aHR0cDov L3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2MNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20v TmF2aWdhdG9yP0VuZ2luZXMtTGlzdA0KDQpodHRwOi8vZm9ydW1zLm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20NCg0K aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbg0KDQoNCg0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5t YXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnaWNzLmNvbS8iIHRhcmdldD1fYmxhbmsgcmVsPW5vZm9sbG93Pmh0 dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbSAgX3R0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRy aWJ1dGlvbiIgdGFyZ2V0PV9ibGFuaw0KDQo9PT09PT0NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KDQpfLT0g ICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgRW5naW5lcy1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0NCg0KXy09IFVzZSB0aGUg TWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KDQpfLT0gdGhlIG1h bnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwNCg0KXy09IEFy Y2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLA0KDQpfLT0g UGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0KDQpfLT0NCg0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/RW5naW5lcy1MaXN0DQoNCl8tPQ0KDQpfLT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PQ0KDQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIE1BVFJPTklDUyBXRUIgRk9SVU1TIC0NCg0KXy09IFNh bWUgZ3JlYXQgY29udGVudCBhbHNvIGF2YWlsYWJsZSB2aWEgdGhlIFdlYiBGb3J1bXMhDQoNCl8t PQ0KDQpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL2ZvcnVtcy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQoNCl8tPQ0KDQpfLT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PQ0KDQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBMaXN0IENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBXZWIgU2l0ZSAtDQoNCl8t PSAgVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGdlbmVyb3VzIHN1cHBvcnQhDQoNCl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC1NYXR0IERyYWxsZSwgTGlzdCBBZG1pbi4NCg0KXy09ICAgLS0+ IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9jb250cmlidXRpb24NCg0KXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCg0KDQo ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:41:45 AM PST US From: "Mike Mckenna" Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:53:19 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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 To: "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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:39 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:39 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability 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 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. 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:30 PM PST US From: "Noel" Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability 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 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 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 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.