|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

12-23-2007, 02:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 130
|
|
Ok so the dollar is falling in respect to the eruo, Why will we have to pay more for the Rotax? If the vast majority of the sales are in the US, then we in the US will set the price. Rotax will just have to make less profit, or not sell the engines. In the end the consumers will set the price by paying what they are willing to pay for the product.
|

12-23-2007, 02:26 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Huskerland, USA
Posts: 5,862
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by c177tx
Ok so the dollar is falling in respect to the eruo, Why will we have to pay more for the Rotax? If the vast majority of the sales are in the US, then we in the US will set the price. Rotax will just have to make less profit, or not sell the engines. In the end the consumers will set the price by paying what they are willing to pay for the product.
|
The vast majority of Rotax engines are not used here. We will have to pay more because the US dollar is worth less than is was last year, last month. Do you really think we set the price of the RV kits? The only influence we have is to buy in volume to lower production costs.
__________________
RV-7 : In the hangar
RV-10 : In the hangar
RV-12 : Built and sold
RV-44 : 4 place helicopter on order.
Last edited by Geico266 : 12-23-2007 at 02:32 PM.
|

12-23-2007, 02:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 497
|
|
Competition is what lowers price. That I why I was kind of hoping initially that VAN's would have chosen the Jabiru. (plus a simpler installation) However, with the devaluation of the dollar... the Jab's price has gone up as well. If they would shave more weight of the TCM O-200 and sell it for about $15,000... they might start to give Rotax a run for their money. As of now... Rotax is the big dog in the 100 hp. arena. They really don't have any competition to speak of... so no incentive to curb costs.
|

12-23-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tullahoma, Tennessee
Posts: 197
|
|
You are right we are stuck for now with the 912. It is probably a good engine as many reports have indicated. I got a response from "Adelaide biplanes" that basically started this post. You can find their website if you google "adelaide biplanes" and contact them yourself. I informed them that many on this site were skeptical or downright disbelieving of their experiences with the 912. As much as I hate to type here is their reply: "Yes I guess its inevitable that people may think all the obvious things like poor maintenance etc. etc. We have been all through that with our local dealers both for the aeroplane and the engine. We use the engines on average 4 hours a day, 100hrs a month and maintain them exactly to the manufactures schedule. We only use approved oils, coolants and run them on premium unleaded as recommended. Let me re-iterate we have changed 5 engines in 5000 hours over 3 years. Not one of those engines has been able to be successfully rebuilt".
|

12-23-2007, 06:57 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Huskerland, USA
Posts: 5,862
|
|
I just don't get it. Why you are so negative on such a proven engine?
You would rather spend $10K on an unproven engine, with zero history, no enforceable warranty, no service centers, that is worth virtually nothing on resale, or would you spend $15K on a proven engine, with service centers all over the country, made by a large / deep pocket company that has more engines flying than any other engine period, an engine capable of getting 4K hours before overhaul, and is worth $5-10K on the used engine market.
Seems to me it's an easy choice to make, and a good engine choice for any aircraft needing 80-100 HP. Why not just go with the best instead of fighting with an unproven engine from a company on the verge of bankruptcy?
You choose Van's kits because why? Why not choose the engine Van's RECOMMENDS?
To each his own, I'm done.
__________________
RV-7 : In the hangar
RV-10 : In the hangar
RV-12 : Built and sold
RV-44 : 4 place helicopter on order.
Last edited by Geico266 : 12-23-2007 at 08:17 PM.
|

12-23-2007, 08:35 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
|
|
Actually I like 912s, just not the price and I have a lot riding on lots of people using 912s (with EFI) so I hope they continue to cough up the bucks for them.
$16-17K nearly buys you a 180hp Lyc clone these days. That money seems pretty steep to me for 100hp.
I like Van's kits because they have the best bang for the buck, good support and are metal but I ain't gonna drop $15-$40K for an engine to power them with. Just me I guess. I like the experimental part.
Found this on the Zenith site: http://homebuilthelp.com/ZAC/The912Competition_zac.htm
Also interesting that Zenith has a more open mind with regards to engines to power their kits including Conti, Lyco, Rotax, Corvair, VW, Jabiru, Rotec, Subaru and Suzuki with realistic warnings about weight, performance, life and reliability concerns up front. Sounds like they offer mounts for the popular ones and you are on your own after that.
Last edited by rv6ejguy : 12-24-2007 at 12:05 PM.
|

12-24-2007, 08:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 99
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim miller
You are right we are stuck for now with the 912. It is probably a good engine as many reports have indicated. I got a response from "Adelaide biplanes" that basically started this post. You can find their website if you google "adelaide biplanes" and contact them yourself. I informed them that many on this site were skeptical or downright disbelieving of their experiences with the 912. As much as I hate to type here is their reply: "Yes I guess its inevitable that people may think all the obvious things like poor maintenance etc. etc. We have been all through that with our local dealers both for the aeroplane and the engine. We use the engines on average 4 hours a day, 100hrs a month and maintain them exactly to the manufactures schedule. We only use approved oils, coolants and run them on premium unleaded as recommended. Let me re-iterate we have changed 5 engines in 5000 hours over 3 years. Not one of those engines has been able to be successfully rebuilt".
|
I'm still curious - did they give any details as to the failures? It sounds like they failed so badly that only replacement was necessary, i.e. "not one could be successfully rebuilt". I'm a bit skeptical of that since only some kind of grenading failure could result in that and 912's just don't do that (even the 2 strokes don't do that normally).
Other details on operation, like typical temperatures encountered and operating RPM would be really helpful here as well.
For example, a common operational mistake is attempting to baby the engine by running it at too low of an RPM. They actually last _longer_ when the **** is run out of them, 5000 rpm and above on a continuous basis. They'll go out to TBO and beyond at 5200-5300 rpm at nearly wide open all the time.....
Too low of an idle is another, especially on the older motors not fitted with the newer dog gear setup or overload clutch....
Inquiring minds want to know?
LS
|

12-24-2007, 01:51 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
|
|
O-200
The light weight O-200 TCM Continental that they are developing for the Cessna LSA would be perfect. The weight savings is unbelievable, don't recall but like 30 lbs or less than a standard O-200! This is a way better option in my opinion than the Rotax, which to me is a bit of a toy engine that cost as much as a real engine. Sorry its MY OPINION.  The gear box and water cooling does not turn me on either. ITS THE DARN LSA WEIGHT LIMITS THAT FORCES US INTO THESE ROTAX. Those LSA limits by the way is for a European market. The USA is a BIG country to explore, with tall, big (and fat) people. I weigh 170-175 lbs but two people at 175 lbs is a burden to most LSA's with full fuel, forget bags. The max gross is a joke for LSA's. I guarantee W&B is a LSA law that will be broken routinely; it's totally impractical. How safe is an underpowered, over gross weight little plane?
I could say a few things negative about Rotax, but I'll let its real reputation speak for itself. There is already one or two Rotax gear boxes to puke-up their guts. I think the shine on this NEW MODERN engine in the USA market has started to dull. Lyc and TCM designs have been around in one form or another, refined and proven, since or before the 1950's. That speaks for itself. All the anti Lyc, TCM bashing propaganda has shown itself to be hogwash. Van said HE HAD to go with the Rotax to stay in weight, not because its better. He is right, he had to go with the Rotax with the stupid LSA weight limits. The LSA rules almost SPEC-OUT the Rotax. When you make an engine lighter, you make it light duty, especially when using one that uses weight for a gear box, water and radiator. "There ain't no replacement for displacement" and some heavy IRON. Also the reported Hp Rotax supposedly makes is something I hear is questionable. The Lyc and TCM tend to make their rated HP and are actually underrated. With the Chinese trade deficit and jobs exported to India, its time Americans wake up and buy American made, especially when its better. In my opinion a O-235 or O200 is a far superior engine than a Rotax. The Lyc and TCM make or can make more HP and are fair more reliable and less "finicky", no clutches, pumps or weird velocity carbs. A C-150/152 with Lycs and TCMs took a beating day in and out by students and instructors. I guarantee these $100,000 LSA wonders that make it to a true flight school under hard use will fall apart. Unless you prang a C-152, it and its engine will fly forever. Throw some new jugs on it and go. A Rotax? I believe its a pile of junk at 5,000 hours.
Even Van doubts the viability LSA class (he wrote about it in the RVator) but felt compelled to participate in the market for fear of being left behind. I would never build a RV-12. I'd build a RV-3/4 with some aero mods. I put some VG's on for low speed limit and leave the gear & wheel fairings off with a prop pitched so I could make low / high LSA airspeed limits (wink wink nod nod). Limiting top speed is another stupid LSA rule, it should have been HP. A single seat LSA makes more sense. Making the limited gross weight with one seat and a real engine is practical. Besides most LSA's are really single seat, I mean occupant, planes anyway. My big disgust is our FAA, EAA and AOPA all got behind this. Funny the day after the LSA rule went into effect there where 30 makes and models of LSA's, all foreign made airframes and engines. What? I wounder who got paid off?
A Gent at my EAA chapter had a beautiful RV-8 and sold it for a LSA. I guess he worried about his medical in the future. He's a big tall guy and weighs (I being kind) 220 lbs? There is no way he can take another person and make LSA gross. If LSA weight was even 100 lbs or 150 lbs heavier, a lot of existing used planes could have been used, but that would have cut into the all the European LSA's manufactures and Rotax sales. I'm not an isolationist or into to protective tariffs, just common sense. The LSA class makes little sense to me. 1500 lb gross would have been better. I fail so see how a LSA is safer or makes it so pilots are less likely to kill themselves because its a little lighter and under powered. The only thing that makes sense is LOW stall. The LSA class is not a "democratic" plane about freedom but more kind of a socialistic plane. It's a plane for everyone, verses high performance or practical planes for a few. Barf
Merry Christmas to all, especially our troops, Happy Holidays and have a safe and wounderful New Years to you and yours.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
2020 Dues Paid
Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 12-24-2007 at 02:38 PM.
|

12-24-2007, 02:35 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
|
|
I'm with George on a lot of this. Van had little choice but to go with the lightest, proven engine for the LSA design to give a decent useful load. Unfortunately it is also the most expensive, making the RV12 less of a bargain overall compared to other RVs. The pulled rivets will save a lot of time so there is still appeal there for many.
Because of the weight and other restrictions, I think you may see a number of RV12s built as straight experimentals with cheaper engines.
Sonex approves the Jab 2200, 3300 and AeroVee engines only for its aircraft and have similar logical views and warnings as Van's on alternatives. Interestingly no Rotax option and the 3300 is more money than a 912S.
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/engines/engines.html
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/kits/pricing.html
I'm wondering if Rotax will be able to supply enough 912S engines when the RV12 hits its likely sales stride? This has been a problem recently. Van's might have had a second powerplant choice in the wings. Maybe they know something we don't.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.
|