If you, like me, have a collection of sunken Bing carb floats from your ROTAX 912, this alternative may be something to consider:
https://msacarbs.com/news/rotax_bing_float/
https://msacarbs.com/news/rotax_bing_float/
If you, like me, have a collection of sunken Bing carb floats from your ROTAX 912, this alternative may be something to consider:
https://msacarbs.com/news/rotax_bing_float/
I sent a note to MS asking if this price was for a "pair". We'll see.
Went to order on line . $30 shipping. You gotta be kidding me!!
Has anyone bought these floats? If so, what was the weight of a new pair. Tragically, I am actually thinking of buying two pairs and paying the outrageous shipping charges. I have been through at least 8 floats so far.
In my experience: Slight smell of fuel in the cockpit during climb, drip or two of fuel from carb vent tube onto pan, and perhaps a slightly rough idle.
Has anyone bought these floats? If so, what was the weight of a new pair. Tragically, I am actually thinking of buying two pairs and paying the outrageous shipping charges. I have been through at least 8 floats so far.
I purchased and installed a pair of the Marvel Schebler floats. Weight out of the box was: 3.7 and 3.8 grams. They replaced a pair of Rotax floats that weighed 8.4 and 4.7 grams on removal. Needless to say I had a severe leak out of the overflow tube on my right carburetor.
Works great now.
I weighed all 4 of the floats with an electronic postal scale so the weights could be off some. The external appearance of the new floats appears identical to the Bing floats, but the material is different, a hard epoxy exterior. Perhaps the weight will not double in less than a year like one of the Bing floats did. To me it was worth a try considering Marvel Schebler is a known manufacturer of aviation carburetors.
I weighed all 4 of the floats with an electronic postal scale so the weights could be off some. The external appearance of the new floats appears identical to the Bing floats, but the material is different, a hard epoxy exterior. Perhaps the weight will not double in less than a year like one of the Bing floats did. To me it was worth a try considering Marvel Schebler is a known manufacturer of aviation carburetors.
I ran across an alternate way of checking the floats some time back. It was from a British Rotax distributor who had gotten authorization from Rotax for the procedure. Simply put, if the pin in the float is not below the surface of the fuel in the bowl the float is OK.
Regardless of the weight, how do the Marvel Schebler floats do with that test?
Spoke with MS...the SB doesn't address weighing other than OEM floats. That's to say MS has been using this material for years in other designs and there has been no significant weight gain with their other like products.
Agreed but the purpose of checking the pin position, and the weight, is to figure out whether the floats are floating at an appropriate level inside the bowl. Just wondering whether that's been checked with the new MS floats.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of the Rotax testing was done in Brazil where they have something like E25 and the engines had no problem. No first hand knowledge of that tho ...MS makes lots of floats for carbureted engines running Avgas. I'm wondering how they will hold up to 93E10 Mogas? Also, Trump is tossing the farms in Iowa a bone and changing national fuel standards to E15 year-around. We'll see how Rotax likes extra alcohol. If nothing else, more alcohol -> less power. I guess we need to ask Rotax a few questions before the big day...
I purchased and installed a pair of the Marvel Schebler floats. Weight out of the box was: 3.7 and 3.8 grams. They replaced a pair of Rotax floats that weighed 8.4 and 4.7 grams on removal. Needless to say I had a severe leak out of the overflow tube on my right carburetor.
Works great now.
Jim, that is what I think. Setting the float arm at 10.5 mm (0.414 in) height sets the float height to close the float needle. It also sets the top of the float near the top of the bowl. With the heavier floats, the fuel has to rise higher to raise the float pin to the 10.5 mm setting.
With the forces/weights: fuel pressure, float needle wt, float arm weight and float weight, I get:
2.6 g float - fluid height on the float is 0.583 in or 0.244 in to top of bowl
3.2 g - 0.661 in or 0.167 in to top of bowl
3.8 g - 0.738 in or 0.089 in to top of bowl
The real question is: how critical is the fuel height in the bowl? Various sources have indicated that the 10.5 mm set up is critical. However, Lockwood said not to mess with the 10.5 when going to the new super duper 3.2 g floats.
I'll be glad to send the spreadsheet and drawings/notes to whomever wants to review. Any review would be welcome. Send a PM.