Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

reliability
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

keninalaska(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: 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

  [quote][b]

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: reliability

Ya can't beat the Continental for safety and its track record.. IMHO. 

do not archive

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

jspc78(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: reliability

Hi Ken/All,



The Rotax and Conti's are long term proven engines.  I favor the Rotax due to its modern design, propeller speed reduction (and its far greater low-speed thrust potential over direct drive), preference to consume autogas, and much lighter weight, however the 0-200 has been proven over the decades, and I suspect could survive with poor maintenance and abuse.



I am not familiar with the other engines you mention; perhaps someone with experience in that area could comment.



I believe the "most" reliable engine package will be whichever engine is meticulously installed and maintained according to best practices as developed by the manufacturers in consultation with the brightest, most experienced mechanics.



Reliability begins and ends with the attitude and care brought by the owner/builder.  Stop at nothing to ensure, *over time* the powerplant is in the best condition possible, and you will acheive you goal.



-Jim



Jim Clayton        

California

Mark-3X, 912ULS.....Building

www.quantumwrench.com/Kolb.htm 



--- On Wed, 5/20/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com> wrote:



[quote] From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>

 Subject: Re: reliability

 To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 11:08 AM

 Ya can't beat the

 Continental for safety and its track record.. IMHO.

 do not archive

 

 

 Ben Haas

 N801BH

 www.haaspowerair.com

 

 --------

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject: reliability

Continental o-200...There are just so few moving parts..and  what there is, is moving pretty slowly..

  

 Depending on what electrical load you have you could maybe  put an SD 8 (amp)  alternator on the vacuum pad...Hard to get more  reliable/simple.

  

 Frank



   From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken  Ryan

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:16 AM

To:  engines-list(at)matronics.com

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

[quote]



http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

ics.com

.matronics.com/contribution



[b]

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: reliability

I would guess the Contininenetal could be had with hardened valvea and seats (all the Lycomings are) that make it equally compatible with mogas..As long as the carb seal/needle floats are compatible.



The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has both water and air cooling, spins faster. Not sure I understand the "far greater low speed thrust potential"????



Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is driving them so what does this statement mean?



Frank 



--

jspc78(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:47 pm Post subject: reliability

Hi Frank/All,



Regarding the value of propeller speed reductions (PSRU)in STOL aircraft:  The Rotax 912ULS has a gear ratio of 2.43 to 1 (as I recall).  At a takeof rpm the propeller is turning much slower than 2500 rpm, allowing a much larger prop diameter without breaking the tip speed limit (speed of sound), therby giving greater low speed thrust (think King-Air props: low rpm, high thrust!)  A couple of years ago I posted to the Kolb list a discussion of the considerations around direct drive Vs. PSRU.  If you are flying an stol machine the concepts will be the same.  I will paste in the relavant bits here:

--------

I have the same vision John H. does for the Kolbs, and that drives my choice of engine.



John said: "My impression of the Kolb is a "super"

STOL heavy hauler with respectable

cruise.  Not an airplane that will spend its life flying off a 3,000 ft paved strip from point A to point B and back."



So what we are talking about is a plane that can carry near (or better than!) it's own weight out of amazingly short strips and cruise fast enough to get the job done.  The Kolbs are certainly no RV-x hot rod, but then as John points out, they don't need 3000 ft. of runway either.



For this mission, an engine that produces high thrust at lower airspeeds is best.  The easiest way to produce high thrust at low speeds is to have a large diameter (area) propeller turning at low rpm's.

Propeller speed reduction units (PSU) in front of a piston engine are a proven combination because piston engines are happiest at higher rpm's than is optimum for big propellers.



Rotax is the first major manufacturer to mass produce a reliable 4 cylinder PSRU as the harmonics are far different than larger engines.



A direct drive engine is going to turn the propeller at higher rpms and so the diameter will need to be reduced to keep the tip speed below the limit.  What are smaller propellers good at?  Going fast!  At higher airframe airspeeds the smaller diameter propeller will more efficiently produce thrust making your RV-x or Glassair go very fast, but they are runway gobblers by Kolb standards!  In a Kolb, we will never go real fast due to the wing design etc.  This will always be a high lift, low speed plane. For my mission, an engine that creates most of it's thrust at high airspeeds will only work best for the top 4 or 5 mph of a Kolb's speed range, and do less efficiently in the lower speeds of the flight envelope.



Hope this helps.



-Jim



--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> wrote:



[quote] From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>

 Subject: RE: reliability

 To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>

 Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 1:39 PM

 --> Engines-List message posted

 by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)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.

 

 The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has

 both water and air cooling, spins faster. Not sure I

 understand the "far greater low speed thrust potential"????

 

 Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is

 driving them so what does this statement mean?

 

 Frank 

 

 --

Gilles.Thesee(at)ac-greno
Guest

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: reliability

Frank and all,



 	  Quote: 	
		   The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has both water and air cooling, spins faster. Not sure I understand the "far greater low speed thrust potential"????



 Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is driving them so what does this statement mean?


	


There are many Rotax engines flying far beyond TBO in my country, with 

virtually no mechanical trouble.

With a Rotax, the prop turns at about 2400 RPM at takeoff and at 

2000-2100 RPM in cruise. Propulsion efficiency is higher, and -what is 

most important in western Europe- the engine and prop are much much quieter.

FWIW,



Best regards,

-- 

Gilles

http://contrails.free.fr

Mark Phillips in TN

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia, TN

Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: reliability

Have you considered the Jabiru 3300?  Jabiru USA is currently 

developing a firewall-forward package to install this engine in the 

CH750 which should be ready soon.  These engines have a proven track 

record for reliability- I have flown them for over 500 hours and am 

pretty impressed with them.  See usjabiru.com for information.



Mark Phillips



--

_________________
From The PossumWorks...

jrccea(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 1:08 am Post subject: reliability

I've been running an O-200 on mogas for several years with no problems. 

Pistons still look good.

JimC



---

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 6:55 am Post subject: 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

 [quote]   ---

brcamp(at)windows.microso
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: 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

zeus45601(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:11 am Post subject: 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(at)windows.microsoft.com>

To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:48:36 AM

Subject: RE: 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 donâ€™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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: 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

 [quote]  

---

brcamp(at)windows.microso
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:26 am Post subject: reliability

I think the delta hawk is being used on a number of velocities.Â  There is a bunch of info for velocity builders, which gets updated pretty regularly.   

From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Parker

 Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:04 AM

 To: engines-list(at)matronics.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(at)windows.microsoft.com>

 To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" <engines-list(at)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 donâ€™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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen

 Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM

 To: engines-list(at)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  

   	  Quote: 	

----- Original Message -----   

From: Ken Ryan (keninalaska(at)gmail.com)   

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com (engines-list(at)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   	  Quote: 	
		  Â    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/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c 	
Â    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution   	
0

   	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2

   	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4 	  Quote: 	

5 	  Quote: 	

6 	  Quote: 	

7 	  Quote: 	

8 	  Quote: 	

9 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
6

Gilles.Thesee(at)ac-greno
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:26 am Post subject: reliability

Jay and all,

 	  Quote: 	
		    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.



 	  Quote: 	
		   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

mmckenna(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:41 am Post subject: 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

  

  

  

  

  

  

 [quote]   --

NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: 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

 [quote]   ---

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: 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 (at) 40% power... Hey, it's an "experimental"... We can do anything we want. 

do not archive

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: reliability

As far as I know there is ONE Velocity with a Deltahawk in it. That is the 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



--------

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: reliability

True but stove oil is a lot cheaper... Same stuff as diesel.  

   

Noel  

     

From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of n801bh(at)netzero.com

 Sent: 21 May 2009 10:56 PM

 To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: 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 (at) 40% power... Hey, it's an "experimental"... We can do anything we want.  

do not archive

 

 

 Ben Haas

 N801BH

 www.haaspowerair.com

 

 --------

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

zeus45601(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 2:53 am Post subject: reliability

That's the story I heard.  Some fellow on one of these boards from Australia laid down a deposit or pre-paid with the understanding the engine will follow in a couple months, but as far as I know he still hasn't received his.

   From: "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com>

To: engines-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:28:44 PM

Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability

As far as I know there is ONE Velocity with a Deltahawk in it. That is the 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

--------

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum