A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rotax vs. Jabiru



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 14th 06, 04:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

Morgans wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote

Not necessarily a powerful endorsement. The engines have full-time,
professional maintenance technicians and are cheap enough that the
government
could replace them after a few flights.



Plus the fact that if one of them packs it in while in flight, they say,
"no big deal, We have more aircraft in the storage depot. They didn't
cost me anything."

There's a lot of difference between a


few dozen hours on an unmanned vehicle on a military maintenance
schedule vs.
thousands of hours on a non-professionally-maintained aircraft with a
pilot
aboard.



Add to that the fact that that many of the drones only have a life of a
few dozen hours. They shoot some of them down, even. They are all
expendable.



Which would logically put us right back on the ground again, ;(

But the engines are generally built to last more than a few dozen hours.

And if they are shooting them up, there are probably a lot of them -
somewhere...

This has been the dream of aviators since the Wrights (and before!)

a LIGHT(!) weight, powerful engine, that will compliment the aircraft's
mission specifications.

I got to play with a Garrett engine on a crop dusters this summer.
LIGHT weight and POWERful took on new meanings...
-=wow=-


I thought this was an interesting set-up: 90 hp turbine in a Zodiac...
http://www.zenithair.com/misc/turbine-power.html
pic 4?



  #22  
Old January 14th 06, 05:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

Richard Riley wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:45:32 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

:On 13 Jan 2006 16:32:35 -0800, " wrote:
:
: Another data point for Rotax engines comes from the fact that the air
: force uses them in some of the drones vehicles. Google UAV and Rotax.
: Draw your own conclusion on whether USAF endorsement is good or bad.
:
:Not necessarily a powerful endorsement. The engines have full-time,
rofessional maintenance technicians and are cheap enough that the government
:could replace them after a few flights. There's a lot of difference between a
:few dozen hours on an unmanned vehicle on a military maintenance schedule vs.
:thousands of hours on a non-professionally-maintained aircraft with a pilot
:aboard.

Aint that the truth.

A few months ago I was working on a proposal for a UAV program. We
were going to use a UAV airframe that was well proven and put some new
systems in it. It had an engine that I thought - at first glance -
would make a terrific Ultralight engine. 4 stroke, about 50 lbs and
50 HP. Then I found out that it had a TBO of 55 hours.



For Real, Richard?

What a heartbreak.
  #23  
Old January 14th 06, 06:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

Richard Riley wrote:
: A few months ago I was working on a proposal for a UAV program. We
: were going to use a UAV airframe that was well proven and put some new
: systems in it. It had an engine that I thought - at first glance -
: would make a terrific Ultralight engine. 4 stroke, about 50 lbs and
: 50 HP. Then I found out that it had a TBO of 55 hours.
:
:
:For Real, Richard?
:
:What a heartbreak.

For Real, Richard

http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/index.php?id=402


THAT is the perfect UL motor tho.


Thanks for sharing.


Richard
  #24  
Old January 14th 06, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

The rotary engine site is pretty interesting. Back in school my
automotive engineering professor sort of ragged on the rotaries for
various reasons, including higher fuel consumption. It is interesting
that the rotaries on that website run 0.50 to 0.55 bsfc. This isn't
great for a gasoline four stroke engine, but compared to a two stroke
ultra light engine, it would be very nice.
tom

  #27  
Old January 21st 06, 02:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

Where did you find the TBO?
I looked at the website for the 95 hp's and didn't see this.
Maybe right in front of me but I'm missing it.
Also, anyone see prices?

  #28  
Old January 21st 06, 03:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru



Lou wrote:
Where did you find the TBO?
I looked at the website for the 95 hp's and didn't see this.
Maybe right in front of me but I'm missing it.
Also, anyone see prices?


TBO in Zodiac engine option Rotax page:

http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/zac-rtx912s.html

Price is ~ USD14,000 for the basic engine.


Doesn't look like the Rotax is on the recommended "short list" from
Zenith anymore. Or at least they don't seem to sell it direct opting
for Jabiru, Conti or Lycoming instead.

  #29  
Old January 21st 06, 05:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

Dummy me,
I was refering to the UAV engines.

  #30  
Old January 21st 06, 06:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rotax vs. Jabiru

Richard

Was there anything listed for the reason for the 55 hours?

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:13:05 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:45:32 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

:On 13 Jan 2006 16:32:35 -0800, " wrote:
:
: Another data point for Rotax engines comes from the fact that the air
: force uses them in some of the drones vehicles. Google UAV and Rotax.
: Draw your own conclusion on whether USAF endorsement is good or bad.
:
:Not necessarily a powerful endorsement. The engines have full-time,
rofessional maintenance technicians and are cheap enough that the government
:could replace them after a few flights. There's a lot of difference between a
:few dozen hours on an unmanned vehicle on a military maintenance schedule vs.
:thousands of hours on a non-professionally-maintained aircraft with a pilot
:aboard.

Aint that the truth.

A few months ago I was working on a proposal for a UAV program. We
were going to use a UAV airframe that was well proven and put some new
systems in it. It had an engine that I thought - at first glance -
would make a terrific Ultralight engine. 4 stroke, about 50 lbs and
50 HP. Then I found out that it had a TBO of 55 hours.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engine sound of Rotax 912 JK Home Built 12 May 22nd 05 02:47 PM
ROTAX 275 questions Eric Greenwell Soaring 0 January 6th 05 03:43 AM
Jabiru and Rotax engines Marco Rispoli Home Built 14 July 16th 04 07:23 AM
RV-9A's wing with Rotax 914? Shin Gou Home Built 26 March 7th 04 09:56 PM
Jabiru V Rotax reliability? Joe Home Built 11 September 5th 03 11:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.