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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
Jim Carriere wrote:
wrote: 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. 0.5-0.55 is not bad for a small gas turbine either. Sort of an apples to oranges to tomatoes comparison. Food for thought. Only their 2 smaller air cooled rotary engines have the 50 hours TBO and one 120 HP twin rotor is certified for manned flight in Europe. In any case, I'd bet they're bloody expensive... Tony |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
Dummy me,
I was refering to the UAV engines. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:43 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 08:56 PM |
Jabiru V Rotax reliability? | Joe | Home Built | 11 | September 5th 03 11:09 AM |