hotrod150 wrote:Keep in mind that the Lyc & Continental can be bought used. Never seen any of those others on the used market, except maybe NIB & high-priced from a would-be homebuilder that didn't. A good used O-200 can be found pretty cheaply sometimes, or maybe better yet a lighter C-85-8 (non-electric). One of these small Continental 4-bangers would be my choice, or maybe a Jabiru 3300 if I had plenty in the budget for an engine.

The O 200 D is the new light sport version. It is newly designed by TCM with less weight for that market. Fixed pitch props only.
The O 200 A is experimental use only. Assembled by Mattuck using new certified O-200 Continental parts, but the engines themselves have not been certified. I think the A model is still the original O-200 and not the new lighter one. Many parts may not be compatible with the new D model.

This info came from the Zenair website. They have adopted the new O 200 as their standard engine of choice for the CH 750.

RDUStinson wrote:Great thread! But don't forget the all important "sounds like an airplane" category, which the ROTEC would be at the top of, Rotax at the bottom...

(No offense to Rotax owners- I hear it's a great engine!)

True.... you won't even HEAR the Rotax!

True.... you won't even HEAR the Rotax!

I respectfully disagree- I've heard one quit in-flight, and the silence is deafening. And it was followed by a most unsettling *CRUNCH*.

Some cross threading here...

Mongo wrote:http://www.dair.co.uk/

Wow, that looks rather cool. But still 60lbs heavier than a Rotax 912.




Those specs though....curious about how you can have more pistons than cylinders?

What I like about the diesels is the ability of single control and the high torque of the engines at less than full throttle.

Man the Lycoming engines are heavy compared to the Rotax and they are partially water cooled.
I wish Cosworth, Illmor or HPD would build an aircraft engine....

Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk

I put a three banger Detroit (2 stroke 3-53) diesel in a old IH 4x4 in the late 70's. It was a great puller, not fast though. I did have a problem keeping drive line u joints in it, and often wondered if it was due to the torsional vibration issue. It sure sounded great though! With the 5 speed Allision, I could get 22 to 24 going down the road, and I had 70 gallons of fuel capacity.

dirtstrip wrote:........The O 200 A is experimental use only. Assembled by Mattuck using new certified O-200 Continental parts, but the engines themselves have not been certified. I think the A model is still the original O-200 and not the new lighter one. Many parts may not be compatible with the new D model.

This experimental only is some sort of ploy when you by a new one. I seem to recall that you could get your old certificated engine factory OH'd for that same price. The O-200 in all the C150's is an O-200A. So you can buy a new factory one for what- $20K or so? Or a used one for lots less. A lot of guys have upgraded to an O-200 in their C85 powered airplanes (C140, Tcraft, etc)- so it might not be too hard to find an old C85-8 (non-electric)or -12 (electrics) for a reasonable price. There are at least 2 STC's available to install an O-200 crank & pistons in these so that you end up with 200 ci instead of 188- commonly referred to as a "stroked 85". Maybe better than an O-200 for bushplane-type use due to a different cam & (legal) use of a bigger flatter propeller.

hotrod150 wrote:

dirtstrip wrote:........The O 200 A is experimental use only. Assembled by Mattuck using new certified O-200 Continental parts, but the engines themselves have not been certified. I think the A model is still the original O-200 and not the new lighter one. Many parts may not be compatible with the new D model.

This experimental only is some sort of ploy when you by a new one. I seem to recall that you could get your old certificated engine factory OH'd for that same price. The O-200 in all the C150's is an O-200A. So you can buy a new factory one for what- $20K or so? Or a used one for lots less. A lot of guys have upgraded to an O-200 in their C85 powered airplanes (C140, Tcraft, etc)- so it might not be too hard to find an old C85-8 (non-electric)or -12 (electrics) for a reasonable price. There are at least 2 STC's available to install an O-200 crank & pistons in these so that you end up with 200 ci instead of 188- commonly referred to as a "stroked 85". Maybe better than an O-200 for bushplane-type use due to a different cam & (legal) use of a bigger flatter propeller.

The ploy is that they want to keep up with the sport pilot kit plane market rather than let Rotax have it. I don't know why this engine is experimental only. It does allow the builders of new aircraft to have a new engine for thousands less. My Superior was nearly 10K less than the Lycoming O 360 even though most of the wear parts can be installed on a certified Lycoming, but my engine casing is not certified which eliminates the whole engine from the certified category.

"Mattituck (Teledyne Mattituck Services) is a subsidiary of Teledyne Continental Motors, the same company that manufactures Continental engines. Mattituck manufactures the 100-hp TMX-0-200-A engine assembled using all new Continental parts. The TMX (or "experimental") series engines are brand new zero time engines. The TMX engines are outright sales, no core exchange or trade in is required. The TMX-O-200 engine is not FAA certified, which is why it is sold for significantly less than a comparable FAA-certified Continental O-200 engine. All parts used on the engine, with the possible exception of some accessories, are fully FAA certified components but the engine as a complete unit is not certified. The 100-hp TMX-0-200-A engine is supplied with a 1,800 hr. TBO, and installs just like the Continental O-200 engine."

Not being certified will allow the company to make updates to the engine as it sees fit without going through certification so the experimental line can evolve much faster. Same thing with Lycomings O-390 and the engine that I run, Superior XP O 360. They can become the more advanced line since they can be improved without the FAA. Although, the Superior line is now done evolving. It appears bankruptcy has the same effect as certification does on engine development.

Zane wrote:Some cross threading here...

Mongo wrote:http://www.dair.co.uk/

Wow, that looks rather cool. But still 60lbs heavier than a Rotax 912.




Those specs though....curious about how you can have more pistons than cylinders?

Two cranks and a gearbox. The pistons come together in the middle to make a head. Junkers made quite a few engines like this back in the '20s or '30s.

Anyone familiar with Duke Engines? Looks like an interesting new take on the piston internal combustion, borrowing some designs from across the board:

http://www.dukeengines.com/application/aviation/

http://www.dukeengines.com/technology/overview/

As with any aircraft engine, we'll see.... usually vaporware for coming to market, even though prototypes exist.

Not familiar, looks interesting.

I know it's got a thread of its own but it belongs under this title. I have continued to watch the Honda-cored Viking engine by Jan Eggenfelner. It has a growing no. of installations (Zenith 601, 705, Highlander, and now RV-12, some others soon).

The most compelling thing about it for me is the cost and technology. It's fuel injected, Honda is the worlds largest engine producer, and its probably going to be easily turbo'd. My 912S will need rebuild someday (I'm at about 545 out of 1500 tbo), and while it does great at altitude with the Rans S-7S, a turbo really makes it a different plane. The turbo engineering for the Viking is straightforward and well understood (its a Honda Fit core).

Static thrust tests on the motor put it above the 912S. Weight is close. The install also looks nice.

http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/

RV-12 Install


http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/news/12%20first%206.jpg

Nice power to weight on the Duke engine.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.583059,-84.645761

emflys wrote:...... I have continued to watch the Honda-cored Viking engine by Jan Eggenfelner. It has a growing no. of installations (Zenith 601, 705, Highlander, and now RV-12, some others soon). .....

Don't know if it was based on the same Honda engine, probably not, but there was a Honda-based conversion on the market like 15 -18 years ago called the CAM-100. Canadian Air Motive, based in southern BC I think. Merlin had a factory demo airplane with one on the nose, maybe another kitplane mfr also. Although the Subaru conversions became popular, this Honda conversion never seemed to take off (get it? ) and I haven't heard anything about them in years although they sounded to me like a pretty good set-up.
There's a new guy on my airport who built a Kitfox 4 with a 110-horse Rotec radial. He's just getting going on flying off the 40 hours, so no track record yet, but it looks & sounds promising. I guess these engines have had some teething problems sunce they were introduced, but they seem to have most of them addressed. Time will tell I guess.

About 20 years difference in between those two Honda's, and the CAM 100 worked well, just heavy, like the Soob conversions. Heavy as compared to the 912S and not as good as specific fuel consumption as the 912S. I now burn 1 GPH less at similar cruise speeds as my Soob S-7.

The Rotec is a cool little engine if you want that look...other wise it's draggy as hell, leaks a bit of oil (at least the one I saw in the Kitfox demo) and is also pricey, I'm not sure about the fuel burn, but I doubt the Kitfox one is cruising in the 90's at less then 4 GPH. Bottom line for me anyway (and I briefly considered "going round" when building my second S-7) was it would have been a little too impractical, just for the coolness factor. If my 912S blew up tomorrow though, I'd eyeball that Viking real hard, remembering of course flights I've made this year over the Frank Church, and then I'd probably go Rotax again!

hotrod150 wrote:

emflys wrote:...... I have continued to watch the Honda-cored Viking engine by Jan Eggenfelner. It has a growing no. of installations (Zenith 601, 705, Highlander, and now RV-12, some others soon). .....

Don't know if it was based on the same Honda engine, probably not, but there was a Honda-based conversion on the market like 15 -18 years ago called the CAM-100. Canadian Air Motive, based in southern BC I think. Merlin had a factory demo airplane with one on the nose, maybe another kitplane mfr also. Although the Subaru conversions became popular, this Honda conversion never seemed to take off (get it? ) and I haven't heard anything about them in years although they sounded to me like a pretty good set-up.
There's a new guy on my airport who built a Kitfox 4 with a 110-horse Rotec radial. He's just getting going on flying off the 40 hours, so no track record yet, but it looks & sounds promising. I guess these engines have had some teething problems sunce they were introduced, but they seem to have most of them addressed. Time will tell I guess.

Totally different. This new one is based on the Honda Fit core, which is also used in auto and marine racing applications. At least that is according to the Viking mfg's claims.

I have a TCM O-200A in my certified airplane and I would call it far from cheap and simple...
I have 403 hours on the engine and I have gone through 2 cylinders already, Received 4 new cylinders from the factory and had a valve job done on those.... also I had the starter try and engage in flight.... I guess that is an accessory problem.

Does that viking engine use car gas? How about the other conversions? Car or Aviation fuel?

91 Octane mogas is the recommended. Not much data on 100LL yet.

Incidentally...this was posted on Aug 20th by Jan, founder of Viking

"KitFox are now an official OEM dealer of the Viking and will fly a 7 model this winter.

Jan"

Not info other than a "hint" on the Kitfox site. Will be interesting to see!

Here is the new 100 hp Rotax iS 912 fuel injected engine. Very good weight to hp ratio and exceptional fuel economy.
It doesn't state the $/hp ratio but I am sure they are quite proud of it. Production starts in May 2012.

Give it a look here: http://www.rotax-owner.com/pdf/brochure-is.pdf

GUNSKIRCHEN, Austria, March 8, 2012 /CNW Telbec/ - BRP launches the new Rotax 912 iS engine. An evolution of the Rotax 912 engine, the 912 iS engine delivers 38% to 70% better fuel efficiency than comparable competitive engines in the light sport, ultra-light aircraft and the general aviation industry.
The first 100 hp aircraft engine with redundant fuel injection.

GUNSKIRCHEN, Austria--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Rockwell Collins’ new electronic dual-channel Engine Control Unit (ECU) will be featured on the Rotax® 912 iS piston engine for Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). This ECU, which is the first that meets aerospace design assurance standards for certification in the LSA market, was announced at a launch event today at the BRP-Powertrain factory in Gunskirchen, Austria, an affiliate of Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP).