After listening to an AvWeb podcast about Lycomings new LSA engine, the IO-233, I came away very impressed with all the improvements they've made to it.
It now has mechanical fuel injection ( no carburetor ), hydraulic lifters, roller tappets, and electronic ignition. It still maintains its 235 cu in displacement, the weight is now down to 200 lbs as they removed 40 lbs off the IO- 235, and it has a 2400 hour TBO!!
The engineer in the podcast mentioned some LSA builders are now testing it. Has anyone heard if any of them are going to offer it in their aircraft ?? I sure hope so ( Tecnam are you listening ) !!
http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/EA ... 503-1.html
Any LSA Builders Using Lycomings New IO-233 LSA Engine ?
Moderator: drseti
-
LightSportFlyer
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:44 pm
The problem with the I0-233 is the weight same as Conti 0-200 . The Rotax 912 is about 60lbs lighter that's a big big difference when your gross weight is limited to 1320 . IMO having a Ly-Con in a LSA is a sacrifice with very little upside . Your giving up fuel capacity, useful load, performance or all of the above .
Opinions are like armpits everybody has a couple & they usually stink .
-
LightSportFlyer
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:44 pm
Yes you do lose some payload with a Lyco or Conti but you gain such an enormous service network, thats the appeal of those two over a Rotax. If you're on a cross country trip away from your home airport and need service on the Rotax it may be hard to find someone local possibly leaving you stranded.
With the availabilty of the Rotax 912ULS and Jabiru 3300 (as well as other engines like the UL260i), I just don't see the market for the 0-200 and 0-233 for anyone other that those manufacturers that want a more traditional aircraft engine in there planes. Paying the same or more for an engine that will wind up costing me 60lbs in useful load just doesn't make sense to me.
On the homebuilt LSA end, look at what has happened with the Zenith STOL 750. It is just a bigger version of the 1100lb STOL 701. Now you have a plane (using the 0-200) with a gross weight increase of 220lbs, but a useful load increase of only 25lbs. Replace the 0-200 with a Jabiru 3300 and you have an extra 60lbs useful load, 20(actually 27) more hp, at a cost MUCH less than a new or even rebuilt 0-200.
For me, the only way I would sacrafice that 60lb useful load would be if a MAJOR cost savings was attached to it (like using a Corvair engine instead of a 0-200).
Jon
On the homebuilt LSA end, look at what has happened with the Zenith STOL 750. It is just a bigger version of the 1100lb STOL 701. Now you have a plane (using the 0-200) with a gross weight increase of 220lbs, but a useful load increase of only 25lbs. Replace the 0-200 with a Jabiru 3300 and you have an extra 60lbs useful load, 20(actually 27) more hp, at a cost MUCH less than a new or even rebuilt 0-200.
For me, the only way I would sacrafice that 60lb useful load would be if a MAJOR cost savings was attached to it (like using a Corvair engine instead of a 0-200).
Jon
-
LightSportFlyer
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:44 pm
some other things to consider.
TBO Rotax 912 1500 hours
TBO Jabiru 3300 2000 hours top recommended at 1000 hrs
TBO Continental O-200 2000 hours
TBO Lycoming O-235 2400 hours
The cost to overhaul is close between all engines
but the O-235 gives an extra 900 hours of operation. Important cost savings for any flight school. Not as important for a private owner who does not fly often.
O-200 and O-235 have spark plugs which last 400 hours.
O-200 and O-235 will make it to TBO with student abuse and a lot of neglect. Most cylinder problems are with high time cylinders after multiple overhauls. The Lycoming and Continental do not care about long taxi times, what RPM is used for cruise, Cheap grade fuel is ok as well as 100LL. Most any aviation oil will do the job. Oil filters are not needed. Screens go to TBO just fine.
How long do the pickup coils last on the Jabiru?
How long do the Bing constant depression carbs last?
How much labor is involved with oil changes
Cost of filters, oil
Lord engine mounts last longer than the Jabiru Ford falcon control arm rubber mounts.
Lycoming and continental use cork/paper gaskets on most surfaces. the jabiru uses o rings which stiffen up and leak.
Quite often private owner engines go 20+ years between overhauls. Will the seals last that long on a Rotax or Jabiru?
Are the cylinders nitrided on the Rotax or Jabiru?
can the Jabiru or rotax run an aluminum prop?
How many amps are the charging systems capable of on each engine? make sure your comparing weights of similar capable systems.
can the Rotax or Jabiru be hand propped?
baffles are very critical on the Jabiru.
I've flown the O-200 and O-235 in temps from -25F to 105F with out modification.
With proper baffling CHT, EGT, engine monitors are not needed with the O-200 and O-235. Simple mechanical tach, oil temp and pressure are all thats required. Factor this cost into the equation compared to an engine monitor and all probes
O-200 and O-235 do not have oil coolers in most installations.
Most O-200 and O-235 installations have effective cabin heat and carb heat. Add those to the Jabiru and Rotax installation weights.
O-200 and O-235 are painted and corrosion resistant. Take a look at a Jabiru after a few years. Bare aluminum looks terrible.
Noise level measured DB depends on prop, exhaust, airframe resonance between all the above engines. Neighbors seem to not notice the lower RPM engines.
I'd be happy if Lycoming and continental kept carbs on their engines. Fuel injection gets rid of carb ice but you need fuel pumps, injectors, flow dividers etc. Keep it simple.
It would be interesting to compare total weights of installations. Prop, pumps, oil, water, coolers, hoses, mounts, etc. Not just engine weights. It's hard to tell what is included when comparing specs given by manufacturers.
The 912S puts out a lot of thrust. I won't argue with that. but it is also complicated for the job. The geared prop also makes a lot of P factor for students to deal with during training. Proper airframe design should eliminate most of it. The J-3 has no yaw on takeoff and the PA-11 needs just foot weight pressure during climb to stay coordinated.
I'm not so sure of Jabirus performance claims on HP and fuel burn. Also most manufacturers claims of fuel burn are for max endurance power setting and cruise speeds that are listed are with 75% or greater power. Not entirely truthful.
The 85hp 2200A in the X air would burn 5+ gph in cruise at 2900 RPM. Same as the Continental 85. But the Continental would pull a larger airplane just as fast. The Tricycle gear PA-11 was actually a little faster than the X. I don't think the little jabiru prop would pull the 11 around.
I have not flown behind the Jabiru 3300. I'd like to try it as soon as I can get my hands on one.
zenithair.com has some pages with pretty good comparisons.
Lycoming and Continental need to get pricing in line with Rotax and Jabiru to be competitive.
TBO Rotax 912 1500 hours
TBO Jabiru 3300 2000 hours top recommended at 1000 hrs
TBO Continental O-200 2000 hours
TBO Lycoming O-235 2400 hours
The cost to overhaul is close between all engines
but the O-235 gives an extra 900 hours of operation. Important cost savings for any flight school. Not as important for a private owner who does not fly often.
O-200 and O-235 have spark plugs which last 400 hours.
O-200 and O-235 will make it to TBO with student abuse and a lot of neglect. Most cylinder problems are with high time cylinders after multiple overhauls. The Lycoming and Continental do not care about long taxi times, what RPM is used for cruise, Cheap grade fuel is ok as well as 100LL. Most any aviation oil will do the job. Oil filters are not needed. Screens go to TBO just fine.
How long do the pickup coils last on the Jabiru?
How long do the Bing constant depression carbs last?
How much labor is involved with oil changes
Cost of filters, oil
Lord engine mounts last longer than the Jabiru Ford falcon control arm rubber mounts.
Lycoming and continental use cork/paper gaskets on most surfaces. the jabiru uses o rings which stiffen up and leak.
Quite often private owner engines go 20+ years between overhauls. Will the seals last that long on a Rotax or Jabiru?
Are the cylinders nitrided on the Rotax or Jabiru?
can the Jabiru or rotax run an aluminum prop?
How many amps are the charging systems capable of on each engine? make sure your comparing weights of similar capable systems.
can the Rotax or Jabiru be hand propped?
baffles are very critical on the Jabiru.
I've flown the O-200 and O-235 in temps from -25F to 105F with out modification.
With proper baffling CHT, EGT, engine monitors are not needed with the O-200 and O-235. Simple mechanical tach, oil temp and pressure are all thats required. Factor this cost into the equation compared to an engine monitor and all probes
O-200 and O-235 do not have oil coolers in most installations.
Most O-200 and O-235 installations have effective cabin heat and carb heat. Add those to the Jabiru and Rotax installation weights.
O-200 and O-235 are painted and corrosion resistant. Take a look at a Jabiru after a few years. Bare aluminum looks terrible.
Noise level measured DB depends on prop, exhaust, airframe resonance between all the above engines. Neighbors seem to not notice the lower RPM engines.
I'd be happy if Lycoming and continental kept carbs on their engines. Fuel injection gets rid of carb ice but you need fuel pumps, injectors, flow dividers etc. Keep it simple.
It would be interesting to compare total weights of installations. Prop, pumps, oil, water, coolers, hoses, mounts, etc. Not just engine weights. It's hard to tell what is included when comparing specs given by manufacturers.
The 912S puts out a lot of thrust. I won't argue with that. but it is also complicated for the job. The geared prop also makes a lot of P factor for students to deal with during training. Proper airframe design should eliminate most of it. The J-3 has no yaw on takeoff and the PA-11 needs just foot weight pressure during climb to stay coordinated.
I'm not so sure of Jabirus performance claims on HP and fuel burn. Also most manufacturers claims of fuel burn are for max endurance power setting and cruise speeds that are listed are with 75% or greater power. Not entirely truthful.
The 85hp 2200A in the X air would burn 5+ gph in cruise at 2900 RPM. Same as the Continental 85. But the Continental would pull a larger airplane just as fast. The Tricycle gear PA-11 was actually a little faster than the X. I don't think the little jabiru prop would pull the 11 around.
I have not flown behind the Jabiru 3300. I'd like to try it as soon as I can get my hands on one.
zenithair.com has some pages with pretty good comparisons.
Lycoming and Continental need to get pricing in line with Rotax and Jabiru to be competitive.
There's an interesting article comparing the Rotax to the Cont O-200 in the following publication:
The 100-hp engine comparison: Which is the fairest of them all?
Publication: Kitplanes
Publication Date: 01-JUN-00
Author: Larsen, John M.
You can do a google search and read the article, but they conclude that for reliability they'd favor the Cont O-200. Personally, I'll give up some useful load to get an edge in the reliability category.
Norm
PS I can post the article in its entirety but it is copyrighted so I don't know if that's legal or not. ? ?
The 100-hp engine comparison: Which is the fairest of them all?
Publication: Kitplanes
Publication Date: 01-JUN-00
Author: Larsen, John M.
You can do a google search and read the article, but they conclude that for reliability they'd favor the Cont O-200. Personally, I'll give up some useful load to get an edge in the reliability category.
Norm
PS I can post the article in its entirety but it is copyrighted so I don't know if that's legal or not. ? ?
Last edited by Norm on Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, 1500 hours is bad from a rental plane perspective, but many private owners of Rotax 912's are seeing 3000 hours +. What is your source for overhaul costs?Cub flyer wrote:TBO Rotax 912 1500 hours.
The cost to overhaul is close between all engines.
Cub flyer wrote:O-200 and O-235 have spark plugs which last 400 hours.
What is the cost of those wonder plugs? I look at Aircraft Spruce and see the cost of Champion and other plugs for $16 to $36 each. The bargain / surplus plugs are $9.35 each, which I am sure won't make 400 hours. Plugs for the Rotax are $2.99 each. Change all 8 for less than $24.
Try finding cheap grade fuel without ethanol anymore. Most of the Auto Fuel STC's are worthless anymore due to ethanol.Cub flyer wrote:Cheap grade fuel is ok as well as 100LL.
Labor for an oil change is minor on a 912. I do most of them myself. Oil filters are presently $21 from CPS. The most expensive oil I've used is $7.95 a quart for the Aero Shell Sport oil, developed for the Rotax. As I burn a lot of 100LL, I typically use Pennzoil Motorcycle oil. A case is typically less than $52 delivered to my door. How about air filters? Mine was $15 at Kragen for a K&N reusable filter. Clean it and reoil it, and it's good to go again. It's the same filter that is used on a VW Jetta. What's a Challenger filter cost?Cub flyer wrote:How much labor is involved with oil changes
Cost of filters, oil
I myself prefer a composite ground adjustable prop.Cub flyer wrote:can the Jabiru or rotax run an aluminum prop?
Probably not, but I can probably get jump started by most auto's with jumper cables.Cub flyer wrote:can the Rotax be hand propped?
Cub flyer wrote:I've flown the O-200 and O-235 in temps from -25F to 105F with out modification.
Good for you. I'm a wimp from California who will stay at home when it's cold out.
Cub flyer wrote:Most O-200 and O-235 installations have effective cabin heat and carb heat. Add those to the Jabiru and Rotax installation weights.
The only issue I have with cabin heat in the CT is when air temps are cold enough to be giving me problems in keeping oil and CHT temps up as well. A strip or two of aluminum tape across the radiator fixes that. Added weight is less than an ounce.
Cub flyer wrote:The geared prop also makes a lot of P factor for students to deal with during training. Proper airframe design should eliminate most of it. The J-3 has no yaw on takeoff and the PA-11 needs just foot weight pressure during climb to stay coordinated.
So the gear box is the reason for P factor? I am puzzled by this one. What was the P factor caused by in the planes that I flew without gear boxes?
I have a serious issue in calling their info. credible at all, after seeing the following that was posted on the FAQ's of AMD, the sister company of Zenith, that builds the SLSA version of ZenAir's aircraft.Cub flyer wrote:zenithair.com has some pages with pretty good comparisons..
Q8: Is the 912 less expensive to operate?
A8: The engine is very popular in Europe due to its low fuel consumption (fuel in Europe is more than twice the price we pay in the US). The average US pilot flies 50 to 100 hours per year. Burning 1-2 gallons per hour more will not make a very big difference to the operating cost. This is with the 80hp 912. The 912S (100hp burns about the same as the 0-200. The 912 series, however, has a lower time between overhaul (TBO) than traditional engines such as the Continental 0-200. Rotax has a service bulletin in Europe that requires the complete tear-down of the engine at 550 hours. Having a TBO of 1,500 or 2,000 hours will make a huge difference to the maintenance cost, and will significantly affect resale value. It is not clear whether the 912 will be more economical than traditional engines in the long-run. Compare how many Service Bulletins have been issued by Rotax for the 912 and by Continental for the 0-200.
Here is a link to the Airworthiness Directives in Europe for Rotax engines. http://ad.easa.eu.int/search/simple/result/
These are the same Service Bulletins applicable in the US and everywhere else in the world that the 912 is sold. I don't think it's excessive, nor do I see any issues requiring a teardown every 550 hours in Europe.
Great disinformation! Think I'll email that to Rotax.
Why should they if they are so far superior? Don't you expect to pay more for better quality?Cub flyer wrote:Lycoming and Continental need to get pricing in line with Rotax and Jabiru to be competitive.
Cub flyer, please excuse me if I come across as sarcastical, but your bias comes across very strongly. Not everyone here wants to own or fly a J-3 with 1930's technology. I understand if you do, and you are welcome to it.
Roger Fane
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
I'm flying what I want, your flying what you want. Everybody's happy.
Plugs are REM-40E. Unison 15.95 from Aircraft spruce. Makes 400 hours all the time. I currently do 80+ annuals per year other than my flight school airplanes. Was director of MX for an Alaskan Part 135. The logs tell the story.
Oil is Aeroshell straight weight. 100W 4.81 per qt from aircraft spruce.
50 hour oil changes. Cub's A-65 Takes 4 qts. No filter installed.
Air filter is paper. 500 hour replacement. blow out and go during inspections.
A-65 is 1500 hour TBO. Same as 912.
Zenith has been around many years. They have tried about every engine imaginable and have been with Rotax for many years. They have their opinions also.
Who exactly flew 3000+ hours with the 912? i've heard it said before but lets be specific. What kind of enviroment? what was done to the engine, What was left at TBO, Over how many years. was there any other maintenance done.
I pulled a piper arrow out of a field last year. Had 3300 hours on a 200hp lycoming. Valve broke. had never been overhauled before.
They will run way beyond TBO. I have 2300 hours on my apache engines never had a cylinder off. Depends on care and feeding.
I'd love a new airplane. grew up around ultralights, built and worked on a bunch of kitfoxes with 532,582, 912 and Jabiru. Various VW airplanes, even 1/2 VW.
I started with the Jabiru's in 1998 when I had to design my own FWF installations. went through many propellers, baffle setups, lots of testing and changing. flew with very early grand rapids monitors, Lorans, early GPS installations etc.
Jumped right into LSA as soon as they were available. CT, Xair, flew Kappa and Sport Cub, looked at many others really hard.
And after all that I'm back right where I started with the Cub. And very happy. They knew a lot in the 1930's. Look at the J-3 empty weight and compare to any new LSA Cub clone or the old champ to the new Champ. We lost something somewhere. Or added...
Can you legally change your own oil as a Sport pilot?
Sadly the eastern US is very hard on airplanes. high humidity, high pollution, extreme temps, most are tied outside.
How many LSA's engines will last in this type of environment.
Many go 25+ years between overhauls. Lots of cold starts, infrequent oil changes, old car gas, dead batteries, prop strikes, poor maintenance, improper overhauls, corroded cyinders, Owners who have know idea about engines.
We have one guy we timed from cold startup to liftoff. 45 seconds.
yet they keep on running somehow. That to me is the amazing thing about 1930's technology. It can work with so little. Can the newer generation of engines tolerate this. I don't know. But it will happen.
Plugs are REM-40E. Unison 15.95 from Aircraft spruce. Makes 400 hours all the time. I currently do 80+ annuals per year other than my flight school airplanes. Was director of MX for an Alaskan Part 135. The logs tell the story.
Oil is Aeroshell straight weight. 100W 4.81 per qt from aircraft spruce.
50 hour oil changes. Cub's A-65 Takes 4 qts. No filter installed.
Air filter is paper. 500 hour replacement. blow out and go during inspections.
A-65 is 1500 hour TBO. Same as 912.
Zenith has been around many years. They have tried about every engine imaginable and have been with Rotax for many years. They have their opinions also.
Who exactly flew 3000+ hours with the 912? i've heard it said before but lets be specific. What kind of enviroment? what was done to the engine, What was left at TBO, Over how many years. was there any other maintenance done.
I pulled a piper arrow out of a field last year. Had 3300 hours on a 200hp lycoming. Valve broke. had never been overhauled before.
They will run way beyond TBO. I have 2300 hours on my apache engines never had a cylinder off. Depends on care and feeding.
I'd love a new airplane. grew up around ultralights, built and worked on a bunch of kitfoxes with 532,582, 912 and Jabiru. Various VW airplanes, even 1/2 VW.
I started with the Jabiru's in 1998 when I had to design my own FWF installations. went through many propellers, baffle setups, lots of testing and changing. flew with very early grand rapids monitors, Lorans, early GPS installations etc.
Jumped right into LSA as soon as they were available. CT, Xair, flew Kappa and Sport Cub, looked at many others really hard.
And after all that I'm back right where I started with the Cub. And very happy. They knew a lot in the 1930's. Look at the J-3 empty weight and compare to any new LSA Cub clone or the old champ to the new Champ. We lost something somewhere. Or added...
Can you legally change your own oil as a Sport pilot?
Sadly the eastern US is very hard on airplanes. high humidity, high pollution, extreme temps, most are tied outside.
How many LSA's engines will last in this type of environment.
Many go 25+ years between overhauls. Lots of cold starts, infrequent oil changes, old car gas, dead batteries, prop strikes, poor maintenance, improper overhauls, corroded cyinders, Owners who have know idea about engines.
We have one guy we timed from cold startup to liftoff. 45 seconds.
yet they keep on running somehow. That to me is the amazing thing about 1930's technology. It can work with so little. Can the newer generation of engines tolerate this. I don't know. But it will happen.
Read what these guys found. Bottom of the page selects between different tests for different engines. They are just trying to get a baseline comparison between the different engines.
http://www.flycorvair.com/thrustjune.html
http://www.flycorvair.com/thrustjune.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/motorhead/193575-1.html
what interested me here was the specific fuel consumption under the "take it for a spin paragraph"
Will the same apply for the IO-235? It's possible.
Weight is still the main issue. Can they get it lower with modern materials, and machining?
what interested me here was the specific fuel consumption under the "take it for a spin paragraph"
Will the same apply for the IO-235? It's possible.
Weight is still the main issue. Can they get it lower with modern materials, and machining?
Cub flyer wrote:I'm flying what I want, your flying what you want. Everybody's happy.
I am happy with what I fly. I'm glad you are as well, and respect your right to like what you do.
I am well aware of Zenith's history. I almost had a 601XL kit ordered 7+ years ago. I ended up being laid off and having to use that money for living on instead. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you know what they say about those... My issue is stating something as factual, that isn't true. Where is the AD that requires 550 hour tear down's in Europe? A lot of 912's are being sold there, and you would think that this would be a major issue. I don't know about you, but when somebody lies to me, I tend to discount everything else they tell me.Cub flyer wrote:Zenith has been around many years. They have tried about every engine imaginable and have been with Rotax for many years. They have their opinions also.
My info is second hand from an LSRM who has owned several planes with 912's as well.Cub flyer wrote:Who exactly flew 3000+ hours with the 912? i've heard it said before but lets be specific.
Depends on care and feeding.
Same goes with most any engine. The better you care for it, the better it will treat you. There are always exceptions of course.
As I have a Private Pilot cert., I can.Cub flyer wrote:Can you legally change your own oil as a Sport pilot?
We'll find out how they hold up over time.Cub flyer wrote: We have one guy we timed from cold startup to liftoff. 45 seconds. yet they keep on running somehow. That to me is the amazing thing about 1930's technology. It can work with so little. Can the newer generation of engines tolerate this. I don't know. But it will happen.
Last edited by rfane on Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Roger Fane
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
I looked around and could not find anything about a 550 hour tear down also. It might be something very old.
AMD and Zenith are tied together but not. It's kind of strange. Probably has something to do with US to Canadian laws but they should have correct information posted.
I stopped at the factory in GA, had a tour and flew a CH2000 once. I guess thats where the LSA 601 is being made now.
The cost of the Continental and Lycoming is inflated due to liability costs and other corporate strings. Cost should be the same as the Jabiru 2200A. Or less considering they are importing from Australia.
The 235 is big. I think a sweet spot exists around 185 to 200 cubic inches and weight can be kept to a minimum by using modern accessories and design.
If you took the 912 core. Removed the weight of the gearbox, external sump, radiator, second carb, hoses, antifreeze, exhaust springs, and anything else. Add it all up and put that weight into just larger cylinders, crank and case would it work out close? It would be interesting. A lot less moving parts.
It will take a clean sheet design to achieve this or a lot of substitution of parts for Lycoming or Continental.
Another thing is propeller design. The Rotax props have had a lot of research to perfect them. The McCauley and Sensenich props have not changed in many years. If that were done would that increase thrust and efficiency?
There was a small british engine I saw at Oshkosh with sand cast case and larger cubic inch than the Jabiru 2200A. It was interesting.
AMD and Zenith are tied together but not. It's kind of strange. Probably has something to do with US to Canadian laws but they should have correct information posted.
I stopped at the factory in GA, had a tour and flew a CH2000 once. I guess thats where the LSA 601 is being made now.
The cost of the Continental and Lycoming is inflated due to liability costs and other corporate strings. Cost should be the same as the Jabiru 2200A. Or less considering they are importing from Australia.
The 235 is big. I think a sweet spot exists around 185 to 200 cubic inches and weight can be kept to a minimum by using modern accessories and design.
If you took the 912 core. Removed the weight of the gearbox, external sump, radiator, second carb, hoses, antifreeze, exhaust springs, and anything else. Add it all up and put that weight into just larger cylinders, crank and case would it work out close? It would be interesting. A lot less moving parts.
It will take a clean sheet design to achieve this or a lot of substitution of parts for Lycoming or Continental.
Another thing is propeller design. The Rotax props have had a lot of research to perfect them. The McCauley and Sensenich props have not changed in many years. If that were done would that increase thrust and efficiency?
There was a small british engine I saw at Oshkosh with sand cast case and larger cubic inch than the Jabiru 2200A. It was interesting.
As someone who is heavy, and thus concerned about useable load in an LSA, I've been searching/researching the engine weight topic for a while. As far as I can tell the installed wet weight of Rotax 912S is about 80lbs less than an Conti 0-200. This is huge. The only engine that I've found that comes close in power-to-weight is Hirth, which may actually beat the Rotax. But maintenance availability and reliability are even bigger questions on the Hirth.
I still haven't made a decision for my plane. It's a real quandary. If Conti ' or Lync could build a modern light-weight engine that was even in the ballpark with a 912S, they would own the SLSA market in the US. As it stands, they are getting eaten alive. And guess what, the longer they wait around, the more Rotax's there will be and the more mechanics that can work on them. They are loosing brain-share at a rapid rate.
Ron
I still haven't made a decision for my plane. It's a real quandary. If Conti ' or Lync could build a modern light-weight engine that was even in the ballpark with a 912S, they would own the SLSA market in the US. As it stands, they are getting eaten alive. And guess what, the longer they wait around, the more Rotax's there will be and the more mechanics that can work on them. They are loosing brain-share at a rapid rate.
Ron