PDA

View Full Version : Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S



motoadve
05-26-2009, 05:19 PM
Which one is more reliable?
The Continental is a bit heavier but more simple at just being aircooled
Both have 100 HP if the Conti is more reliable, I wouldnt mind the extra weight.

Also weher can I buy a new Continental?

motoadve
05-26-2009, 06:16 PM
Where can I buy one new?
I need it to run with automobile fuel, theY can be ran RELIABLE with this kind of fuel?

jrthomas
05-26-2009, 06:28 PM
The 912 has as good a reliability record as anything out there.The engine is 21st century technology-Just try comparing modern auto engines to 1930's thru 50's flatheads.Tbo, I'm told,is being raised to 2000 house.With good maintainance,I'm hearing about engines around with 3000 hours and more.A local training has one with over 1500 house on it's highest time engine. They say they've never has any problems other than routine maintainance-never added oil to any of them and they've sold and delivered planes all over the country-fly planes to Oshcosh and Sun and Fun every year.Water cooling is a good thing.It works great in your car.It keeps temps constant-No shock cooling-no cracked cylinders-No carb mixture-cranks like an Accord hot or cold-What's not to like.

DesertFox4
05-26-2009, 07:22 PM
Rotax hands down. It's a "real " airplane engine, liquid cooled, less weight, modern technology, electronic ignition, less weight, more prop. choices, better performance, quieter running(eco and neighbor friendly) less weight, great support , easy maintenance , better fuel economy, less weight, comparable TBO's, lower cost overhauls (if it ever needs one) , and of course it's less weight. ;)

SkyPirate
05-26-2009, 08:01 PM
I believe rotax/bombardier started in the 60's/70's,..snow mobiles ,..water craft ,..then ultralights ..then certified aircraft,..the alloys in the casings are top notch..all have needle bearing rods,.. some have the option for ceramic coated pistons,..the advantages of having a motor in so many different applications ,,they have seen it all,..meaning the use and abuse

jrthomas
05-26-2009, 08:06 PM
Amen DesertFox4.You said everything I wish I had said.The truth is, Contintentals, Lycombings and Rotaxs are all great engines if maintained.Cut the gas off and they all stop.Don't discount the 912 because it's different from what you're used to.Many a GA pilot have eaten their words after becoming familiar with the 912.

SkyPirate
05-27-2009, 12:28 PM
I'll agree with this statement
Quote" sounds like continental got it! and its a real airplane engine too! And if continental ever went under parts will still be out their"

end quote

my next door neighbor has a 55 foot box trailer full of continental parts,.. mostly failed crank and or cases,.. out of the 100's he has ..he says you might be able to put a couple together ,..so if anyone is looking for parts.give me a shout :)

Mogas
05-27-2009, 12:34 PM
I am also an ardent 4 stroke Rotax fan but do not discount the Jabiru in your research.
I recently installed a 2200 85 hp and am amazed at the performance. Full flight testing is still underway but how about this:
Take-off weight 1200lbs
Field elevation 550 ft
OAT 77 F
Rate of climb 800 fpm
2000 ft AGL, strait&level 2400 rpm = 80 mph, 2600 rpm = 95 mph
Prop is a 2 blade wood, South African made 60x35.
Max static 2950, max speed S&L 3150 rpm = 120 mph
The airframe is our Explorer, closely resembling the KF5.
And to top it all, here that motor here costs us less than a third of what we pay for the 912S.
Oh and the TBO is 2000 hours.
The motor is beautifull with most parts CNC machined.
The installation is neat and tidy with very little clutter.
I am not an engine dealer, just an admirer.
Those interested can follow the flight testing progress here:
http://www.microlighters.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7627&start=75

jrthomas
05-27-2009, 12:59 PM
To MOGAS-I have a friend with a KFIV with the 2200-I'v flown with him several times-I'm impressed, maybe not quiet as strong as a 912 but a fine running machine and above all, he's very satisified with it. Something I'v noticed by reading the for sale adds in Barnstormers and Trade a Plane is that so many Lycs and Contintals have had a top end o.h. long before TBO.To each his own I guess.If you're happy,I'm happy.I've been flying a CGS Hawk for the last 12 years with a 503 Rotax and it's never let me down.I can't ask any engine to do any better than that.TBO came and went years ago. If you maintain it, it won't let you down.(no pun intended)

DesertFox4
05-27-2009, 02:52 PM
Thanks Mogas for the post. Good data to contemplate.

A few words about engine choices:
No topic on an experimental aircraft forum will bring out more heated discussion, emotions and or sniping than engine choice. Engine choice is the one thing every builder really tries to, and needs to, do their homework on before committing to a purchase. We all have vested interests in the manufacturer we choose. We hang our lives on that choice every time we fly. If we have good success with a brand we'll feel good about recommending it to a new or prospective builder. People asking engine choice questions on a forum need facts. If you have experience with an engine brand, good or less than good, please contribute. That has real value to someone making such a large decision.

I already sense a slight deterioration of this thread so please let's keep it civil and helpful. Being enthusiastic about certain brand is no crime here but let's all try to incorporate something of value in our posts to the person asking for experienced opinions. Thanks for keeping it civil and Kitfox related. :)

Mogas
05-28-2009, 11:12 AM
It's great to log on and look at the development of this thread.
I agree completely that we should avoid getting into a brand bashing contest.
Far from it I would like to see as much performance data as possible, from as many sources as possible and hopefully accurate! so that we can all draw our own conclusions.
I think any engine that has survived the evolutionary process is worthy of a close look at regardless of origin. But having said that I also think we would be foolish to ignore the up and coming alternatives.
I cut my teeth on Lycomings and Continentals and I am also an admirer of these power plants.
We are in a different position here in SA in that ALL our choices are imported, therefore cost plays a very important part and would perhaps help to explain why we generally are probably more receptive to other options.
Thanks for the great forum and please keep those opinions coming!

jrthomas
06-01-2009, 01:52 PM
Those of us with Kitfox I through IV or wanting to stay with light sport limits don't have much choice of engines. Even if the heavier engines would work, such as in a Model IV or V, it would cut deep into our load carrying range.

jrthomas
06-01-2009, 07:09 PM
JATO anyone?

s10sakota
08-15-2010, 06:54 PM
Can someone post the difference in weight between the Cont. and 912S? I think the installed weight of the Rotax is about 130 pounds. No idea what the weight of the Cont. is.

THanks

PS...I'm wondering how much useful load I would lose if I installed the Cont. over the Rotax.

flybymike
08-15-2010, 08:09 PM
My 7SS weighs 870 pounds and my friends with the Rotax weighs 840. Both of our planes are heavily optioned with 8.50 tires and the 1550 gear. If you use the new light weight 0-200 with light weight alternator and starter, it should be a little lighter than mine.

Mike

Av8r3400
08-15-2010, 08:30 PM
Rotax 912 installed weight is around 135#.

The newest lightweight O200 is at about 215# installed. Also add the weight needed in the tail to keep the cg in range...

flybymike
08-16-2010, 08:25 AM
With my 0-200 installation, I didn't need to use any added weight in the tail or sweep the wings. I did however, install my battery and ELT at the aft end of my extended baggage area.

futureflyer
09-06-2010, 12:08 PM
What is the fuel consumption with a lyc/cont. vs a rotax? Is the added hp worth the fuel consumption cost?

Av8r3400
09-06-2010, 02:02 PM
Double the fuel consumption (6-9 gph) using aviation fuel versus auto gas and double the weight (250+ lbs for the Continental/Lycoming) why would anyone consider it a viable option over the Rotax?


Everyone seems to loves to hate the 900 series Rotax (:confused:), but there really is not a better option for powering a Kitfox/Avid type aircraft. Power to weight to fuel consumption to prop RPM range...

futureflyer
09-06-2010, 05:49 PM
The 912 sounds to me like a more viable option for the STOL performance that kitfox is so known for. As stated previously it's lite weight....better fuel economy, and good power. I don't understand why someone has to use an engine company because they've been around since the 20's. I get that they may have learned a few things throughout the years, but new technology is what the "EXPERIMENTAL" market place is all about. Different designs and options to see what works.

Dorsal
09-06-2010, 05:51 PM
I really like my Rotax, seems most folks I have met who have experience with them like them too. To be fair though I also owned a plane with an O-200 and the fuel burn is only a gal or so more per hour and it could also burn mo-gas. In fact, sadly enough, I generally put mo-gas in my O-200 but only burn Avgas in the Rotax (ethanol worries for my tanks).

futureflyer
09-06-2010, 06:00 PM
My original question, though, is the power worth the added weight and fuel cost? I guess depending on the price difference between mo-gas and avgas it might be?!? So, then it really boils down to weight and how you plan to operate your A/C.

Dorsal
09-06-2010, 06:25 PM
Given the heading is O-200 vs 912 ULS then the power is about the same and therefore not worth the weight.

Av8r3400
09-06-2010, 06:28 PM
My original question, though, is the power worth the added weight and fuel cost?

What power difference? 912ULS is about the same power as a O200. More if you factor in the weight issues. A Lycoming 235 is more power but nearly 3x the weight pushing 300#.


So, then it really boils down to weight and how you plan to operate your A/C.

Weight in a plane like a Kitfox is never an advantage. There is no scenario where it is a benefit.

HighWing
09-06-2010, 06:52 PM
One comment on aircooled being simpler. I don't think you will find that to be the case. I think I could mount the radiator and run the coolant lines in half a day, easy. I think when you consider you will be pretty much on your own with the O-200, the baffeling will take a bit more than that and then the tweeking to make it work. When my neighbor does his annual with his Lancair IV, there is always baffle work to do as there are always cracks in the sheetmetal. All I ever had to do with my 912 set-up is change the coolant every two years. Then comes the shock cooling issue with steep descents. Never happen with liquid cooled.

In my opinion, in every respect, liquid cooling is simpler - just not traditional.

Lowell

flybymike
09-07-2010, 11:02 PM
I think the Kitfox performs very well with both the Rotax 912S and the Continental 0-200. As far as the fuel burn, my 0-200 with the Rotec TBI burns 1 gallon per hour less than the Rotax 912S. Bear in mind that I am comparing true apples to apples. My flying partner and I both have Kitfox series 7, 8.50x6 tires, both planes are built almost exactly the same. Except, his has a Rotax 912S with the Ivo medium in-flight adjustable prop and an empty weight of 840 pounds. My plane has an 0-200 with the Sensenich composite prop and an empty weight of 875 pounds.
With that being said, again I burn 1 gallon per hour less fuel and our perfomance numbers are virtually the same. If I pitch my prop for climb then I can out climb him but he out performs me on high speed and of course if I pitch for speed then he out climbs me.
The acqusition costs can be relatively the same for both firewall forwards although I spent more time on my firewall forward because I did have to build the baffling, I had a custom exhaust made, prop extension, cowling modifications for the exhaust, etc. I love the throaty sound of my engine, it's like comparing the sound of a Harley to a Honda. But there are days when I wish it were a little quieter also.
Both engines certainly have their pros and cons. It simply boils down to PERSONAL PREFERENCE!!

futureflyer
09-07-2010, 11:06 PM
Very interesting and informative. Thank you.

jtpitkin06
09-08-2010, 08:31 AM
Everyone seems to have their favorite engine in mind for a Kitfox. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation flying about.
Rotax 912 engines do not float in at 125 lbs. installed; nor do Continental O-200 engines bend the scales at 250 lbs. installed. The Rotax is closer to 140.6 lbs. (Rotaxservice.com) The O-200 we weighed out of a C-150 was 226 lbs with accessories. Out of the crate figures are meaningless. The only figure that counts is the empty weight when the Kitfox is ready to fly. From the above post it appears actual flying weights are not far apart.

There is no doubt that the Rotax 912 is one of the lightest choices in the 80 to 100 hp range. That does not make it the only choice. Some engines may limit your useful load if you are trying to build to LSA weight; however, at max certificated gross weight, power available may be a bigger consideration. You may be looking for higher rated continuous power.
The McBeans displayed a Rotec radial engine equipped SS7 at Oshkosh and there was a slobbering love affair over the airplane. I did not read one post saying the engine or aircraft was too heavy. Not one post how the engine would cause balance problems. Not one comment how a Rotax installation was so much lighter and better. I guess shiny pushrod tubes and barking exhaust negate any weight considerations.
There are dozens of reason why someone will install an engine other than a Rotax. It’s important to note the Series 5, 6, and 7 were designed to accommodate larger and heavier engines and several examples are flying with great results.
I applaud anyone building a Kitfox regardless of the engine choice. Go out and fly it and have fun.
John Pitkin
Greenville Texas

airlina
09-08-2010, 08:58 AM
Well said John, I would not trade my Continental IO-240 in my Series 5 for any other engine choice. That is the beauty of the experimental category, each builder gets to customize his aircraft to his exact specs. and what is important to one builder isn't necessarily what the guy in the hangar next door wants out of his aircraft. Bruce Lina N199CL

chargerbill
12-23-2010, 09:58 AM
I have to pipe in here. I've been seeing some very wishful thinking around Rotax 912 engine weights. I've added up the engine weight with accessories:
165.8 lbs

With 2 gallons of coolant (I figured 8.34 lbs per gallon). Not sure how much it actually requires...anyone know this?
183 lbs

95 HP
Power to weight is: 1.926 lbs per HP.

http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/portaldata/5/data/Techn.Data_912_S_ULS.pdf

My opinion is it's a great little engine.
Although it's really a 95HP engine. 100HP load limit to 5 minutes.

I've been considering the 912 and the Rotec 2800.
Similiar fuel burn.
The Rotec is 224 lbs with 110HP.
Power to weight is: 2.036 lbs per HP.

http://www.rotecengines.com/

The other piece of the performance puzzle is prop specs. My understanding is a long 2 blade prop is more efficient than a tri blade. Anyone have details around this?

Hope this helps!

Andrew G
12-23-2010, 01:26 PM
I'm waiting for the Kitfox 8 with RG, a RR-300 turbine and deluxe cupholder.

Here is wishing Happy holidays to a great group :D

jtpitkin06
12-23-2010, 02:38 PM
The other piece of the performance puzzle is prop specs. My understanding is a long 2 blade prop is more efficient than a tri blade. Anyone have details around this?



Chargerbill,

Prop manufacturers spend millions on R&D. I’m just a guy that tinkers with small aircraft. So take the following with a grain of salt.

The best advice I can give you is to use the prop others have proven works well. There’s a reason most Rotax flyers use a 3 blade. It works. Likewise, many Rotec Radial engine installations use a 2 blade… because it works. Using the engine/prop combination that others use will save you lots of cash in the long run.

With that in mind we can try to answer your other question: Why use one over the other? A 3 blade prop is often installed on an engine/airframe to obtain greater ground clearance or to lower the tip speeds at max RPM. The 3 blade often has a lower perceived noise and vibration levels.

There is no guaranty that a 3 blade will always work better. For example: The Cessna Cardinal RG climbs and cruises faster with a 2 blade prop. The thinking is the 3 blade prop has more drag with the extra blade and it sucks up too much power. There may be something to that.

It’s a subject that can fill volumes.

Then, there is the most important reason for choosing one design over another; because it looks good.

John Pitkin
Greenville, Texas

HighWing
12-23-2010, 03:02 PM
With most of us that spend a lot of time thinking of alternatives, most of our discussion is theoretical at best. The published or even calculated engine weights don't really have a lot of practical value, in my opinion. As you suggest, there is a great deal of difficulty getting accurate information on weights. An example, Grove, the gear folks list their Model IV gear as weighing 24.3 lbs. This turns out to be without axles, mounting brackets and hardware. The actual mounted weight is almost 32 lbs. - from a question I asked a Grove rep - total installed weight including nuts bolts and washers. They actually put me on hold as they got the parts together and put them all on a scale - for the first time, maybe?. Maybe apples and oranges, but it illustrates the marketing pressures that lead the producers to do a bit of slight of hand with numbers. There are numerous factors that combine to add to engine choice weights - engine mount, accessories, etc. This discussion was passionate and furious when the factory supported the NSI Subaru conversion. With the pro guys insisting, including the NSI factory, that the forward package was only 35 lbs heavier than the R-912.

Then the discussion drifted to how to mount a 26 lb. battery in the tail for W/ballance compliance. I never could get the answer as to why a 26 lb. battery was necessary at eleven ft. aft of the datum to balance a 35 lb. weight three ft. forward of the datum. The ultimate proof of the discussion was and will be the actual empty weights of the various engined airplanes. There is a lot of data in the history, but most of it is not easy to find as human nature prevents most of us that experimented to come clean with the final data if it tends to embarrass.

I have talked to guys that maintain that all the old data is just that, old, and their installation will be different. Personally it is of no particular interest to me what a guy wants to put in his airplane, but for the guy that is truly interested in data, check the classifieds and see what is out there and what the prices are and the total flight hours. I think this latter is very revealing as well configured Kitfox is fun to fly - not so much if performance and payload is lacking. Ask the guys that are running the various engines what their numbers are - on the scales, climb, cruise and Hobbs.

chargerbill
12-23-2010, 05:31 PM
HighWing,
How much coolant does your 912 require? I'm very curious!

cap01
12-23-2010, 06:57 PM
the amount of coolant will depend a little on the plumbing of the engine . when i filled my 912 the first time i used the waterless stuff and still had some left in a 1 gallon jug . not sure how much i had left since its been awhile

Av8r3400
12-23-2010, 07:37 PM
This has been a really good discussion.

I have been (and still am) a heavy proponent of the 912 Rotax motors. I do not have any first hand knowledge of weights, only what is published. I do know from first hand comparisons that they perform much better than the Subaru installations. I always attributed this to weight.

I'm about to remove my 912UL off my IV-1200 project. I would like to weigh the engine with mount and FWF items mounted to see what it really weighs. Adding in the radiator, plumbing and coolant would be the only additions.

I will post here (hopefully with photos) when I have some hard data.

HighWing
12-23-2010, 10:13 PM
That is a good question. And again all you can get from me is an opinion or recollection. My first Model IV is in a salvage yard and I have oil, coolant and panel systems to go to get my new IV flying. I do recall, however, that I would mix the coolant 70/30 and have part of the mixed gallon left after filling the system. My guess would be three quarts.

DesertFox4
12-23-2010, 11:26 PM
I'm waiting for the Kitfox 8 with RG, a RR-300 turbine

Andrew- hope the Kitfox model 8 has a mid-air refueling probe. That turbine is thirsty at 26 to 34 gal. per hour burn rate.:eek:

DanB
12-24-2010, 12:07 AM
that 300 turbine should be just right for the Kitfox 10 which should be a four passenger bush plane with a large baggage area.;)

Andrew G
12-24-2010, 03:39 AM
Ok ok... you make sense re the gas mileage, but I would gladly give up a baggage compartment for Cessna RG style legs.

:D

Sorry I moved this otherwise excellent discussion off track.

Newkid
12-25-2010, 01:31 AM
Talk to John at the factory, I remember him saying their Rotec R2800 weighed around 240 lbs. completely dry.

Andrew G
12-25-2010, 07:46 PM
Continental's parent, and therefore Continental, was just sold to a Chinese firm a week ago. Closing to occur in Q1 2011...

kitfoxJeff
01-24-2019, 06:22 PM
I'm waiting for the Kitfox 8 with RG, a RR-300 turbine and deluxe cupholder.

Here is wishing Happy holidays to a great group :D

Ummm,...and a factory in
stalled cellphone holder?