Kitfox Aircraft Stick and Rudder Stein Air Grove Aircraft TCW Technologies Dynon Avionics AeroLED MGL Avionics Leading Edge Airfoils Desser EarthX Batteries Garmin G3X Touch
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

  1. #21
    Senior Member Dorsal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central, MA
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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).
    Last edited by Dorsal; 09-06-2010 at 05:58 PM.
    Dorsal ~~^~~
    Series 7 - Tri-Gear
    912 ULS Warp Drive

  2. #22

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Dorsal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central, MA
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    Given the heading is O-200 vs 912 ULS then the power is about the same and therefore not worth the weight.
    Dorsal ~~^~~
    Series 7 - Tri-Gear
    912 ULS Warp Drive

  4. #24
    Super Moderator Av8r3400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Merrill, WI
    Posts
    3,044

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    Quote Originally Posted by futureflyer View Post
    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#.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureflyer View Post
    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.
    Av8r3400
    Kitfox Model IV
    The Mangy Fox
    912UL 105hp Zipper
    YouTube Videos

  5. #25
    Senior Member HighWing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Goodyear, AZ
    Posts
    1,743

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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!!

  7. #27

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    Very interesting and informative. Thank you.

  8. #28
    Senior Member jtpitkin06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greenville, TX
    Posts
    640

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    wales,ny
    Posts
    710

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Delaware, Ohio
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Continental O200 or Rotax 912 S

    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.co..._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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •