O-200 vs Rotax 912 costs

Re: O-200 vs Rotax 912 costs

by bill martin » 12 years ago

bill martin

10 757 0

Carl,

I fly a 1947 ercoupe which has been upgraded to an 0-200. Since it is a certified aircraft, I can't work on the engine (officially) and have found that having a certified A&E work on it is just as expensive as having work done on a Rotax. Since my 912S is in an experimental aircraft, I do my own work and have found that the routine line maintenance on a Rotax is no more demanding than an 0-200.

As for balancing the carbs, most of the the problems I've run into are not with the carbs but with improperly installed or poorly maintained throttle cable systems. I check my carb balance at every annual but haven't had to adjust them in two years.

Only drawbacks I've found with the 912 is a lack of certified mechanics. They are spread out pretty thin as compared continental or lycoming mechanics, which are everywhere. I also don't like the idea that Rotax will not sell or make public their overhaul manual, which only goes to authorized service centers.

It's just a personal opinion but I think the 0-200 is more likely to reach TBO due to its lower compression, lower RPMs, lack of a gearbox, and heavier construction. On the other hand, the 0-200 is a heavy engine, drinks gasoline, and is not as well suited for todays smaller light sport aircraft as is the 912.

All in all, They are both great and dependable engines and I love both.

Bill.

Re: O-200 vs Rotax 912 costs

by Carl Prather » 12 years ago

Carl Prather

1 1 0

Bill,

That's what I'm seeing also. The Rotax could be runway winner if the company would change its policies with respect to keeping heavy repairs in house. I think the Rotax engine is within reason to purchase new but what money the owner saves in fuel, gets spent at overhaul. I don't think it's anymore reliable than the little Continentals but it does weigh a good 10 − 12 gallons in fuel less. A used airplane with a high time Rotax engine would likely need appropriate adjustments in price to reflect the cost of overhaul, which I understand is only couple of thousand less than a new engine.

Over time, maybe corporate policies will change but, for now, Rotax is exercising its market place advantages when used in new production aircraft.

Tx,

Carl

Re: O-200 vs Rotax 912 costs

by Rob Seaton » 12 years ago

Rob Seaton

3 1.32k 251

I did not want to wade into this as it is good to hear from people with 0-200 type experience. But, I assure you it is not Rotax corporate policy to price the overhaul kit artificially high. The kits have a lot of expensive parts inside and the overhaul labor is approx. 60hrs so, yes, it is expensive. If you compare the overhaul kit price to the price of each individual item you will find the kit is less money (it costs less to package many items together)

Some people look at Rotax and think they are a heartless corporation, this is not true. They are dedicated to aviation and if it was not for this love they would not be making aircraft engines: if you approached Honda/Yamaha/GM to produce a couple thousand engines a year that require certification, QA, traceability and product support for each part they would laugh at you. They are only interested in engines that sell millions of units every year. Volume = low cost and profit. I feel we are very fortunate we have Rotax in aviation. I also know that many of the employees in the Rotax aviation dept are pilots who fly behind Rotax engines.

More rant: There are very good reasons for not wanting backyard overhauls: the 912 engine is very different from the legacy engines like the 0-200. It has very close tolerances, requires special tools and specialized training. Also the experience factor needs to be considered; there are many A&Ps/Techs with more than enough skills to perform the overhaul but without specialized training and experience they will make mistakes ($$$$). The poor engine owner should not have to pay for this learning curve.
Respectfully,
Rob

Re: O-200 vs Rotax 912 costs

by Rob Seaton » 12 years ago

Rob Seaton

3 1.32k 251

I hijacked this topic with my rant. Sorry.
Getting back to the 0-200 vs 912S debate: My calculation shows nearly $40,000 in fuel savings over the TBO of 2000hrs.
Here is my spreadsheet. It may contain errors and your mileage may differ. These are 75% power book values for fuel consumption. The 912S usually gets much better numbers, I expect the 0-200 would as well?
Rob

912vs0-200fuelcost.zip (You do not have access to download this file.)

Re: O-200 vs Rotax 912 costs

by Phil Hale » 11 years ago

Phil Hale

1 7 0

Hi Carl
I can not speak about the O200, but I can speak about the Rotax 912ULS, I have one which is now running on condition, with 3000 hours on it. It had a Top end overhaul at 1200 hours, and it is still performing great.

I complete a leak down test every 100 hours on the engine, and we are still seeing the a 78 over 80 across all cylinders. I usually also do a bore inspection with a borescope camera, and all looks good.

I would say that in my experience that my Rotax has met and exceeded TBO, and I would be happy :) to fly behind a Rotax engine.

Cheers
Phil