KSCessnaDriver
Pattern Altitude
For what it's worth, I flew an aircraft with twin Rotax 912's that cruised at 25-35 knots, for 8-10 hours at a time, and never once had overheating problems...
I appreciate that. My "94" number is right from the FAA registry database, anyone can verify that.I knew that there wasn’t a large number of them flying but I would have thought there’d be more than that. However I have a strong tendency to believe you and your numbers so my assumption on their numbers is very likely wrong.
The 150/150 I am familiar with does not have an increased gross weight. It has a 400 pound useful load. With full fuel, you have 244 lbs tp play with. Of course, no one said you have to fill the tanks.Ok. Reeling in thread drift a little bit.
Other than the Rotax conversion, does anyone have opinions or info about converting a regular C150 to a 150 hp 150/150? Can all models get the conversion? Is there a gross weight increase?
Not me. Been flying behind one for 8 years. No problem, no worries.
Looking back on this thread, it appears you are the only one, well and the Capt. that have negative opinions on Rotax engines. It’s also evident that The majority responding, me included, couldn’t care less and are happy flying behind a Rotax. To each, his or her own. It’s ok to agree to disagree. The Rotax series of engines, like their legacy counterparts, will
never please everyone, but they are solid power plants, and they continue to develop at a faster pace than Lycoming or Continental.
No inverted systems that I am aware of. The oil system is somewhat quirky and personally I would not recommend a rotax for aerobatic operation. For everything else they're just fine.How do Rotax engines do on aerobatic ships? Do they hold up ok with the g-forces and rapid power changes, etc? Are there inverted oil systems available?
My experience with 912s has been good. If there was a STC to put one on my Luscombe when the A65 expires, I would SO love to try that.
FYI: depending how serious you are, you do have a path to put a Rotax on a 150 without buying an STC. You could work toward obtaining a One-Only STC for a specific S/N aircraft. It's cheaper than a standard STC process and in some cases streamlined more like the field-approval process. At a minimum you could work out the Rotax install and get a Special AWC Experimental Research and Development and fly it before pursuing the STC. Know of several One-Only STCs used for engine swaps to include one owner who pursued a One-Only STC to re-engine a WACO even though there was an existing STC for the same engine swap.but I have been thinking about this subject for some time , rather than using a 912 the newer 145hp 915 with an MT variable pitch prop
The opposite is more often true. Making the same power with less displacement requires higher RPM. Friction losses associated with higher RPM tend to reduce efficiency. The highest efficiency reciprocating engines (huge marine engines) run at very low RPM specifically because it enhances efficiency.Also, the Rotax is substantially smaller in displacement to make the same power, which will increase efficiency.