FlyingMonkey Posted April 8 Report Share Posted April 8 Drop in 912 ULS clone from China with a lower price and better warranty than Rotax. According to the Website it's about ~$15k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted April 8 Report Share Posted April 8 I like to save money, but I dont think I would enjoy a single hour of flight with this engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlennM Posted April 8 Report Share Posted April 8 I am worried about the dealer bringing them in. Rotax can't go after a Chinese clone in China, but they can in the US. Not many intellectual property rights in China. I wonder how the guy gets around being sued in the US by Rotax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted April 8 Report Share Posted April 8 I thought it was a legal clone ( relevant patents no longe in force ) .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 9 Author Report Share Posted April 9 14 hours ago, Vic said: I like to save money, but I dont think I would enjoy a single hour of flight with this engine. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 9 Author Report Share Posted April 9 14 hours ago, GlennM said: I am worried about the dealer bringing them in. Rotax can't go after a Chinese clone in China, but they can in the US. Not many intellectual property rights in China. I wonder how the guy gets around being sued in the US by Rotax. If it's just an engineering copy of dimensions and specs, I don't think there is any legal liability. I think the problem arises where there are patents. The Rotax engine is pretty conventional, I don't know how many patents are involved. Even if the engine is not as good as a Rotax, I think it will find a home among E-AB builders and some value-priced factory aircraft. Since it's ASTM compliant it can be used in S-LSA. If enough of them get used it will provide competition and downward price pressure on Rotax, which can only benefit us. I hope they succeed. I wouldn't use one for an engine swap right now, but in 5 years if they have a good track record and a lot of flight hours on them... Who knows? Remember Rotax was once looked down on by all the Ly/Con owners as "snowmobile engines" ( I still hear that!)...and now 80% of new aircraft engines sold are Rotax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 have a friend who installed the Turbo version last summer.... blew up after 10 hrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 9 Author Report Share Posted April 9 23 minutes ago, Jacques said: have a friend who installed the Turbo version last summer.... blew up after 10 hrs Really? Wow! Turbos add a lot of heat and stress to an engine. I guess the good news is they have a 500hr warranty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 yep he got a new engine ( a screw went loose and entered the engine) but he lost his float season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Don't know who to trust anymore, China makes a lot of junk but lately so do we. I am looking at Jabiru aircraft lately and for years they have had issues with their engines. They were in so much trouble over this that they did several complete redesigns over the years until they were able to produce a very reliable engine. I guess this is what it takes to get things right or go out of business. China may eventually get it right but I wouldn't want to get their "A" model engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 10 Author Report Share Posted April 10 18 hours ago, Madhatter said: Don't know who to trust anymore, China makes a lot of junk but lately so do we. I am looking at Jabiru aircraft lately and for years they have had issues with their engines. They were in so much trouble over this that they did several complete redesigns over the years until they were able to produce a very reliable engine. I guess this is what it takes to get things right or go out of business. China may eventually get it right but I wouldn't want to get their "A" model engine. That's a fact. I'm guessing China's quality is coming up while the West's quality is declining. At some point it will all meet in the middle. I have a buddy who just bought a new latest-rev Jabiru 3300, his previous one was very reliable and he was a sticker on maintenance, but it still only lasted 1000hrs. That's not much time on a $20k engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 The 3300 is a 2000hr tbo but with a top overhaul at 1000 hrs until Jabiru gets enough data to extend it. I have no issue with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 10 Author Report Share Posted April 10 2 hours ago, Madhatter said: The 3300 is a 2000hr tbo but with a top overhaul at 1000 hrs until Jabiru gets enough data to extend it. I have no issue with that. My friend determined it was run out at 1000hrs, not just in need of a top. This was an early 3300, I'm sure the newer ones are better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 The newest model is the generation 4 engine that came out in 2017. Actually I will be talking to the engine people in Shelbyville in about 30 min from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 36 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said: My friend determined it was run out at 1000hrs, not just in need of a top. This was an early 3300, I'm sure the newer ones are better. Just spoke to Jabiru and confirmed gen 4 engines tbo is 2000hrs but need top overhaul at 1000hrs. In the early years there were a lot of development issues. The gen 4 is a completely different design with the cylinders and they are just being careful. So far in the last 6 yrs it's been outstanding reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 11 Author Report Share Posted April 11 4 hours ago, Madhatter said: Just spoke to Jabiru and confirmed gen 4 engines tbo is 2000hrs but need top overhaul at 1000hrs. In the early years there were a lot of development issues. The gen 4 is a completely different design with the cylinders and they are just being careful. So far in the last 6 yrs it's been outstanding reliability. Sure don't get me wrong, I like the Jabiru, I was planning to put one on the Sonex I was building. They just have had a fussy history with some teething pains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 Do your research, the gen 4 has a pretty good record so far. The Jabiru aircraft has had one of the lowest accident records of all LSA's regardless of early engine issues. All new engines have early issues even when Continental went to the 520 from the 470, Lycoming also. I was a test engineer for Lycoming and the LTS101 turbine reliability was horrible engine, ask the coast guard helicopter pilots. How about 300hr tbo. Now it's one of the most reliable engines 30 years later. Rotax had a lot of development issues too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunkworks85 Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 Take a stroll though barnstormers on the jabiru engines, It reads like this 1. 2005 Esqual VM1: TTAF : 1106 TTE: 58 2. 2007 Kolb TTAF: 1200, TTE 20 3. Factory thorpedo TTAF/E 240 4. Kit fox TTAF:730+ TTE: 200 5.2010 Arion : TTAF/E 520 with a top over all recent 6. 2007 601xl TTAF 1990 TTE 200 Not a good track record, and also is reason i would never buy one. Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madhatter Posted April 11 Report Share Posted April 11 5 minutes ago, Skunkworks85 said: Take a stroll though barnstormers on the jabiru engines, It reads like this 1. 2005 Esqual VM1: TTAF : 1106 TTE: 58 2. 2007 Kolb TTAF: 1200, TTE 20 3. Factory thorpedo TTAF/E 240 4. Kit fox TTAF:730+ TTE: 200 5.2010 Arion : TTAF/E 520 with a top over all recent 6. 2007 601xl TTAF 1990 TTE 200 Not a good track record, and also is reason i would never buy one. Thanks, These are very early engines. The gen 4 engine is no comparison to the early ones and has a very high reliability. If you do your research you will find that a large number of issues came from pilot operation errors and SB non compliance on early engines. The gen 4 is a completely different engine. Also a lot of the early engines used in homebuilts did not conform to correct baffling and had overheat issues. The "A" model of any engine is always an issue including Rotax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlennM Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 On 4/9/2024 at 8:22 AM, FlyingMonkey said: If it's just an engineering copy of dimensions and specs, I don't think there is any legal liability. What stops someone from putting these parts in a Rotax during a repair? I wonder if all the parts are identified. Yikes! I would hate to buy a plane with a mixed part engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Quote from RW, I don't have much to say on this subject however this is by no means a new engine. This "clone" has been out for many years and they do have a turbo version also. The issue we should be concerned with is it is a copy and not original. That said they do not have the original testing or R&D to back this thing up. I saw these sold in Latin America years ago and the owners indeed tried to buy spares from the regional Rotax dealers. (Chile and Ecuador were the countries I heard from a number of years ago. They have a dealer in Europe and Rotax is aware of them. Given the Rotax design is from the 1980s there is no patent infringement argument if you were wondering. The R&D is being done by, as you no doubt guessed, the experimental builders. Time will tell. Lets see one at 2000 hours. Currently they are experimental only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 RW..... ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 What Jacques said, just above (who is RW and why do we care what RW says?). Also, I don't understand why it being a copy is "the issue we should be concerned with." Metallurgy, dimensional tolerances of critical parts, assembly methods, and overall quality control seem more relevant to what matters to pilots - that is, whether the engine provides rated power and is reliable for 2000+ hours (in addition, of course, to manufacturer support). I personally have no plans to own one of these engines anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Because RW is the top Rotax knowledgeable person and that may be in the world. Many have met him. I've known him for 23 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 15 Report Share Posted April 15 Rotax Wizard would have easier Roger..at least we know him(?) on the Rotax-owner forum yep..he is THE top R912 guy on the planet .... although I don't know about China Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.