Rotax 916 iS Unveiled
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2024
- Rotax just officially announced the 916 iS. Here's the basics you need to know.
Like, comment and please do subscribe! / @letsgoaviate
Follow me on Instagram: / lets_go_aviate
Music: Epidemic Sound
Try it for free: www.epidemicso...
Image credits:
O360 by Nimbus227 (en.wikipedia.o...) under license CC BY-SA 3.0 (creativecommon...) no changes made
Leave a comment and let me know what you think of the 916iS so far
I think I caught a mistake - 85AKI (US octane rating) is much lower octane than 95RON (the European octane rating). Perhaps I heard what you said incorrectly.
@@rwlewko A mistake is definitely possible, but I think my sentence was just odly phrased, as I said 95 octane "car fuel" or 85 octane MON as used in the US.
would be nice on a Risen plane
It has a better takeoff or max power than the 915 at 160HP vs 141HP but only 2 more max continuous hp than the 915 137HP vs 135 HP
I'm guessing since it's not a completely new design from the ground up - but basically an upgraded 915 - they can't produce more power out of that engine without affecting reliability and/or TBO.
Wouldn’t mind one in my VW Type 3
Rotax will surpass lycoming and continental by far because of the technology and FADEC
Be careful, you should see the maintenance requirements to keep this engine running long term if you are an A&P/ IA, if not you will just pay Rotax a lot of money to have it serviced.
Those engine are light duty and meant for light aircraft like LSA . You will never see one in a 182 or SR22 so each engine has its pros. But to surpass them? I don’t think so.
Imagine if they added another section of cylinders. a 6 cylinder could produce up to 240 hp
And thus add unnecessary weight, potentially change the center of gravity of the aircraft. Would also run hotter, among other things.
@@sepg5084 If Lycoming thought like you, they would have never got past the 0-360 and developed to 540. Different engine for different airplanes.
Nice concise video!!! One question: does it mount into the airframe the same as the 915?
Thanks! I have on good authority that it does fit the same mount.
@@LetsGoAviate Thanks!!
My UL power 350is at 130 hp and fadec and FWF including mount and prop was 31k. My understanding this engine alone is encroaching on 40 k.
After running a couple sleds with rotax power, I can say I would not trust my life to one
I know nothing of their snowmobile engines and how much different the designs are, but their airplane engines are some of the most reliable, if not the most.
@@LetsGoAviate 🐴🍺🍺🍺👍
This type of reliability? th-cam.com/video/3xbfwwuVBXE/w-d-xo.html
@@jorbedo That was a bad spark plug... don't have a couple of those in a lycoming or continental?
I've been flying > 30 years behind all types of Rotax engines and had no major issues.
Like letsgoaviate said: "some of the most reliable, if not the most"
Way over priced!
They are in a hurry because they know yamaha will launch their own Aircraft products soon, they know they will loose that battle.
Your are wrong. Yamaha is ultra conservative with hp. Their bike ADV bike engines are woefully underpowered compared to others in their class. Their first iteration of an aircraft engine with not beat out a tried and tire designs.
The epex engine is competitive to the 9 series rotax engines. But Yamaha is not marketing that as an airplane engine, it's a conversion. The Yamaha test airplane engine is 500cc and generally appears to be where rotax was 30 years ago.... Not saying Yamaha doesn't have the necessary experience to catch up fast, but at this time they are not a competitor.
I don't think Yamaha's airplane engine will be more than 80hp (it's a 2 cylinder, 499cc), thus not competing with any of Rotax's new engines.
Nonetheless I can't wait for the Yamaha!
@@CaptndartySame thing the industry said about rotax when they started from 2 cycle snowmobile engines, there is always a begining. BRP vs Yamaha reliability? Yamaha wins hands down.
Isn't the difference between Rotax and Yamaha the fact that Rotax made a sensible quantity of speciality engines for a market which required reliability. I mean, the prospect of freezing in Arctic conditions on a snowmobile tends to concentrate the mind. Aircraft engines aren't exactly going to make a company super rich - after all, quantity has a quality all of it's own (particularly when it comes to the need to fulfil a baseline production output) and the folks at Rotax are forced to produce their quantity snowmobile engines at a quality level far in excess of Yamaha's quantity engines.
I would love to see Yamaha get in on the act, but I feel that uncomfortable wisdom informs us that Aircraft Engines don't make the money to justify a "have to have" product. But then again, Yamaha may well be eyeing the aircraft engine market to keep their very capable Japanese Engineers busy while their bread and butter products move to China and elsewhere for manufacturing.
I'm commenting with all respect to Chinese engineering. Complex and sound engineering takes time and experience and the Chinese will catch up. In the mean time - let's hope Yamaha get in on the aviation act for the sake of our desire for variety, if not also for our wallets.