This really is a better mousetrap, and the price is a steal...the 100hp Rotax iSc is @ $21,000 and the 115 hp Rotax 914 Turbo is $28k. So you get more power, less weight, very efficient fuel burn and by design it will be ultra dependable ... Because its an L-Head engine it has none of the valve train weight or mechanical worries you have with an OHV engine. Now all they need is a Turbo-normalized version.
I don't understand it. I have a 800 cc Rotax engine with 6700 hard miles on my Ski Doo snowmobile. This engine can easily be picked up with one man and set on a work bench. And it easily makes 136-140 honest horsepower. We run our machines hard over 7000 rpm and occasionally 8200 rpm. Why do aircraft engines cost so much. I guarantee our snow engines are supplied with jewel like precision internal reciprocating parts. I wouldn't be afraid to fly the 800 anywhere, anytime, . Just saying the cost for an air worthy engine is 7-8 times that of a grounder. Wondering what's the big secrete/ over cost of these super engines?
I assume a lot of it has to do with lawsuits. Also, if a snowmobile engine quits on you, you are potentially stuck in a bad situation; if an aircraft engine quits on you, you are definitely and immediately in a bad situation. Making the same engine lighter and yet more reliable comes with costs, tho I a not sure what all the differences are between the versions
3 factors: 1) quality control 2) certification required 3) very low production volumes If you don't know, during WW2, the engines that not pass the assembly /quality control were redirected toward ground service on different military vehicules.
The Rotax two strokes are gas sucker, horrible noisy and low reliability, this all is the explanation why the light aircraft or ultralight european pilots like more 4 strokes with reductor like 912's...and US pilots only the high cubic direct drives (who are same gas sucker as two strokes...)
Relatively easy to turbocharge, with the intake and exhaust on the same side. Needs a turbo since the head flow is not nearly as efficient as overhead valve.
This would be more than amazing diesel. Flat head with layer of asbestos under stainles sheet for insulation would cut heat loss to almoast nothing. With no fear of detonation from overheated engine zones, eficiency would be amazing.
Boris Bojanic You’d have some trouble getting a flathead diesel to run properly as getting a good enough compression ratio for comp ignition would be basically impossible as far as I can see
@@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929 steyr in austria made several flathead diesel tractors. they were very reliable. I don't see any issue with a competent engineer.
toadamine weight. Power differences. You run constant power in an aero engine but auto engines are run mainly at low power with occasional spikes, not constant 5000 rpm.
1. Because if you have a failure with your auto engine, you might not be make a warranty claim from your coffin. 2. Because to make a warranty claim, you would have to store the car you took it out of, take the engine back out of the airplane, reinstall it in the car with out any evidence it was removed, then drive or tow the car back to the dealer, and make your claim. Then, after they fix it, reverse the above procedure. 3. Because the auto engine is likely far heavier, and likely makes less HP per installed pound, at a higher RPM, also requiring a reduction drive.
+rafer Jefferson iii. True but boat engines run full out almost all the time and need to be light weight. It might be worth buying a new mercury 150 engine and selling all the boat parts to get a new 150hp light weight engine that's build to rev to 6000. After a reduction drive, radiator, and selling the extras that would probably come in under 10 grand.
Seems like you'd loose efficiency and horsepower!! After reading more they say more efficient? Maybe the double plugs?? L heads have always been dirty and weak!! Maybe a scam!!!
Well, many of the Flatheads Problems are solved in the D-Motor. The EFI and Double Ignitiion do their Part, but mostly the Fact that it Runs at Half the RPM and double the Displacement of the 912 while Producing the Same Power with lower Compression etc. It's getting 90HP from 2.7l of Displacement so it's low Revving, Low Stress and Long Life. Fuel Consumption is pretty much the same as with 912. Flatheads are really nice as long as you don't want high Specific Power Outputs. They don't Rev, but set them up to run low RPM well and they'll be efficient and last for a Lifetime.
@@garybullwinkle6784 A huge avantage for an aircraft engine: if a valve is stucked open, the engine will not be destroyed and will still run at a lower power: This can save your ass. Priorities are not the same as on race cars engines.
Hope it sticks around! Beautiful design and direct drive! Nuff said!
This really is a better mousetrap, and the price is a steal...the 100hp Rotax iSc is @ $21,000 and the 115 hp Rotax 914 Turbo is $28k. So you get more power, less weight, very efficient fuel burn and by design it will be ultra dependable ... Because its an L-Head engine it has none of the valve train weight or mechanical worries you have with an OHV engine. Now all they need is a Turbo-normalized version.
I don't understand it. I have a 800 cc Rotax engine with 6700 hard miles on my Ski Doo snowmobile. This engine can easily be picked up with one man and set on a work bench. And it easily makes 136-140 honest horsepower. We run our machines hard over 7000 rpm and occasionally 8200 rpm. Why do aircraft engines cost so much. I guarantee our snow engines are supplied with jewel like precision internal reciprocating parts. I wouldn't be afraid to fly the 800 anywhere, anytime, . Just saying the cost for an air worthy engine is 7-8 times that of a grounder. Wondering what's the big secrete/ over cost of these super engines?
I assume a lot of it has to do with lawsuits. Also, if a snowmobile engine quits on you, you are potentially stuck in a bad situation; if an aircraft engine quits on you, you are definitely and immediately in a bad situation. Making the same engine lighter and yet more reliable comes with costs, tho I a not sure what all the differences are between the versions
3 factors:
1) quality control
2) certification required
3) very low production volumes
If you don't know, during WW2, the engines that not pass the assembly /quality control were redirected toward ground service on different military vehicules.
What is your Rotax? Two cylinder two stroke?
Your fuel consumption is the main problem, and pollution. Soon the EPA will put an end to such motors.
The Rotax two strokes are gas sucker, horrible noisy and low reliability, this all is the explanation why the light aircraft or ultralight european pilots like more 4 strokes with reductor like 912's...and US pilots only the high cubic direct drives (who are same gas sucker as two strokes...)
The D motor is not affordable. They're asking 50K for it in 2022.
I got sticker shock at the end of this video! Wow!!
Price for this unit is near $30k...I'd rather grab a mid-time Lycoming for 1/3 the cost even though I like this concept
I think he ate one of his motors
Would this work on a kitfox 7 or would it be too heavy?
Relatively easy to turbocharge, with the intake and exhaust on the same side. Needs a turbo since the head flow is not nearly as efficient as overhead valve.
A turbo, or even simpler some Nitro protoxide, if a non certified aircraft.
Too bad; the D-Motor needs a solid representative.
Completely agree. Sounds like a good product but the company representation speaks volumes.
$17,000 (7y ago, this video) seems reasonable.
I don't see the radiator. Where would that get mounted?
Its hidden in the stand. If the engine is mounted in an aircraft, the radiator is usually underneath.
This would be more than amazing diesel. Flat head with layer of asbestos under stainles sheet for insulation would cut heat loss to almoast nothing. With no fear of detonation from overheated engine zones, eficiency would be amazing.
Sure, but the big trouble with Diesel engines is the NOx emissions, this is why those engines will be abandonned soon in Europe
Boris Bojanic
You’d have some trouble getting a flathead diesel to run properly as getting a good enough compression ratio for comp ignition would be basically impossible as far as I can see
@@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929 steyr in austria made several flathead diesel tractors. they were very reliable. I don't see any issue with a competent engineer.
Is it a flathead?
Too much stuff in the 120hp range. Lets see some affordable options in the 150-180hp range!
150to 200 but yes
Maybe a big bore version
$20,000 for a flathead six cylinder motor? Why wouldn't I just go buy a new car with a warranty and just take the motor from that?
+toadamine Because thats not a certified aviation engine.
toadamine weight. Power differences. You run constant power in an aero engine but auto engines are run mainly at low power with occasional spikes, not constant 5000 rpm.
1. Because if you have a failure with your auto engine, you might not be make a warranty claim from your coffin.
2. Because to make a warranty claim, you would have to store the car you took it out of, take the engine back out of the airplane, reinstall it in the car with out any evidence it was removed, then drive or tow the car back to the dealer, and make your claim. Then, after they fix it, reverse the above procedure.
3. Because the auto engine is likely far heavier, and likely makes less HP per installed pound, at a higher RPM, also requiring a reduction drive.
toadamine
Give that a try and let us know how it works out.
+rafer Jefferson iii. True but boat engines run full out almost all the time and need to be light weight. It might be worth buying a new mercury 150 engine and selling all the boat parts to get a new 150hp light weight engine that's build to rev to 6000. After a reduction drive, radiator, and selling the extras that would probably come in under 10 grand.
Just wish an engine was around 10 grand instead of 20 grand, sucks................I understand why, just wishing.
tailspin ....how bout this or the viking
It's a flathead🤔
Seems like you'd loose efficiency and horsepower!!
After reading more they say more efficient? Maybe the double plugs?? L heads have always been dirty and weak!! Maybe a scam!!!
Well, many of the Flatheads Problems are solved in the D-Motor.
The EFI and Double Ignitiion do their Part, but mostly the Fact that it Runs at Half the RPM and double the Displacement of the 912 while Producing the Same Power with lower Compression etc.
It's getting 90HP from 2.7l of Displacement so it's low Revving, Low Stress and Long Life. Fuel Consumption is pretty much the same as with 912.
Flatheads are really nice as long as you don't want high Specific Power Outputs. They don't Rev, but set them up to run low RPM well and they'll be efficient and last for a Lifetime.
@@garybullwinkle6784 A huge avantage for an aircraft engine: if a valve is stucked open, the engine will not be destroyed and will still run at a lower power: This can save your ass. Priorities are not the same as on race cars engines.
did i get that right... double the displacement times half the RPM ?? SO?? for one turn of the prop... the displacement might be the same ???