Has anyone heard of this engine

[dabkb2]

C80 – Ckd.aero

ckd.aero

Looks good, saw it on Facebook. Chinese junk or scam?

 

[MikeBoyette]

I think Abid has looked into using them. He's a die hard Rotax guy but is starting to realize how they need competition. I think it's funny that it is coming from a copy of their own engine. They deserve to be knocked off their high horse.

 

[Kevin_Richey]

I think Abid is the one who brought up the Chinese version of the R-912 on the forum about a year or more ago. He posed the question of how many people would trust a Chinese version enough to fly w/ it...

 

[Resasi]

Seem to remember the answer was...not many.

 

[okikuma]

Because of the vast experience with lower level of quality in metallurgy, and widely variable spacing in tolerances in other industries such as automotive engine parts, industrial parts, tools, and every day consumer items manufactured in the PRC, the reluctance level is high in purchasing an aircraft engine that one would depend their life upon.

It's also economics. For example if a C80 costs half as much but the TBO is also half the time or less, the Rotax 912 is a better choice because of its proven record.

Wayne

 

[Aerofoam]

It seems a bit heavy for 80hp besides the possible quality issues.
You can get 80+hp out of a 3cyl Geo motor which would point to the Raven conversion
being a more trustworthy solution in the 150lb. range.
I have seen 130hp Geo motors, but they don't last long......
That being said, under 100hp is a safe range for a very reliable motor...
The Canadians had one badged as a Pontiac that had the cutest little turbo charger.....

 

[Abid]

I think Abid has looked into using them. He's a die hard Rotax guy but is starting to realize how they need competition. I think it's funny that it is coming from a copy of their own engine. They deserve to be knocked off their high horse.

I am not a die hard Rotax guy man. I am just not a put anything on aircraft guy. If Lycoming was not tractor heavy from 1950's, I'd put that on the gyroplane in a second. If Jan actually stood behind his Honda conversion engine properly and his claimed HP and weight were anywhere close to Rotax, I would put that on as well. It is difficult to stand behind these guys when they sell your father a brand new Honda converted engine and the poor customer flies the Dom and has to pay another $6000 in 4 months to change the engine. What's the point. I see that and I go, no thank you.

CKDAero are my partners. I have shifted our composite manufacturing and painting to their Composite shop in Georgia.
They have the big $$ available to them from their owner who also makes production runs for GM and Ford trucks and cars of various parts to deal with the engine import. I think he decided to get all the parts and do the assembly either in the states or in Canada for the engine.
It is Chinese manufacturer but they get many of their parts from the exact same supply chain as Rotax does.

 

[Abid]

It seems a bit heavy for 80hp besides the possible quality issues.
You can get 80+hp out of a 3cyl Geo motor which would point to the Raven conversion
being a more trustworthy solution in the 150lb. range.
I have seen 130hp Geo motors, but they don't last long......
That being said, under 100hp is a safe range for a very reliable motor...
The Canadians had one badged as a Pontiac that had the cutest little turbo charger.....

You cannot get 80 HP out of the Geo 3 banger. It is barely a 60 HP with the weight of a 100 HP Rotax nd that piece of junk does not belong on an aircraft. I have had 5 total engine outs and 3 of them were in a Geo 3 banger conversion. Raven'c conversion were no better. They all had resonance issues in the 3 banger. Know that first hand. Painfully. I would take the G13BB 16 valve 4 cylinder anyday over that junk 3 banger.
The C80 is exactly the same weight as a Rotax 912UL, 80 HP. There is no difference. It is the exact same engine literally right down to the casting

 

[dabkb2]

You cannot get 80 HP out of the Geo 3 banger. It is barely a 60 HP with the weight of a 100 HP Rotax nd that piece of junk does not belong on an aircraft. I have had 5 total engine outs and 3 of them were in a Geo 3 banger conversion. Raven'c conversion were no better. They all had resonance issues in the 3 banger. Know that first hand. Painfully. I would take the G13BB 16 valve 4 cylinder anyday over that junk 3 banger.
The C80 is exactly the same weight as a Rotax 912UL, 80 HP. There is no difference. It is the exact same engine literally right down to the casting

Are you using the C80 on your gyros or the rotax?

 

[Resasi]

The C80 is exactly the same weight as a Rotax 912UL, 80 HP. There is no difference. It is the exact same engine literally right down to the casting

The problem is the unfortunate history of Chinese quality. Their proven reputation of sub standard materials, and lowered standards.

When produced... and monitored, by Western companies, their have indeed been quality goods produced in China. The problem is that these companies are now leaving China because their control over quality is being removed.

Are you using the C80 on your gyros or the rotax?

A very pertinent question,,,and the answer is??

 

[JPAnderson]

Their primary market is probably drones. You can't have a proper war without them these days.

 

[Abid]

Are you using the C80 on your gyros or the rotax?

No. I asked in a survey on FB and here and told people if $6500 saving on a 912ULS engine would convince them to go with a 100 HP Chinese engine exactly the same as 912ULS from Rotax. It seemed like people did not care about paying $6500 more.

C80 is out of the question for a 2 seat gyroplane. 80 HP isn't going to go on an AR-1 anyway.
If you are asking me if I would fly with one of their engines. Probably. You buy John Deere tractors right. 50% of them have engines made by the same factory.

 

[Aerofoam]

You cannot get 80 HP out of the Geo 3 banger. It is barely a 60 HP with the weight of a 100 HP Rotax nd that piece of junk does not belong on an aircraft. I have had 5 total engine outs and 3 of them were in a Geo 3 banger conversion. Raven'c conversion were no better. They all had resonance issues in the 3 banger. Know that first hand. Painfully. I would take the G13BB 16 valve 4 cylinder anyday over that junk 3 banger.
The C80 is exactly the same weight as a Rotax 912UL, 80 HP. There is no difference. It is the exact same engine literally right down to the casting

Depends on the build, there can be a resonance issue at specific RPM's it can be countered by the aftermarket adjustable cam/gear combo.
It was usually only at low RPM on old 100k+ engines.
I would hardly call it junk, they routinely went over 150k in cars before getting tired valves.
In a higher output use, they need the right cam and timing, plus a TBO of about 1500 hours.
Once the initial mods are in place and TBO is about $600 and can be done on your kitchen table in about 3 hours...
Don't ask how I know this !!
I have seen 130hp out of the 3 banger with Hayabusa carbs and porting, I wouldn't use it in an aircraft.
75 to 85 HP is easily achievable without the engine being a grenade.
I would not use it in an application where it needed to constantly supply more than 65HP at cruise though....
I wouldn't be looking at one for a 2 seater, I just mentioned it because the C80 seems to be over 150lbs @ 80hp with all the goodies
and the Geo motor is about 130lbs and can easily get in that HP range, but not continuously...
(The 4 cylinder 16 valve is a little powerhouse though.....)
In the end the reliability depends on the build, they have been around a long time and all the issues have been addressed....
I have not used a Raven conversion, but have met a few people who were happy with them....
The engine, if built right will perform well, but needs the same attention to detail as any aircraft engine if you want reliability.

 

[Abid]

Depends on the build, there can be a resonance issue at specific RPM's it can be countered by the aftermarket adjustable cam/gear combo.
It was usually only at low RPM on old 100k+ engines.
I would hardly call it junk, they routinely went over 150k in cars before getting tired valves.
In a higher output use, they need the right cam and timing, plus a TBO of about 1500 hours.
Once the initial mods are in place and TBO is about $600 and can be done on your kitchen table in about 3 hours...
Don't ask how I know this !!
I have seen 130hp out of the 3 banger with Hayabusa carbs and porting, I wouldn't use it in an aircraft.
75 to 85 HP is easily achievable without the engine being a grenade.
I would not use it in an application where it needed to constantly supply more than 65HP at cruise though....
I wouldn't be looking at one for a 2 seater, I just mentioned it because the C80 seems to be over 150lbs @ 80hp with all the goodies
and the Geo motor is about 130lbs and can easily get in that HP range, but not continuously...
(The 4 cylinder 16 valve is a little powerhouse though.....)
In the end the reliability depends on the build, they have been around a long time and all the issues have been addressed....
I have not used a Raven conversion, but have met a few people who were happy with them....
The engine, if built right will perform well, but needs the same attention to detail as any aircraft engine if you want reliability.

In a car and on the ground is completely different. The engine has a heavy flywheel and attached to a transmission which indirectly attached to the ground and that takes a lot of vibrations out of the picture. That isn't the setup in the air. I converted 5 of these engines. In my experience, it isn't the engine to convert to use in an aircraft when so much better and more reliable alternatives exist without all the problems the 3 cylinder one presented. In aircraft you are either at idle, full power or 75 to 85% power. Most of our time would be at 75 to 85% continuous power setting.
C80 is Rotax 912UL (80 HP). 150 pounds is probably installed weight wet. Geo Metro engine is heavier installed wet. Trust me. First hand experience. There is no way on this Earth any of these engines like Geo Metro/Suzuki, Honda, and other car engine conversions that they come close to Rotax power to weight ratio apples to apples. Certainly Suzuki engines do not. I have converted 11. 5 3 bangers and the rest G13BB.

 

[Aerofoam]

In a car and on the ground is completely different. The engine has a heavy flywheel and attached to a transmission which indirectly attached to the ground and that takes a lot of vibrations out of the picture. That isn't the setup in the air. I converted 5 of these engines. In my experience, it isn't the engine to convert to use in an aircraft when so much better and more reliable alternatives exist without all the problems the 3 cylinder one presented. In aircraft you are either at idle, full power or 75 to 85% power. Most of our time would be at 75 to 85% continuous power setting.
C80 is Rotax 912UL (80 HP). 150 pounds is probably installed weight wet. Geo Metro engine is heavier installed wet. Trust me. First hand experience. There is no way on this Earth any of these engines like Geo Metro/Suzuki, Honda, and other car engine conversions that they come close to Rotax power to weight ratio apples to apples. Certainly Suzuki engines do not. I have converted 11. 5 3 bangers and the rest G13BB.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I can see them being problematic if you are running them above 70% continuously...
How much flywheel did you remove?
Not much there to begin with!

 

[Resasi]

Kenya is a huge market for Chinese goods. They are cheaper...but the quality on nearly all items including machinery and engines is atrocious and they break down very quickly.

It seemed like people did not care about paying $6500 more.

They obviously value their safety/lives a lot more than $6,500.

you buy John Deere tractors right. 50% of them have engines made by the same factory.

When a John Deere breaks down one is firmly on the ground. And, as a major company with a solid reputation to lose, they will have in place a close quality control in China.

 

[GyroRon]

There is no real reason why the Rotax versions of these engines cost as much as they do. You can say it is because it is a low volume production... you can say it is because of insurance reasons... you can say it is because it is built to higher standard than say a snowmobile or motorcycle or PWC engine... But the real reason is that it is an engine for a luxury item and they can price it where they price it and they will be able to sell them at that price.

Now regardless of the pricing, with the rotax comes thousands of engines sold, and thousands upon thousands of flight hours flown, and for the most part you are getting a solid, fairly reliable engine that has the bugs worked out.

With a Chinese knock off, you are getting a copy of what is a " Good " engine. But what you are also getting is an engine that no one really knows how close of a copy it is. By that, I mean, are the pistons the same exact forging? Are the cases cast with the same exact metal? Are the bearings the same or not? Is the crank of the same exact metal and forging process? So on and so forth. No one really knows.

It would be different if it was the same exact parts from the same exact suppliers, just without a Rotax emblem on them. But from what I can tell, these are not the same exact parts. These are copies of rotax parts, made in china by a different factory.

So that brings me back to the pricing. You are buying something that is not a total unknown... It at least is a direct copy of something well proven, which is better than a clean sheet design that isn't proven at all. But no one knows for a fact if every piece and part of this engine is cast and poured and forged and machined to the same standards as the original. ONCE IT IS PROVEN, which will takes years and years of units sold and flown, then at that point in time it might be appropriate to sell them for 2/3rds or 3/4's of the price of a genuine Rotax engine. But until then, I wouldn't pay more than 1/2 or even 1/3rd of the price, and I don't see them making hardly any sales until they are that much cheaper. And what is crazy is they should be able to sell them at that price but greed and shortsightedness have these engines priced where they are.

None of the OEM aircraft companies will push them, because for example... What is a $6500 savings on a $100,000 gyro or airplane? Not enough to warrant the risk of going to an unknown powerplant. Heck even if it was a $12,000 savings I am not sure there would be many takers.

I reckon the only traction this company might have is in the market where a homebuilder on a tight budget, or someone that is replacing a worn out or badly damaged Rotax on a older high time gyro or airplane, might be tempted to save a few bucks with this engine.

 

[rancherman]

@GyroRon exactly correct.
Until a mfg is confronted with competition that is either
longer living
less expensive
more powerful
They'll keep charging whatever they want- a 6k difference in a 100k machine is nothing.
Remember the debacle when Chevy engines were found in some Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs in the 70's? oh, that pissed a LOT of loyal customers off! I think a strike at GM cut into engine production... But in the end, those that kept them, had good luck- the bodies still rusted out before the engine wore out anyway.
There's a reason JohnDeere was ALWAYS 20-30% higher to purchase.
Quality (longevity) and service = resale value.
This gap between the major players certainly has narrowed in the last couple decades however- At least in the pricing dept anyway!!
me? the overall quality is pretty much the same now- they are all sh*t. They ALL have taken the wrong path. Some of it was EPA mandated, some of it was trying to redesign the mousetrap that was already perfect.

 

[Resasi]

The single good reason for using this engine has been made. For one-way expendable drones.

 

[Abid]

Kenya is a huge market for Chinese goods. They are cheaper...but the quality on nearly all items including machinery and engines is atrocious and they break down very quickly.

They obviously value their safety/lives a lot more than $6,500.


When a John Deere breaks down one is firmly on the ground. And, as a major company with a solid reputation to lose, they will have in place a close quality control in China.

Trust me I am no big cheer leader of China but you can buy complete cheap junk from there or you can get very high quality stuff. It depends on who you deal with and the price you will pay. China is no longer a cheap labor place. That isn’t the reason to go there anymore. Its labor is just as expensive as Eastern Europe like Slovenia where AutoGyro makes its composite shells. So it really depends on the company and price point on the quality you will get.
I visited China 2 times working for type certification of SeaRey airplane with CAAC. I was able to visit a couple aviation related factories there. They were quite serious high quality producing shops. I cannot say that their quality was suspect given the PC quality control system they had to maintain under CAAC.