G'Day Dave,
>I wanted to get an opinion ...
No worries. Opinions are free. Whether anyone else agrees with them or not is another matter

!
> I've always read that IDE is primarily consumer grade hardware
That assumption continues to live on to this day. However, even mission critical workstations these days run IDE drives (yes, I still have one or two people who starts off by asking for SCSI but as past experience have shown, this does not make their drive any LESS likely to fail).
SCSI drives still technically handle multiple requests better - it's got command queueing while IDE Drives don't. How significant this is in real like is hard to say - in a single drive machine, probably noticable. In a large RAID array, harder to say because requests are divided amongst multiple drives. As for IDE drives failing under load, that's probably more a reflection of the quality of the individual drive or brand than the IDE technology. Performance is not an easy thing to judge because you can only truly "feel" any differences if you have the same thing software and load conditions running on the two different RAID technologies side by side in a real world environment. I always take simulated benchmarkings with a grain of salt (about peppermill sized grain!). Your choice of a RAID level to employ also makes a difference to the performance gain / loss. With hardware RAID-1, there is usually no performance loss / gain over a single drive setup. A quick search on google will lead to to more than you might possibly want to know about the different RAID levels. The controller in use will probably make or break your RAID array and its performance.
>Have you had much experience with SCSI arrays?
Mostly with Mylex based cards and the Compaq SmartArray controllers. And yes, in each system, they have had drives die as well. With Compaq, because of the extra warranty purchased with the servers, they ship out replacement drives overnight. However, in large networks like the ones where these servers are running, I've always included a spare unit in the costings, so they always have a spare on the shelf to replace any failed units on the spot.
I find these days that cost and availability is the real factor in choosing between the technologies. SCSI Based solutions are still very much more expensive than IDE based ones. Since I only ever deal with new products, no second hand hardware pricing considered (as you can sometimes pick up previously owned and loved (or loathed) ones quite cheaply). Also, most companies and shops don't stock as wide a range of SCSI drives (if ANY at all). So in a pinch, you cannot count on rocking up to any old shop to pick up a replacement drive. This actually counts more in the eyes of the client when you need to replace any failed drives.
>I won't be making any money off your knowledge or anything like that...
That's OK. I wouldn't mind sharing anyway. "Knowledge" ... Hmmm... These days, I wouldn't call it that... Most things people know are not absolute anyway, even when they think it is !...

Cheers !
Kelvin