I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad incidents.

Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
even their 4 strokes?

I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one. Until
an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.

Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them, too.
O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and price
makes them somewhat questionable.

I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote:
> I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed
> on their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff.

I couldn't find any info on the Highlander crash that mentioned engine
problems. What sources are you using as supporting material?

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
> > I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed
> > on their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff.
>
> I couldn't find any info on the Highlander crash that mentioned engine
> problems. What sources are you using as supporting material?

Doesn't specifically say "engine" problems, but Avweb says:

-snip-
In Walhalla, S.C., on April 2, Just Aircraft co-owner Gary Schmitt also
had problems on takeoff and was unable to make a safe landing. Schmitt
was flying a Highlander, which was just approved the week before as an
S-LSA. The aircraft was destroyed and Schmitt was seriously hurt. No
further details were available at our deadline.
-snip-

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/610-full.html

-R

American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s. All
dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic, god
awful ugly LSAs I have seen.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
>their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
>injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
>philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad incidents.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
> even their 4 strokes?
>
> I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one.
> Until an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
>
> Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them,
> too. O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and
> price makes them somewhat questionable.
>
> I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
> here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
> --
> Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
>their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
>injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
>philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad incidents.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
> even their 4 strokes?
>
> I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one.
> Until an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
>
> Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them,
> too. O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and
> price makes them somewhat questionable.
>
> I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
> here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
> --
> Jim in NC

We have a lot of U/L and Light Sport eligible aircraft at my home airfield.
The guys with the 4 stroke Rotax engines never seem to have any problems. I
also have a couple of friends who fly Sonexes (?) with both 4 and 6 cylinder
Jabirus, and they don't seem to have any problems. The guys with the 2
strokes play glider pilot a lot. One fellow a couple of hangars down
probably has a half dozen off-airport landings due to engine problems with 2
stroke engines. I'd guess he has 2,000 hours behind 2 strokes.
Fortunately, there is a lot of farmland near my field which has really
helped keep the 2 stroke guys out of big trouble.

My take on the situation is that a Light Sport aircraft with a 4 stroke
Rotax or a Jabiru is a viable flying machine with X/C ability. The aircraft
with 2 stroke engines are a far different proposition.

KB

Same with the Legend Cub.. a slight rework of the original J-3, LSA
qualified and about the same price range
BT

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s. All
> dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic, god
> awful ugly LSAs I have seen.
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
>>their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
>>injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
>>philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad
>>incidents.
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
>> even their 4 strokes?
>>
>> I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one.
>> Until an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
>>
>> Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them,
>> too. O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and
>> price makes them somewhat questionable.
>>
>> I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
>> here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>> I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed
>> on their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff.
>
> I couldn't find any info on the Highlander crash that mentioned engine
> problems. What sources are you using as supporting material?

You are totally within you rights to question whether it was engine
problems.

The report I saw said he had problems on takeoff.

With a LSA, there is not much to cause problems on takeoff, other than the
engine. No controllable prop. No landing gear to retract. I suppose he
could have failed to remove gust locks, but I doubt it.

He could have taken off over gross, on too short of a runway. I doubt it.

So, yes, it is my assumption that the engine failed to make full power. We
will see, upon further facts being published.

Once again, I am pleased that both pilots will be able to give a more
complete account of the problems they experienced.
--
Jim in NC

Buy me a beer, if I am right? <g>
--
Jim in NC

Dave Stadt wrote:
> American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s. All
> dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic, god
> awful ugly LSAs I have seen.

You sure about that? When I met the owner of the company a few years
back he was gung-ho on putting the Champ in production with a Jabaru.
At the time, his hold up was finding a prop that would match the engine
and not over speed. If he went with the O-200 I'm betting it was
because of the prop problem, not a concern with the Jabaru.

One advantage that the "the plastic, god awful ugly LSAs" do have over
the Champ is the insurance. Check out the article in this month's Sport
Pilot magazine about the problems insuring an LSA taildragger.

Helen

"Helen" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s. All
>> dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic, god
>> awful ugly LSAs I have seen.
>
> You sure about that? When I met the owner of the company a few years back
> he was gung-ho on putting the Champ in production with a Jabaru. At the
> time, his hold up was finding a prop that would match the engine and not
> over speed. If he went with the O-200 I'm betting it was because of the
> prop problem, not a concern with the Jabaru.
>
> One advantage that the "the plastic, god awful ugly LSAs" do have over the
> Champ is the insurance. Check out the article in this month's Sport Pilot
> magazine about the problems insuring an LSA taildragger.
>
> Helen

Trust me I saw it a couple of weeks ago. My guess is he realized they would
be easier to sell with the Continental. Can't see why a Champ would be any
more expensive to insure as an LSA than they are now. A new one would
obviously be more as the hull value is much more.

On 2006-04-11, Morgans > wrote:
> With a LSA, there is not much to cause problems on takeoff, other than the
> engine.

There's a lot that can stop an engine other than the engine itself being
broken:
- fuel system blockage
- fuel contamination
- too much air in the fuel (i.e. ran out of fuel)
- fuel getting unported due to tank/fuel system design
- fuel selector in the wrong position
- fuel pump failure (if applicable)
- spark plug failure
- magneto failure (even with dual mags, some types of failure on one mag
can cause rough running and power loss)
- carburettor icing
- air filter blockage/failure
- improperly fitted oil filters/screens/drain plugs

And that's not the limit to what peripheral systems can cause the engine
they serve to quit.

If it was a two stroke, well, just due to the nature of two stroke
engines, generally they have incredibly short TBOs and are horribly
unreliable regardless of who makes them (and you have to operate
aviation two strokes very carefully or they have a nasty tendency to
seize).

As for Rotax 4 strokes, nothing really leads me to believe they are any
less reliable than any other aviation 4 stroke - other than in the US,
mechanics not being all that familiar with them (it's a different story
here - the Rotax 4 strokes are quite popular in light homebuilts - I've
flown behind the turbocharged 912S and it seems to be a pretty capable
engine in use).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

On 2006-04-11, Dave Stadt > wrote:
> Trust me I saw it a couple of weeks ago. My guess is he realized they would
> be easier to sell with the Continental. Can't see why a Champ would be any
> more expensive to insure as an LSA than they are now.

It's probably specifically to do with low-time tailwheel pilots more
than anything else. I suspect most (non-sport pilot) Champ owners have a
reasonable amount of tailwheel time since these planes are hardly ever
used as trainers now, more as personal aircraft for people who like the
Champ. A new LSA pilot buying a Champ is probably as expensive to insure
as a student tailwheel pilot - in an expensive hull.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

From what I have read on this, there were a couple of things in play...

First, Continental came out with a "lightweight" O-200.

And by going with the O-200 American Champion could build it under the old
Champ type certificate, but by meeting the LSA restrictions, could also sell
it into the LSA market.




"Helen" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s.
All
> > dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic, god
> > awful ugly LSAs I have seen.
>
> You sure about that? When I met the owner of the company a few years
> back he was gung-ho on putting the Champ in production with a Jabaru.
> At the time, his hold up was finding a prop that would match the engine
> and not over speed. If he went with the O-200 I'm betting it was
> because of the prop problem, not a concern with the Jabaru.
>
> One advantage that the "the plastic, god awful ugly LSAs" do have over
> the Champ is the insurance. Check out the article in this month's Sport
> Pilot magazine about the problems insuring an LSA taildragger.
>
> Helen

My local FBO has a J-3 cub that they wanted to rent out to light sport
pilots. They found it impossible to find insurance that permitted them to
do that. The only company they could find that would insure a tail dragger
for rental, required all pilots to have regular private licenses with
current medicals.

This FBO is now acquiring a ROTAX 912 powered Flight Design CTSW light sport
aircraft. I just got check out in this plane this week. It's absolutely
gorgeous. Being a tricycle gear, insurance is not an issue.

Mike Schumann

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Helen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s.
>>> All dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic,
>>> god awful ugly LSAs I have seen.
>>
>> You sure about that? When I met the owner of the company a few years
>> back he was gung-ho on putting the Champ in production with a Jabaru. At
>> the time, his hold up was finding a prop that would match the engine and
>> not over speed. If he went with the O-200 I'm betting it was because of
>> the prop problem, not a concern with the Jabaru.
>>
>> One advantage that the "the plastic, god awful ugly LSAs" do have over
>> the Champ is the insurance. Check out the article in this month's Sport
>> Pilot magazine about the problems insuring an LSA taildragger.
>>
>> Helen
>
> Trust me I saw it a couple of weeks ago. My guess is he realized they
> would be easier to sell with the Continental. Can't see why a Champ would
> be any more expensive to insure as an LSA than they are now. A new one
> would obviously be more as the hull value is much more.
>

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
>their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
>injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
>philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad incidents.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
> even their 4 strokes?
>
> I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one.
> Until an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
>
> Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them,
> too. O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and
> price makes them somewhat questionable.
>
> I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
> here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
> --
> Jim in NC

No but I bet you would "set foot" inside an aircraft powered by a Lycomming
(broken crankshafts) or Continental (broken big end bolts)... These two
engines have killed more pilots than Rotax or Jabiru. I find it amusing
that some people just can't see the forest for the trees. We had two pilots
killed here in Australia in the past two weeks both flying Lycommings, one
failed after take off and the other on approach to land. Investigations are
continuing. Don't kid yourself, all engines fail for a variety of reasons.

Now, if your anti-LSA, why don't you just say so.

Bob.

"Bob O'Rilley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
>>their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
>>injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
>>philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad
>>incidents.
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
>> even their 4 strokes?
>>
>> I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one.
>> Until an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
>>
>> Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them,
>> too. O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and
>> price makes them somewhat questionable.
>>
>> I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
>> here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> No but I bet you would "set foot" inside an aircraft powered by a
> Lycomming (broken crankshafts) or Continental (broken big end bolts)...
> These two engines have killed more pilots than Rotax or Jabiru. I find it
> amusing that some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

Considering that Lycoming and Continental have BILLIONS (TRILLIONS ?? ) of
hours flying, it's not surprising that they've killed more pilots. What's
also amusing is people that can't correlate data but shoot their mouth off
anyway.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

When I was a full time CFI in 2001, my flight school had an early
Katana with the 80hp Rotax & CS prop. I took an interest in the plane
(nobody else did - it was a ramp queen) and flew it probably 15-20
hours. While that is hardly enough time to make a truly informed
opinion about the engine, I've heard from A&P types that the 4 strokes
hold up quite well, even with their funky combination air/liquid
cooling. At 5gph in cruise @ 115kt (Katana) it's cheap to run as well.
The TBO was raised from 1200 to 1500 in 2003, and even though that's
still low compared to the typical 2000TBO for most NA Contis & Lycs I'm
guessing overhaul costs are proportional.

"Bob O'Rilley" > wrote

You must be new in here, so I'll cut you a little slack.

> No but I bet you would "set foot" inside an aircraft powered by a
> Lycomming (broken crankshafts) or Continental (broken big end bolts)...

I have expressed my reservations about these engines in the past, also.
Statistically, the failures are relatively small.

> These two engines have killed more pilots than Rotax or Jabiru.

Only because they have about a bazillion more engines flying! Golly, are
you that dense?

> I find it amusing that some people just can't see the forest for the
> trees. We had two pilots killed here in Australia in the past two weeks
> both flying Lycommings, one failed after take off and the other on
> approach to land. Investigations are continuing. Don't kid yourself, all
> engines fail for a variety of reasons.

Yes, they do, and many times because of neglect, of one form or another. On
the other hand, the two LSA's that went down with their Rotax engines had
just been through the approval process, and have no doubt received much
attention and scruitiny. I certainly would not have expected a new
demonstrator to fail. But, where there are Rotax, .....
>
> Now, if your anti-LSA, why don't you just say so.

In this use, I think you intended to use the spelling of "you're."

Once again, I will give you a break, but I am hardly anti GA.
--
Jim in NC

Taylorcraft, too, is back, building Taylorcrafts and Taylor Cubs with
0-200 engines, a bit cheaper ($69,995). Models with 0-235 or 0-360
are also available, for more money, though those won't be LSA... and
the mother of all indecencies, a *nosewheel* equipped version...

-Dana

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:03:53 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>Same with the Legend Cub.. a slight rework of the original J-3, LSA
>qualified and about the same price range
>BT
>
>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> American Champion is re-introducing the Champ with brand new O-200s. All
>> dolled up it looks to be $84K. It knock the socks off the plastic, god
>> awful ugly LSAs I have seen.

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm from the IRS. The government has spent all your tax money. Could we please have some more?

("Morgans" wrote)
>> Now, if your anti-LSA, why don't you just say so.

> In this use, I think you intended to use the spelling of "you're."
>
> Once again, I will give you a break, but I am hardly anti GA.


In this use, I think you intended to use the acronym "LSA". <g>


Montblack

Well, there's a couple of things going on. Without commenting on the
crashes you mention, which I know nothing about, the majority of Rotax
engines are installed on ultralights... with all the variance in care
and maintenance that you see on ultralights. Some are well
maintained, and others aren't maintained at all... and it shows in
their reliability.

Second, to the get the kind of power to weight ratio UL's and LSA's
demand, you have to turn the engine faster. This naturally leads to
reduced reliability... an A-85 redlined at 2500 rpm (IIRC) is just
naturally going to last longer than a 912 redlined at 5800 rpm... and
the A-85 weighs a LOT more... and both weigh more than a comparable
2-stroke. It's all about compromises.

-Dana

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:43:20 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
>even their 4 strokes?
>
>I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one. Until
>an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm from the IRS. The government has spent all your tax money. Could we please have some more?

"Montblack" > wrote -
>
> In this use, I think you intended to use the acronym "LSA". <g>

Yep, that is a possibility!

It would be better than the curse part, which is what I restrained from
doing. <g>
--
Jim in NC

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> When I was a full time CFI in 2001, my flight school had an early
> Katana with the 80hp Rotax & CS prop. I took an interest in the plane
> (nobody else did - it was a ramp queen) and flew it probably 15-20
> hours. While that is hardly enough time to make a truly informed
> opinion about the engine, I've heard from A&P types that the 4 strokes
> hold up quite well, even with their funky combination air/liquid
> cooling. At 5gph in cruise @ 115kt (Katana) it's cheap to run as well.
> The TBO was raised from 1200 to 1500 in 2003, and even though that's
> still low compared to the typical 2000TBO for most NA Contis & Lycs I'm
> guessing overhaul costs are proportional.

Then why did Diamond dump the Rotax for Continentals?

"Dana M. Hague" <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in message
...
> Taylorcraft, too, is back, building Taylorcrafts and Taylor Cubs with
> 0-200 engines, a bit cheaper ($69,995). Models with 0-235 or 0-360
> are also available, for more money, though those won't be LSA... and
> the mother of all indecencies, a *nosewheel* equipped version...

Good grief!!!! Hide the women and children and whatever you do don't let
them look at such a monstrosity.


> -Dana

"> Considering that Lycoming and Continental have BILLIONS (TRILLIONS ?? )
of
> hours flying, it's not surprising that they've killed more pilots. What's
> also amusing is people that can't correlate data but shoot their mouth off
> anyway.
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO

Oh yes... thank you, I see now, your data is much more precise than mine
(BILLIONS and TRILLIONS). Oh, hang on! you have no data either. Perhaps
you should correlate some data and then proceed to shoot your mouth off.

While we are on the subject, Morgans advised that two LSA aircraft with
Rotax engines crashed after engine failures and even though they were
probably the ultralight two stroke Rotax engines, he will never fly any LSA
at all and particularly with any Rotax engine including the ultra reliable
four stroke 912 or the unrelated Jabiru engine. There is simply no
comparison between a two stroke Rotax a four stroke Rotax and a Jabiru,
please, are we really that stupid to bundle all LSA aircraft and engines
into one basket because of two crashes?

By the way, a friend of mine was flying a Russian utility plane with an M14P
radial engine when it threw a rod/piston and the engine failed. As a
result, you will not find me flying an all metal GA aircraft, particularly
Cessna's and Pipers with piston engines made by Lycomming or Continental!

Bob.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> Only because they have about a bazillion more engines flying! Golly, are
> you that dense?

Jesus! a BAZILLION! that's more than Matt's BILLIONS & TRILLIONS. Come on,
how old are you two guys? Eight? Does you parents know that your playing on
the internet?

> Yes, they do, and many times because of neglect, of one form or another.
> On the other hand, the two LSA's that went down with their Rotax engines
> had just been through the approval process, and have no doubt received
> much attention and scruitiny. I certainly would not have expected a new
> demonstrator to fail. But, where there are Rotax, .....

Possible reasons for EFATO:-

1. Pilot forgot to turn on the fuel tap before take off.
2. Pilot forgot to put two stroke oil in the engine before take off.
3. Pilot forgot to put fuel in the tank before take off.
4. Pilot forgot to open cowl flaps and cooked the engine on take off.
5. Pilot forgot to turn on fuel pump before take off.

Any of the above could have happened and would have or may have caused an
engine failure on a new engine/aircraft.none are the fault of the engine.

> In this use, I think you intended to use the spelling of "you're."

Thank you for YOUR correction of my typo. YOUR understanding of the English
language is impeccable. I've probably made a "BAZILLION" more typos in my
time.

> Jim in NC
Bob in QLD

"Bob O'Rilley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "> Considering that Lycoming and Continental have BILLIONS (TRILLIONS ?? )
> of
>> hours flying, it's not surprising that they've killed more pilots. What's
>> also amusing is people that can't correlate data but shoot their mouth
>> off anyway.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt
>> ---------------------
>> Matthew W. Barrow
>> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>> Montrose, CO
>
> Oh yes... thank you, I see now, your data is much more precise than mine
> (BILLIONS and TRILLIONS). Oh, hang on! you have no data either. Perhaps
> you should correlate some data and then proceed to shoot your mouth off.

Thanks you for aptly demonstrating you have no clue what you're blabbering
about.

>
> While we are on the subject, Morgans advised that two LSA aircraft with
> Rotax engines crashed after engine failures and even though they were
> probably the ultralight two stroke Rotax engines, he will never fly any
> LSA at all and particularly with any Rotax engine including the ultra
> reliable four stroke 912 or the unrelated Jabiru engine. There is simply
> no comparison between a two stroke Rotax a four stroke Rotax and a Jabiru,
> please, are we really that stupid to bundle all LSA aircraft and engines
> into one basket because of two crashes?
>
> By the way, a friend of mine was flying a Russian utility plane with an
> M14P radial engine when it threw a rod/piston and the engine failed. As a
> result, you will not find me flying an all metal GA aircraft, particularly
> Cessna's and Pipers with piston engines made by Lycomming or Continental!
>
> Bob.

Bob = Clueless

"Bob O'Rilley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Only because they have about a bazillion more engines flying! Golly, are
>> you that dense?
>
> Jesus! a BAZILLION! that's more than Matt's BILLIONS & TRILLIONS. Come
> on, how old are you two guys? Eight? Does you parents know that your
> playing on the internet?

[PLONK]

Take your POS salespitch and SIWTSDS

"Bob O'Rilley" > wrote

> While we are on the subject, Morgans advised that two LSA aircraft with
> Rotax engines crashed after engine failures and even though they were
> probably the ultralight two stroke Rotax engines, he will never fly any
> LSA at all and particularly with any Rotax engine including the ultra
> reliable four stroke 912 or the unrelated Jabiru engine.

Thanks for proving that you are not only an idiot, but a lazy idiot.

If you had taken two minutes to do a little research, you would have found
that both crashes were 4 stroke Rotaxes.

The first rule of getting out of a hole, is to stop digging, and take your
foot out of your mouth, also.
--
Jim in NC

"Dana M. Hague" <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote

> It's all about compromises.
>

There will be no compromise, when it is my but in the seat, thank you.
--
Jim in NC

Dave S wrote:

>>>Then why did Diamond dump the Rotax for Continentals?<<<

They initially offered both when the Conti was first available. The
Katana just needed more power. The higher cruise speed and much better
climb rate of the 125hp IO-240 Conti made a huge difference from what
I've read. Most Katanas are in school fleets so the higher TBO was
probably a factor in the engine swap IMO.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dana M. Hague" <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote
>> It's all about compromises.
>>
>
> There will be no compromise, when it is my but in the seat, thank you.
> --
> Jim in NC

I was just about to say that. Some things can be compromised but not on my
airplane.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dave S wrote:
>
>>>>Then why did Diamond dump the Rotax for Continentals?<<<
>
> They initially offered both when the Conti was first available. The
> Katana just needed more power. The higher cruise speed and much better
> climb rate of the 125hp IO-240 Conti made a huge difference from what
> I've read. Most Katanas are in school fleets so the higher TBO was
> probably a factor in the engine swap IMO.

I heard the FBO's also didn't like then, because they didn't have anyone
that was trained to work on them, and factory and parts support was poor.
--
Jim in NC

("Bob O'Rilley" wrote)
> Jesus! a BAZILLION! that's more than Matt's BILLIONS & TRILLIONS. Come
> on, how old are you two guys? Eight? Does you parents know that your
> playing on the internet?


Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by
saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the
President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"


Montblack

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>> There will be no compromise, when it is my but in the seat, thank you.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> I was just about to say that. Some things can be compromised but not on
> my airplane.

Airplanes are nothing BUT compromises. Better get out of flying. For that
matter, probably ought to avoid any engineered technology altogether.
Engineers spend practically all their time making compromises, matching
mission goals, available technology, and cost requirements.

Frankly, this thread cracks me up. I've seen practically the exact same
discussion repeatedly, from at least some ten (fifteen?) years ago. There
has never been any proven problem endemic with Rotax's certificated engines.
The bottom line is that the certificated Rotax engines meet the exact same
standards that any other certificated engine does, and ALL of the major
engine manufacturers have experienced engine failures.

That there would be a handful of people who illogically single out one
engine manufacturer for suspicion, when they are no better and no worse than
the other engine manufacturers doesn't surprise me one bit. That anyone who
DOES know better would waste time trying to explain the *logical* side of
the issue to people not using logic, now that does surprise and amuse me.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> Airplanes are nothing BUT compromises. Better get out of flying. For
> that matter, probably ought to avoid any engineered technology altogether.
> Engineers spend practically all their time making compromises, matching
> mission goals, available technology, and cost requirements.

Compromising reliability is never an option on an airplane. Why do you
think there are so many things done differently than, on say, a car? No
hardware store bolts, everything safety wired, ect, ect. So don't tell me
about compromises, with regard to reliability. No compromise on safety is
one reason that every thin aviation costs so much.

Compromises on missions, payloads, comfort, speed, stol, asthetics, yes.
Every one of those items is decided on with compromise.

> Frankly, this thread cracks me up. I've seen practically the exact same
> discussion repeatedly, from at least some ten (fifteen?) years ago. There
> has never been any proven problem endemic with Rotax's certificated
> engines. The bottom line is that the certificated Rotax engines meet the
> exact same standards that any other certificated engine does, and ALL of
> the major engine manufacturers have experienced engine failures.

Must be because Rotax reliability is an issue with some people, that won't
go away. The fact that Rotax is certified is irrelevant. Certification for
an engine is not difficult.

I could built a Chevy 350 and put it on a dyno, and certify it in a week or
so, if you give me a few bucks to do it. What does that tell you? I'll bet
there would be plenty of people that would not want to fly it, even if it
has been certified.

> That there would be a handful of people who illogically single out one
> engine manufacturer for suspicion, when they are no better and no worse
> than the other engine manufacturers doesn't surprise me one bit. That
> anyone who DOES know better would waste time trying to explain the
> *logical* side of the issue to people not using logic, now that does
> surprise and amuse me.

No worse or better than any other. Do you have any studies or statistics to
back that up? No? I didn't think so.

It is difficult for me, or any other "logical" person to believe your
assertion, when personal experience of people shows other persons
experiencing difficulties.

By the way, are Franklin engines just as good as Lycoming and Continental?
I don't know of a pilot that would put one in an airplane, yet they are also
certified.

You crack me up, Pete. <g> Keep up the good work! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Dave S wrote:
>>
>>>>>Then why did Diamond dump the Rotax for Continentals?<<<
>>
>> They initially offered both when the Conti was first available. The
>> Katana just needed more power. The higher cruise speed and much better
>> climb rate of the 125hp IO-240 Conti made a huge difference from what
>> I've read. Most Katanas are in school fleets so the higher TBO was
>> probably a factor in the engine swap IMO.
>
> I heard the FBO's also didn't like then, because they didn't have anyone
> that was trained to work on them, and factory and parts support was poor.
> --
> Jim in NC


Story I heard was nonexistant factory support. I do believe a large flight
school sent its entire fleet back to Diamond due to the Rotax engine
'situation.'

> Story I heard was nonexistant factory support. I do believe a large flight
> school sent its entire fleet back to Diamond due to the Rotax engine
> 'situation.'

Embry-Riddle Daytona

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Compromising reliability is never an option on an airplane.

It is ALWAYS an option, and EVERY airplane has compromised reliability. Why
do you think that each engine has an overhaul interval? Do you really
believe that for each engine, the overhaul interval is as long as is
technologically possible? It's not. It's as long as can be reasonably made
given weight and cost limitations. I.e. a compromise.

> Why do you think there are so many things done differently than, on say, a
> car? No hardware store bolts, everything safety wired, ect, ect. So
> don't tell me about compromises, with regard to reliability. No
> compromise on safety is one reason that every thin aviation costs so much.

You obviously have no idea what the meaning of the word "compromise" is.

> [...]
> Must be because Rotax reliability is an issue with some people, that won't
> go away. The fact that Rotax is certified is irrelevant. Certification
> for an engine is not difficult.

And your justification for making this absurd claim is?

> I could built a Chevy 350 and put it on a dyno, and certify it in a week
> or so, if you give me a few bucks to do it.

Define "a few bucks". I've got a few bucks here in my wallet, and would
love to see you try to certify a Chevy 350 engine.

> What does that tell you? I'll bet there would be plenty of people that
> would not want to fly it, even if it has been certified.

Define "plenty". Obviously there are a few people out there who don't
bother to put their thinking caps on. No question about that. But a
certificated engine that meets or exceeds the same standards as existing
engines would do quite well.

> No worse or better than any other. Do you have any studies or statistics
> to back that up? No? I didn't think so.

I'm not the one accusing the engine of being faulty. Where are YOUR studies
or statistics to back that up? No? I didn't think so.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> It is ALWAYS an option, and EVERY airplane has compromised reliability.
> Why do you think that each engine has an overhaul interval? Do you really
> believe that for each engine, the overhaul interval is as long as is
> technologically possible? It's not. It's as long as can be reasonably
> made given weight and cost limitations. I.e. a compromise.

I have rarely met a person that loves to pick nits as much as you.

Pick 'em by yourself. I won't be part of your game.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Pick 'em by yourself. I won't be part of your game.

Nor should you, given your utter lack of a point.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:59:52 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>There will be no compromise, when it is my but in the seat, thank you.

EVERYTHING is a compromise. Single engine simplicity vs. the
redundancy of two engines, or four, the light weight of a 2-stroke vs.
a 4 stroke's longer TBO, the cost of a Rotax vs. a Continental (how
many people can afford a 0 SMOH Continental these days?) My
compromise these days is I fly single cylinder 2-stroke ultralights
and I don't fly over anything I can't land on... but when I owned a
Taylorcraft with a certified Continental engine I once had an engine
failure on takeoff (engine failure, not my fault)... no matter what
you fly, if you fly long enough, sooner or later the engine's gonna
stop turning.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the *******s.

Bob O' Rilley wrote "



>Jesus! a BAZILLION! that's more than Matt's BILLIONS & TRILLIONS. Come on,
>how old are you two guys? Eight? Does you parents know that your playing on
>the internet

.........

Owww. Thats gonna leave a mark...... <G>

Ben [ duckin] Haas.

Rotax is what turned me away from this category. The brand new (200 some
hrs) CT that I flew in vibrated so badly it was unnerving. The pilot
mentioned that it might be the gearbox, but those engines are just
screaming. Cruise is like 5000 rpm, or close to it. Take off was 5400
limited to a few minutes if I remember right.
I walked away from my demo ride convinced that this part of the industry
will need another 5-7 yrs of product development. I thought the Jibaru
looked promising by design since it's not a geared down engine/prop combo,
but those planes weren't available for demo rides.
I might have bought into that category if not for the fact that most are
Rotax powered. It looks good at first since you can buy a brand new plane
for the price of an older GA plane.
I ended up with a tried and true 172. Give the sport aircraft a few more
years.
Alex
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>I see that two LSA aircrafts that had already been certified, crashed on
>their way to SnF, when their engines failed on takeoff. Pilots are badly
>injured, but alive, thank goodness. At least the slow speed, low energy
>philosophy of the LSA seems to be allowing people to survive bad incidents.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that Rotax still leaves a lot to be desired,
> even their 4 strokes?
>
> I still will not set foot inside an aircraft that is powered by one.
> Until an alternate engine is available, LSA is dead on arrival, IMHO.
>
> Jubaru? I don't know. There are more than a few bad reports on them,
> too. O-200's are still a choice, as are C-85's, I suppose, but weight and
> price makes them somewhat questionable.
>
> I hate to be the pessimist, and I am not a troll, for those who know me
> here, but what is a person to do? I had to get it off my chest.
> --
> Jim in NC

On 2006-05-09, #1ACGuy > wrote:
> Rotax is what turned me away from this category. The brand new (200 some
> hrs) CT that I flew in vibrated so badly it was unnerving. The pilot
> mentioned that it might be the gearbox, but those engines are just
> screaming. Cruise is like 5000 rpm, or close to it. Take off was 5400
> limited to a few minutes if I remember right.

Or the propellor. I have a friend who has a Rotax 914S powered Europa.
It does feel "different" from a traditional GA plane because the engine
noise is significantly different to the high displacement, low revving
direct drive engines most of us are used to - but his Europa is probably
the smoothest running 4-cylinder plane I've flown.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de