Super Dimona Motorglider in Soaring magazine feb 2004

[Mark James Boyd]

Interesting article. Too bad (for US pilots) it uses
the "despised in the US" rotax engine. But this is
a real favorite in Europe, I'm told.

CFR 61.69(a)(1) requires tow pilots to
"Holds at least a private pilot certificate with a category
rating for powered aircraft."

Perhaps the last 7 words should be eliminated so
glider only licensed PPL, self-launch endorsed pilots
can use this aircraft to tow?

It looks a little flimsy for daily tow work, but
if one could convince the insurer to allow instruction
during towing, one could make the tow flight
an instruction flight too...double the customers, right?

[Rod]

Why is the Rotax despised in the U.S.?

Regards,
Rod

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 19:42 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Interesting article. Too bad (for US pilots) it uses
>the 'despised in the US' rotax engine. But this is
>a real favorite in Europe, I'm told.

Please note Dick Johnson's article was NOT about the
HK36R Super Dimona, which was issued US Type Certificate
G51EU in July, 1993 and is powered by an 80-hp Rotax
912a.

Dick's article regards a look-alike cousin, issued
US type certificate G07CE in 1997 as an HK36TTC. This
model is powered by a 115-hp turbocharged Rotax 914
F series engine.

Judy

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >, Rod > wrote:
>Why is the Rotax despised in the U.S.?
>
>Regards,
>Rod

Ooops...politically correct...

Ummm..."some mechanics in the US are less familiar with
Rotax than the more commonly found Continental and Lycoming
engines popular in many US aircraft"

Or the translation (some mechanic terms may be mungled for
less clarit):

"What are you thinking bringing me this f****r to work on?
I don' have any G*****n parts for it and it'll take six
years and postage from Alaska just to get the m***********g
manual. You couldn't just put in a gool Ol' Cub engine?
This piece of s**t is designed by some b*********g
Swiss watchmaker..."

Often followed by the U.S. mechanic inquiring gently about
your geneology and how your sexual preference may inhibit
your prospects for children and there's probably a
mechanic in Massachusets that could better help you...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>At 19:42 10 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>Interesting article. Too bad (for US pilots) it uses
>>the 'despised in the US' rotax engine. But this is
>>a real favorite in Europe, I'm told.
>
>Please note Dick Johnson's article was NOT about the
>HK36R Super Dimona, which was issued US Type Certificate
>G51EU in July, 1993 and is powered by an 80-hp Rotax
>912a.
>
>Dick's article regards a look-alike cousin, issued
>US type certificate G07CE in 1997 as an HK36TTC. This
>model is powered by a 115-hp turbocharged Rotax 914
>F series engine.
>
>Judy

Well, the index in the front of Soaring said:

19 A Flight Test Evaluation of the HK36TTC Super Dimona Motorglider.

and Dean Carswell's page 25 article starts:

"The Diamond Aircraft HK 36TTC Katana Xtreme (marketed in some
parts of the world as the Super Dimona) is a..."



I was unaware there would be any ambiguity (I didn't know
about the other Super Dimona) and thank Judy
for pointing this out.

[BTIZ]

perhaps because previous to the Dimona Motorglider.. they were previously
used on non-certificated aircraft like ultra lights or some small
experimental..

and as a previous poster noted.. most US A&Ps are not used to working on
them

BT

"Rod" > wrote in message
...
> Why is the Rotax despised in the U.S.?
>
> Regards,
> Rod
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> In article >, Rod > wrote:
>
>>Why is the Rotax despised in the U.S.?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rod
>
>
> Ooops...politically correct...
>
> Ummm..."some mechanics in the US are less familiar with
> Rotax than the more commonly found Continental and Lycoming
> engines popular in many US aircraft"
>
> Or the translation (some mechanic terms may be mungled for
> less clarit):
>
> "What are you thinking bringing me this f****r to work on?
> I don' have any G*****n parts for it and it'll take six
> years and postage from Alaska just to get the m***********g
> manual. You couldn't just put in a gool Ol' Cub engine?
> This piece of s**t is designed by some b*********g
> Swiss watchmaker..."

"Despised by mechanics" is quite different from "despised in the US".
Rotaxes are used on gliders like the Stemme and Ximango, and by zillions
of ultralights and amateur built airplanes. Are you sure parts are hard
to get? I've seen thick catalogs for Rotax parts in the US, and a
thousands of hits for "rotax engine parts" on the web, plus repair
station listings.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> In article >, Rod > wrote:
>>
>>>Why is the Rotax despised in the U.S.?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Rod
>>
>>
>> Ooops...politically correct...
>>
>> Ummm..."some mechanics in the US are less familiar with
>> Rotax than the more commonly found Continental and Lycoming
>> engines popular in many US aircraft"
>>
>> Or the translation (some mechanic terms may be mungled for
>> less clarit):
>>
>> "What are you thinking bringing me this f****r to work on?
>> I don' have any G*****n parts for it and it'll take six
>> years and postage from Alaska just to get the m***********g
>> manual. You couldn't just put in a gool Ol' Cub engine?
>> This piece of s**t is designed by some b*********g
>> Swiss watchmaker..."
>
>"Despised by mechanics" is quite different from "despised in the US".
>Rotaxes are used on gliders like the Stemme and Ximango, and by zillions
>of ultralights and amateur built airplanes. Are you sure parts are hard
>to get? I've seen thick catalogs for Rotax parts in the US, and a
>thousands of hits for "rotax engine parts" on the web, plus repair
>station listings.
>
>--
>-----
>change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

I once again retract my previous post. Nobody anywhere despises
Rotax engines. This was simply wrong and golly, I'm sorry.

So just cut and paste in:

>> "Some mechanics in the US are less familiar with
>> Rotax than the more commonly found Continental and Lycoming
>> engines popular in many US aircraft"

....and I never said parts were hard to find. I'm sure there
are lots of DISassembled Rotax engines all over the U.S...
<grin>

[Dave Nadler YO]

Super Dimona / Katana whatever its called tows just fine.
Not good for hot and heavy, but not-too-hot and low alt
is just fine. They were used for towing at the Bayreuth
preworlds: no complaints from me in a ballasted standard
glider, some big gliders were unhappy.

Not too flimsy for daily tow, used that way often. Does
require type-specific training (tail-dragger plus glider
negatives, hardly insurmountable).

Hope that helps !
Best Regards, Dave

PS: Anybody who needs a mechanic versed in Rotax 4 strokes
in Massachusetts contact me privately...


(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<4029333e$1@darkstar>...
> Interesting article. Too bad (for US pilots) it uses
> the "despised in the US" rotax engine. But this is
> a real favorite in Europe, I'm told.
>
> CFR 61.69(a)(1) requires tow pilots to
> "Holds at least a private pilot certificate with a category
> rating for powered aircraft."
>
> Perhaps the last 7 words should be eliminated so
> glider only licensed PPL, self-launch endorsed pilots
> can use this aircraft to tow?
>
> It looks a little flimsy for daily tow work, but
> if one could convince the insurer to allow instruction
> during towing, one could make the tow flight
> an instruction flight too...double the customers, right?

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> Interesting article. Too bad (for US pilots) it uses
> the "despised in the US" rotax engine. But this is
> a real favorite in Europe, I'm told.
>

I also despise this Rotax engine, although not being an
US pilot. Since we bought our Super Dimona 5 years ago
we never had a season without engine problem(s). The last
season we spent 26000 euros on repairs/exchange. We had
to hire another Dimona for towing during the long period
we had to wait for the replacement engine. The good news
is that hiring another tug was cheaper than using our
own one, but this opportunity is going to stop as the
owner is selling the plane.

Maybe the Rotax is a very good engine for ultralights,
or even for the Dimona used as a touring motor glider,
but when used as a tug, the stress seems to be to high
for this engine, at least in the conditions of my club
(20 club gliders and 5 private owners using aerotow, we
add the second tug, a Rallye, when more than the half
fleet is waiting for launch). The version of the Super
Dimona used as tug is model HK36 115 TTC (I think the TC
means turbo charged). The maximum time during which
the full power (115 HP) is allowed is 5 minutes, but during
a good soaring day, each flight is a 5 minutes climb at full
power followed by 1 minute descent and landing, and I can
understand that the engine doesn't like that.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>> Interesting article. Too bad (for US pilots) it uses
>> the "despised in the US" rotax engine. But this is
>> a real favorite in Europe, I'm told.
>>
>
>I also despise this Rotax engine, although not being an
>US pilot. Since we bought our Super Dimona 5 years ago
>we never had a season without engine problem(s). The last
>season we spent 26000 euros on repairs/exchange. We had
>to hire another Dimona for towing during the long period
>we had to wait for the replacement engine. The good news
>is that hiring another tug was cheaper than using our
>own one, but this opportunity is going to stop as the
>owner is selling the plane.
>
>Maybe the Rotax is a very good engine for ultralights,
>or even for the Dimona used as a touring motor glider,
>but when used as a tug, the stress seems to be to high
>for this engine, at least in the conditions of my club
>(20 club gliders and 5 private owners using aerotow, we
>add the second tug, a Rallye, when more than the half
>fleet is waiting for launch). The version of the Super
>Dimona used as tug is model HK36 115 TTC (I think the TC
>means turbo charged). The maximum time during which
>the full power (115 HP) is allowed is 5 minutes, but during
>a good soaring day, each flight is a 5 minutes climb at full
>power followed by 1 minute descent and landing, and I can
>understand that the engine doesn't like that.

You are preaching to the Pope. Turbocharging? Any
idiot can get more power out of an aircraft engine,
all the way up to the point the TBO = 0! Nothing new
there. Ever been to a local dirt racetrack?
Lots of noise, lots of HP, and lots of spare engines...
Oh, and LOTS of mechanics... :P

Working planes deserve engines with high TBOs. The
loss of availability to me is often worse than the
repair cost. Turbo AND constant speed prop too? Not
for me, brother...

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ..
> Working planes deserve engines with high TBOs. The
> loss of availability to me is often worse than the
> repair cost. Turbo AND constant speed prop too? Not
> for me, brother...

But a well enginered engine (pleonasm ?) designed for use
with a turbo should work and spare a lot of weight. The
real problem is that the Rotax was not designed for use
with a turbo. Regarding the constant speed prop, it is a
real plus, allowing a smaller prop and lower noise for the
same result. This is really significative and we had some
financial support from fundings for noise reduction when
we bought this tug.