Nervous about Rotax

[Jay Maynard]

I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one (the
AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.

I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are lots of
them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have been
more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them, but I'm
not at all sure they're for me.

I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it if
it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon of
automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and that's
supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).

I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than 2500), and
that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools. Yeah,
it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field with
a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.

The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being delivered
to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I didn't
get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax isn't
going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the engine is
shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a replacement
cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
there aren't any.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
<...>
>
> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it
> if
> it breaks.

Then ask him/her directly - ever work on one? whadaya think about them?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[John[_9_]]

On Jan 20, 1:46�pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
> there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one (the
> AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
> nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.
>
> I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are lots of
> them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have been
> more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
> Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them, but I'm
> not at all sure they're for me.
>
> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it if
> it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon of
> automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and that's
> supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).
>
> I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
> 5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than 2500), and
> that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools. Yeah,
> it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
> between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field with
> a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.
>
> The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
> get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being delivered
> to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I didn't
> get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
> I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax isn't
> going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the engine is
> shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a replacement
> cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
> there aren't any.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC � � � � � � � � �http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com� � �http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org� � � � � � � (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

A flight school where I work has gotten rid of their Katanas because
Rotax only barely supports the engines anymore since they are
concentrating on the models used in homebuilts and LSAs. I guess that
it is only a problem if you have a Katana. Since Katana engines are
certificated to a different standard than the LSA and there has been
such an explosion in LSAs it makes sense for Rotax. I remember that
they had a couple of engines that always ran hot, troubleshooting
included removing them from one airplane and installing them in
another. Rotax couldn't figure out the problem either.

John Dupre'

[Dave Stadt]

"John" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 1:46?pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
> there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one
> (the
> AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
> nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.
>
> I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are lots
> of
> them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have
> been
> more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
> Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them, but
> I'm
> not at all sure they're for me.
>
> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it
> if
> it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon
> of
> automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and
> that's
> supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).
>
> I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
> 5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than 2500),
> and
> that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools.
> Yeah,
> it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
> between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field
> with
> a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.
>
> The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
> get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being
> delivered
> to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I
> didn't
> get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
> I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax
> isn't
> going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the engine
> is
> shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a
> replacement
> cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
> there aren't any.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ?http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com? ?
> ?http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org? ? ? ? ? ? ? (Yes,
> that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

A flight school where I work has gotten rid of their Katanas because
Rotax only barely supports the engines anymore since they are
concentrating on the models used in homebuilts and LSAs. I guess that
it is only a problem if you have a Katana. Since Katana engines are
certificated to a different standard than the LSA and there has been
such an explosion in LSAs it makes sense for Rotax. I remember that
they had a couple of engines that always ran hot, troubleshooting
included removing them from one airplane and installing them in
another. Rotax couldn't figure out the problem either.

John Dupre'

Rotax customer support has historically been horrible. Just because the LSA
manufacturere are using them does that mean rotax has improved their
customer support? I still can't see most maintenance facilities touching
them.

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> A flight school where I work has gotten rid of their Katanas because
> Rotax only barely supports the engines anymore since they are
> concentrating on the models used in homebuilts and LSAs.
>

Sorry, but that's the same engine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
>I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
> there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one (the
> AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
> nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.

I agree; in a perfect world I would much rather fly behind an O-200 than a
912, however...

Average the useful load of every O-200 powered LSA and compare it to the
average useful load of Rotax powered LSAs and you will see why 912s are winning
in the marketplace. Given the present state of LSA regulation and the engine
market, if you want an LSA that you can fill with two real-sized humans, fill
the tanks, and actually travel somewhere, you need the significantly lighter
912.

To make money with the Cessna LSA, flight schools will have to recruit the
lightest CFIs they can find. It will be a real lady's airplane.


Vaughn

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-21, Vaughn Simon > wrote:
> Average the useful load of every O-200 powered LSA and compare it to
> the average useful load of Rotax powered LSAs and you will see why 912s
> are winning in the marketplace.

I'm not buying an average aircraft. I'm buying one for me. :-)

I do see your point, but I think the real difference in the marketplace is
not the 60 or so pounds difference, but rather the $8000 difference.

> Given the present state of LSA regulation and the engine market, if you
> want an LSA that you can fill with two real-sized humans, fill the tanks,
> and actually travel somewhere, you need the significantly lighter 912.

The Zodiac will have enough useful load for me, my roommate, and full fuel,
with enough stuff for a weekend. That's enough for me.

> To make money with the Cessna LSA, flight schools will have to recruit the
> lightest CFIs they can find. It will be a real lady's airplane.

Quite possibly. OTOH, as I understand it, they did a presentation early on
and said they'd be using the Rotax, and half their audience walked out.
Given their issues with negative PR over their decision to build in China,
and the insanely long lead times they're currently quoting (they told me
2011), they had to do something to limit the bleeding.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jim Stewart]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
> there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one (the
> AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
> nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.
>
> I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are lots of
> them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have been
> more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
> Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them, but I'm
> not at all sure they're for me.
>
> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it if
> it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon of
> automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and that's
> supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).

You will have more frequent plug and oil changes.
The 912 really wants to drink premium mogas. Out
here on the west coast, we've been running 5-10%
ethanol without any problems. Can't speak to your
situation though.

On the plus side, plugs cost $3/each and it only
takes an hour to do plugs and oil.

> I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
> 5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than 2500), and
> that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools. Yeah,
> it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
> between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field with
> a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.

The top RPM will be limited by your prop pitch.
My plane never exceeds about 5100 rpm in cruise.
I still get 1000 fpm climb on a cold day and I'm
happy with the pitch.

2000 RPM idle is fine. 2500 is good for warmup.


> The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
> get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being delivered
> to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I didn't
> get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
> I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax isn't
> going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the engine is
> shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a replacement
> cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
> there aren't any.

Can't speak to the Zodiac, but can talk all day
about the CTSW (:

Pluses for the Rotax are no thermal shock issues,
will allegedly run for 30 minutes at 50% power
with either oil or coolant gone, and 5 gallon/hr
cruise. The engine is also very smooth, especially
at an economical cruise setting. It starts very
easily. No mixture control. The engine just
behaves like a giant electric motor with a speed
control.

As for support, I've had no problems with my 912
so I don't have any direct experience. I know
that the west coast FlightDesign distributer has
worked closely with Rotax on some safety directive
issues and has gotten parts and support quickly.

[xyzzy]

On Jan 20, 2:46 pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it if
> it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon of
> automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and that's
> supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).
>
The O-200 also runs best on mogas. They have serious lead fouling
problems.

The cylinders on those small bore continentals aren't exactly known
for their durability either.

That said, I would probably prefer an 0-200 over a Rotax mainly for
the reason you cited -- the universality of its design, anyone can
work on it, etc Just don't think it'll need less work than a Rotax.

[xyzzy]

On Jan 21, 10:45 am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
>
> I'm not buying an average aircraft. I'm buying one for me. :-)

True, but you do have to consider resale value. Or maybe you don't?

[Jim Stewart]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
>> there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one
>> (the
>> AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
>> nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.
>>
>> I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are
>> lots of
>> them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have
>> been
>> more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
>> Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them,
>> but I'm
>> not at all sure they're for me.
>>
>> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything.
>> I'd
>> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix
>> it if
>> it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every
>> gallon of
>> automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and
>> that's
>> supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).
>
> You will have more frequent plug and oil changes.
> The 912 really wants to drink premium mogas. Out
> here on the west coast, we've been running 5-10%
> ethanol without any problems. Can't speak to your
> situation though.
>
> On the plus side, plugs cost $3/each and it only
> takes an hour to do plugs and oil.
>
>> I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
>> 5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than
>> 2500), and
>> that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools.
>> Yeah,
>> it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
>> between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field
>> with
>> a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.
>
> The top RPM will be limited by your prop pitch.
> My plane never exceeds about 5100 rpm in cruise.
> I still get 1000 fpm climb on a cold day and I'm
> happy with the pitch.

I should add that the 912 is available with three
different gear ratios and the Zodiac might be
different than the CT that I fly.

> 2000 RPM idle is fine. 2500 is good for warmup.
>
>
>> The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
>> get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being
>> delivered
>> to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I
>> didn't
>> get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
>> I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax
>> isn't
>> going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the
>> engine is
>> shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a
>> replacement
>> cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
>> there aren't any.
>
> Can't speak to the Zodiac, but can talk all day
> about the CTSW (:
>
> Pluses for the Rotax are no thermal shock issues,
> will allegedly run for 30 minutes at 50% power
> with either oil or coolant gone, and 5 gallon/hr
> cruise. The engine is also very smooth, especially
> at an economical cruise setting. It starts very
> easily. No mixture control. The engine just
> behaves like a giant electric motor with a speed
> control.
>
> As for support, I've had no problems with my 912
> so I don't have any direct experience. I know
> that the west coast FlightDesign distributer has
> worked closely with Rotax on some safety directive
> issues and has gotten parts and support quickly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Isaksen]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
> The 912 really wants to drink premium mogas. Out
> here on the west coast, we've been running 5-10%
> ethanol without any problems.

Hi Jim,
Glad to hear your good vibes with the CTsw. On the "running ethanol" issue,
I wrote two different "named" Rotax employees 2 years ago about increasing
the 5% ethanol content limit in their manual, and I sadly heard nothing from
either. I took that as confirmation of their continuing customer service
history. A bump to 10% would put them into new US mogas standards. Are you
blending 100LL to get the 5%?

[Jim Stewart]

Mike Isaksen wrote:
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
>> The 912 really wants to drink premium mogas. Out
>> here on the west coast, we've been running 5-10%
>> ethanol without any problems.
>
> Hi Jim,
> Glad to hear your good vibes with the CTsw. On the "running ethanol" issue,
> I wrote two different "named" Rotax employees 2 years ago about increasing
> the 5% ethanol content limit in their manual, and I sadly heard nothing from
> either. I took that as confirmation of their continuing customer service
> history. A bump to 10% would put them into new US mogas standards. Are you
> blending 100LL to get the 5%?

Here's a ctflyer.com thread you might find interesting:

http://www.ctflyer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1145

I've not blended 100LL. I might if I anticipated
a trip at 10,000 feet.

[nrp]

I believe Rotaxs can be serviced at Stanton Sport Aviation (KSYN).
Unleaded auto gasoline without ethanol is available in Minnesota at
some gas stations, marinas, and airports, although not at Stanton.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-21, xyzzy > wrote:
> The O-200 also runs best on mogas. They have serious lead fouling
> problems.

erf.
Am I hosed, then?

> The cylinders on those small bore continentals aren't exactly known
> for their durability either.

Yeah, but you hear about O-200s routinely going well past TBO, to 2400 hours
at least (one guy claimed most fo the ones he knew about went to 3000 with
no problems, but I'm not sure how much I believe that). OTOH, the consensus
seems to be that Rotax 912s don't seem to want to make it past 800 or so,
never mind the 1500 rated TBO.

> That said, I would probably prefer an 0-200 over a Rotax mainly for
> the reason you cited -- the universality of its design, anyone can
> work on it, etc Just don't think it'll need less work than a Rotax.

I'm not so sure about that...but, either way, I know I can get it fixed just
about anywhere, unlike the Rotax.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-21, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 10:45 am, Jay Maynard >
> wrote:
>> I'm not buying an average aircraft. I'm buying one for me. :-)
> True, but you do have to consider resale value. Or maybe you don't?

I do, but I figure I'm not alone in not believing the Rotax hype.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" <> wrote

> I do, but I figure I'm not alone in not believing the Rotax hype.

I know it isn't fair to compare the Rotax 2-cycles to the Rotax 4-cycles,
but I can't help but it affect me.

I had some miserable experiences with a Sea-Do Rotax, and even with a new
long block, had just as many problems, and that was with the second one
(especially) being taken care of, carefully.

I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the power.

Period.

Cessna needs to get Continental to put that O-200 on a diet, and get the
weight down to what a Rotax 912 installation weighs.

I know that the O-200 may need more service in the long run, but I feel much
better about the possibilities of it continuing to run, until I pull the
mixture.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert Dorsey]

My hanger neigbor just sold his CTX because nobody in the general area
could work on the engine. It was sitting in his hanger for a couple
months with the cowling off with an engine problem that couldn't be
repaired. Not sure if it was parts or experience holding it up but he
wasn't happy the last time I talked to him (I didn't snoop too much
into the details).
Robert
KCGZ

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:46:34 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
>there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one (the
>AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
>nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.
>
>I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are lots of
>them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have been
>more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
>Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them, but I'm
>not at all sure they're for me.
>
>I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
>like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it if
>it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon of
>automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and that's
>supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).
>
>I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
>5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than 2500), and
>that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools. Yeah,
>it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
>between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field with
>a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.
>
>The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
>get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being delivered
>to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I didn't
>get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
>I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax isn't
>going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the engine is
>shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a replacement
>cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
>there aren't any.

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the power.
>
> Period.
>

Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-22, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Morgans,
>> I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the power.
>> Period.
> Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!

One theme I heard at Sebring was that Rotaxes never make it to TBO. OTOH,
I've also had people tell me they run forever. What's the difference? If
it's maintenance, how do I make sure mine gets the kind that lets it run
forever, instead of the kind that needs an overhaul at 800 hours?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-21, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> On the plus side, plugs cost $3/each and it only takes an hour to do plugs
> and oil.

Yeah, but will I have to take it to my nearest Rotax service center to get
that done?

> 2000 RPM idle is fine. 2500 is good for warmup.

The comment I got a few times was that idling below 2500 will eventually
result in a broken crank.

> Pluses for the Rotax are no thermal shock issues,

Why not?

> will allegedly run for 30 minutes at 50% power with either oil or coolant
> gone, and 5 gallon/hr cruise.

As opposed to 5.5 in the O-200. That's a negligible difference.

> No mixture control.

What leans the mixture at altitude?

> As for support, I've had no problems with my 912 so I don't have any
> direct experience. I know that the west coast FlightDesign distributer
> has worked closely with Rotax on some safety directive issues and has
> gotten parts and support quickly.

If I break a crank, or blow a jug, how long will it take to get parts? I was
told that people are waitiing 6 months for jugs because Rotax is putting all
it can make on new engines.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-22, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> No mixture control.
> What leans the mixture at altitude?

Also, no carb heat (on many aircraft). How do you deal with carb ice?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

For not liking them, you know very little about them.

> > Pluses for the Rotax are no thermal shock issues,
>
> Why not?

Water cooling buffers sudden temperature changes.


> > No mixture control.
>
> What leans the mixture at altitude?

The automatic built into the carb (which is attached to the engine in a way
that keeps it from icing up, hence no carb heat.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-22, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> For not liking them, you know very little about them.

I'm always willing to learn more. What I've heard so far doesn't endear them
to me, but if what I've heard is wrong, then I'll change my mind. It would
certainly make my aircraft search simpler; as has been noted, there are lots
more LSAs out there with Rotaxes than with O-200s.

I believe it's much preferable to appear ignorant and learn than it is to
not ask questions and get it wrong.

>> > Pluses for the Rotax are no thermal shock issues,
>> Why not?
> Water cooling buffers sudden temperature changes.

Effectively enough? I would guess so, but it'd be nice to be sure.

>> > No mixture control.
>> What leans the mixture at altitude?
> The automatic built into the carb (which is attached to the engine in a way
> that keeps it from icing up, hence no carb heat.

Okkay...so if no need for carb heat, why do some manufacturers include it?
For that matter, there's an article in the January Sport Pilot that talks
about, among other things, dealing with carb heat in the 912 by cycling the
throttle a few times.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Effectively enough? I would guess so, but it'd be nice to be sure.

Well, to answer that question you'd need to start with conclusive evidence that
there is such a thing as shock cooling in air-cooled engines. You won't find it
and many people having learned and forgotten more stuff about engines than I
will ever know doubt very much it exists. That siad, yes, it is commonly
accepted that shock cooling is not an issue in liquid-cooled engines.

> Okkay...so if no need for carb heat, why do some manufacturers include it?

Because some manufacturers chose to install the carb in a different way or in
different circumstances which are more prone to carb ice.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

I hit send to soon. Here are my thoughts from a German perspective:

- The Rotax 912/914 has been in service in Europe for decades now,
inpowered gliders and what's called ultralights here (the LSAs you see
in the US now). People are quite happy with it, the service history
seems completely normal.

- Germany is much smaller, so finding a service center can be much
easier than in the US. However, with the engine becoming more common,
mechanics in the US will have to adapt. They did here.

- The main problem I see is that the 912 doesn't really run well on
diet of Avgas exclusively. OTOH, auto gas contains increasing amounts
of ethanol - and while you can handle part of that with engine design,
choice of gasket and hose materials and so on, you cannot design away
the fact that ethanol will dissolve water which might freeze out at
high altitudes. That's something I would like Rotax to comment on
extensively.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
> I hit send to soon. Here are my thoughts from a German perspective:
>
> - The Rotax 912/914 has been in service in Europe for decades now,
> inpowered gliders and what's called ultralights here (the LSAs you see
> in the US now). People are quite happy with it, the service history
> seems completely normal.


Not to mention that it is in the Predator UAVs but they probable switch
out engines like we would change the oil.

[Jim Stewart]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-01-22, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>>> No mixture control.
>> What leans the mixture at altitude?
>
> Also, no carb heat (on many aircraft). How do you deal with carb ice?

My 912 has carb heat.

[Jim Stewart]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-01-21, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>> On the plus side, plugs cost $3/each and it only takes an hour to do plugs
>> and oil.
>
> Yeah, but will I have to take it to my nearest Rotax service center to get
> that done?

Nope, a one hour job to do it yourself.
I did mine a couple weeks ago. All you
need is a flat-blade screwdriver to get
the cowls off, a wrench for the plugs,
oil drain and magnetic plug and a pair
of safety wire pliers. Feeler gauges to
check the plug gaps and some anti-seize
compound doesn't hurt either.

>> 2000 RPM idle is fine. 2500 is good for warmup.
>
> The comment I got a few times was that idling below 2500 will eventually
> result in a broken crank.

My tach is red-banded below 1800 rpm, and yellow
between 1800 and 2000. Running below 1800
for extended time will shorten the life of the
reduction gears. Never heard anything about
broken cranks.

>> Pluses for the Rotax are no thermal shock issues,
>
> Why not?

Liquid coolant in the heads.

>> will allegedly run for 30 minutes at 50% power with either oil or coolant
>> gone, and 5 gallon/hr cruise.

> As opposed to 5.5 in the O-200. That's a negligible difference.

Cruise might be, but how long can the O-200
run without oil pressure? This, btw was a
major selling point for me. The common wisdom
with a 912 is that a coolant or lube failure
will still let you fly to a developed airport
and land. The engine might need a rebuild,
but it will keep running and develop at least
partial power.

>> No mixture control.
>
> What leans the mixture at altitude?

The carbs.

>> As for support, I've had no problems with my 912 so I don't have any
>> direct experience. I know that the west coast FlightDesign distributer
>> has worked closely with Rotax on some safety directive issues and has
>> gotten parts and support quickly.
>
> If I break a crank, or blow a jug, how long will it take to get parts? I was
> told that people are waitiing 6 months for jugs because Rotax is putting all
> it can make on new engines.

Can't answer to that. Everyone I know that
has a 912 has had no problems with it.

Call up Lockwood or Airwolf and ask them how
often they sell a crank or a cylinder. Then
ask how long it takes to get one.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans,
>
>> I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the
>> power.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>
> Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

As compared to this:

From AvWeb
Rotax Gearbox MSB Issued
Rotax has issued a manadatory service bulletin affecting specific 912 and
914-series engine gearboxes after a fault was found with the material used
in making the gears. Under severe operating conditions, it's possible for
gear teeth to break. The fix calls for replacement of the gears but the good
news is that Rotax is paying the shot. Removal and replacement of the
gearbox, the gear set and the installation of the new gears is all covered,
as is the freight. This is a significant test of Rotax's constantly
expanding service and supply network as its engines flood the mainstream
aviation network, particularly in the U.S., thanks to the burgeoning
popularity of the Light Sport Aircraft category. The MSB comes two weeks
before the Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Fla. where about 80 percent of
the aircraft will be Rotax-powered and their owners and manufacturers ready
to give feedback.
--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/22/08 09:48, Allen wrote:
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans,
>>
>>> I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the
>>> power.
>>>
>>> Period.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> As compared to this:
>
> From AvWeb
> Rotax Gearbox MSB Issued
> Rotax has issued a manadatory service bulletin affecting specific 912 and
> 914-series engine gearboxes after a fault was found with the material used
> in making the gears. Under severe operating conditions, it's possible for
> gear teeth to break. The fix calls for replacement of the gears but the good
> news is that Rotax is paying the shot. Removal and replacement of the
> gearbox, the gear set and the installation of the new gears is all covered,
> as is the freight. This is a significant test of Rotax's constantly
> expanding service and supply network as its engines flood the mainstream
> aviation network, particularly in the U.S., thanks to the burgeoning
> popularity of the Light Sport Aircraft category. The MSB comes two weeks
> before the Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Fla. where about 80 percent of
> the aircraft will be Rotax-powered and their owners and manufacturers ready
> to give feedback.

What's your point? Replacing the gears in the gearbox is going to be a whole
lot easier than replacing a crankshaft. Plus,the manufacturer is offering to
pay for it. This is not even in the same ball park as a crank recall (IMHO).


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Allen[_1_]]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/22/08 09:48, Allen wrote:
>> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Morgans,
>>>
>>>> I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the
>>>> power.
>>>>
>>>> Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>> As compared to this:
>>
>> From AvWeb
>> Rotax Gearbox MSB Issued
>> Rotax has issued a manadatory service bulletin affecting specific 912 and
>> 914-series engine gearboxes after a fault was found with the material
>> used
>> in making the gears. Under severe operating conditions, it's possible for
>> gear teeth to break. The fix calls for replacement of the gears but the
>> good
>> news is that Rotax is paying the shot. Removal and replacement of the
>> gearbox, the gear set and the installation of the new gears is all
>> covered,
>> as is the freight. This is a significant test of Rotax's constantly
>> expanding service and supply network as its engines flood the mainstream
>> aviation network, particularly in the U.S., thanks to the burgeoning
>> popularity of the Light Sport Aircraft category. The MSB comes two weeks
>> before the Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Fla. where about 80 percent of
>> the aircraft will be Rotax-powered and their owners and manufacturers
>> ready
>> to give feedback.
>
> What's your point? Replacing the gears in the gearbox is going to be a
> whole
> lot easier than replacing a crankshaft. Plus,the manufacturer is offering
> to
> pay for it. This is not even in the same ball park as a crank recall
> (IMHO).
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA

What's your point? If we are slinging stones there are plenty of targets.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[Mike Proctor]

> Yeah, but you hear about O-200s routinely going well past TBO, to 2400 hours
> at least (one guy claimed most fo the ones he knew about went to 3000 with
> no problems, but I'm not sure how much I believe that). OTOH, the consensus
> seems to be that Rotax 912s don't seem to want to make it past 800 or so,
> never mind the 1500 rated TBO.
>

My instructors put close to 1500hrs on a rotax in a year with just
routine maintenance. Last time I flew it, it had around 1480hrs. The
plane was a Evektor Sportstar.

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/22/08 10:23, Allen wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 01/22/08 09:48, Allen wrote:
>>> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Morgans,
>>>>
>>>>> I WILL NOT ever EVER put my but in the air with a Rotax providing the
>>>>> power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Period.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>>
>>> As compared to this:
>>>
>>> From AvWeb
>>> Rotax Gearbox MSB Issued
>>> Rotax has issued a manadatory service bulletin affecting specific 912 and
>>> 914-series engine gearboxes after a fault was found with the material
>>> used
>>> in making the gears. Under severe operating conditions, it's possible for
>>> gear teeth to break. The fix calls for replacement of the gears but the
>>> good
>>> news is that Rotax is paying the shot. Removal and replacement of the
>>> gearbox, the gear set and the installation of the new gears is all
>>> covered,
>>> as is the freight. This is a significant test of Rotax's constantly
>>> expanding service and supply network as its engines flood the mainstream
>>> aviation network, particularly in the U.S., thanks to the burgeoning
>>> popularity of the Light Sport Aircraft category. The MSB comes two weeks
>>> before the Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Fla. where about 80 percent of
>>> the aircraft will be Rotax-powered and their owners and manufacturers
>>> ready
>>> to give feedback.
>>
>> What's your point? Replacing the gears in the gearbox is going to be a
>> whole
>> lot easier than replacing a crankshaft. Plus,the manufacturer is offering
>> to
>> pay for it. This is not even in the same ball park as a crank recall
>> (IMHO).
>>
>
> What's your point? If we are slinging stones there are plenty of targets.
>

Didn't you read what I wrote? Here it is again if it helps you:

Replacing the gears in the gearbox is going to be a whole lot easier than
replacing a crankshaft. Plus,the manufacturer is offering to pay for it.
This is not even in the same ball park as a crank recall (IMHO).



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" <> wrote

> Yeah, mass crankshaft recalls and mid-time overhauls are just great!

I believe I stated my position quite clearly, if you had taken it all in
context.

I know that the "big two" engine makers have some problems, but they are
likely, (IMHO) more likely to keep running when compared to Rotax engines.

While a recall on crankshafts and premature needed overhauls are a pain in
the wallet and the butt, very few engines have stopped producing power in
the air.

As far as massive recalls go, how about the redrive gear recalls for Rotax?
It seems everyone has problems that require recalls, and Rotax is not
immune.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote

> One theme I heard at Sebring was that Rotaxes never make it to TBO. OTOH,
> I've also had people tell me they run forever. What's the difference? If
> it's maintenance, how do I make sure mine gets the kind that lets it run
> forever, instead of the kind that needs an overhaul at 800 hours?

One thing that I think is vital, is to use exactly the oil that the owner's
manual says to use, even down to the brands, so if it says Rotax brand, pay
the difference, and use it. I know of one major problem in a Rotax because
a brand besides Rotax was used.

Also, read all of the owner's manual, and all service bulletins, and follow
every little nuance, exactly. The little picky things that you would not
think matter, make all of the difference for a Rotax.

That is the biggest kicker, I think. If treated exactly right, down to
dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" many have found the 912 family of
engines to do quite well. The problem is that sometimes things conspire to
keep all the t's crossed, whether it be because of an important
preoccupation of flying an airplane, or things on the ground not being done
the right way, be it from ignorance, or not enough attention to detail.

I have a feeling that time will tell what the possible pitfalls are, with so
many Rotax engines being put online in the LSA's. I just am not in favor of
being the one to be part of the test.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote

> Replacing the gears in the gearbox is going to be a whole lot easier than
> replacing a crankshaft. Plus,the manufacturer is offering to pay for it.
> This is not even in the same ball park as a crank recall (IMHO).

How easy it is to do a repair is not an important issue, in this
discussion, IMHO. If you stay alive is what should be important, and the
only thing. Both could cause a total power failure, and if it happened at
the wrong time, it could be fatal. Isn't that the ONLY thing that is worth
talking about? It is to me. Everything else is chicken ****.

I have to say that it is noticed and appreciated that Rotax is willing to
pay for the repairs. That should have been the case for any manufacturer
that drops the ball on any issue like the two being discussed here. Those
that did not fully pay should be ashamed of themselves.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> but they are
> likely, (IMHO) more likely to keep running when compared to Rotax engines.
>

Yes, I did read that part of your opinion, in context. Can you provide the
numbers to even remotely support that statement? I don't think so. Not by a
long shot.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

As you said "nearly everyone else building an LSA period" uses Rotax
912s. That fact alone tells you that in a very short time of a couple
years or less every airport will have 912s actively flying if not
already. There must be a hundred or more different model LSAs selling
and selling and selling so 912s will be the most common light engine
over any other. I doubt mechanics will choose to lose all that
potential income by not working on 912s. I read more and more in the
Light-Sport Aircraft group about pilots that find flying too expensive
so they are moving to LSA. Others say they don't want to risk losing
their medical so they just start flying LSA. What ever the reasons are
more and more 912 powered planes are flying so more mechanics are
getting exposure to the Rotax. I've been in the UL and now LSA
flying for twenty three years and don't see anything growing faster
then the LSA side of aviation. Theory says they should only get
better and they work great now. Most of the people on the LSA group
fly with Rotax so ask them some questions.

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/



On Jan 20, 11:46*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> I spent a day and a half at Sebring looking at aircraft. As I expected,
> there are only a few that fit what I'm looking for. Of those, only one (the
> AMD Zodiac XLi) uses a Continental engine. Everyone else (and, indeed,
> nearly everyone else building an LSA period) uses Rotax 912s.
>
> I'm not fond of the idea of flying behind a Rotax. I know there are lots of
> them out there (although I doubt what one guy told me, that there have been
> more flight hours on Rotax engines than there have been on Lycomings and
> Continentals put together), and I know that lots of folks like them, but I'm
> not at all sure they're for me.
>
> I live in Fairmont, Minnesota, a town of 11000 50 miles from anything. I'd
> like the local A&P to be able to do maintenance on the engine, and fix it if
> it breaks. I also need to feed it a steady diet of 100LL, as every gallon of
> automobile gas sold in Minnesota must have at least 10% ethanol (and that's
> supposed to go up to 20% in 2010).
>
> I'm told the Rotax runs fast (red line on the Tecnam Sierra I sat in was
> 5500 RPM, and supposedly everyone recommends idling no lower than 2500), and
> that it has very tight tolerances, and demands lots of special tools. Yeah,
> it's just different, not necessarily worse - but there's a difference
> between that and an O-200, where if I find myself at some random field with
> a mechanic, I can be confident he can at least get it running.
>
> The Zodiac's seating looks weird, although I'm reserving judgment until I
> get to actually sit in one (the one they had at the show was being delivered
> to a customer there today, so they didn't let anyone sit in it, and I didn't
> get to go take a demo flight in the one they had there for that purpose).
> I'd still like other options, but unless I'm convinced that the Rotax isn't
> going to find itself at some point sitting in the hangar while the engine is
> shipped off to another state for repair (or, worse, waiting on a replacement
> cylinder that never comes because they're all being put on new engines),
> there aren't any.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > writes:
>Jay,
>
>> Effectively enough? I would guess so, but it'd be nice to be sure.
>
>Well, to answer that question you'd need to start with conclusive evidence that
>there is such a thing as shock cooling in air-cooled engines. You won't find it
>and many people having learned and forgotten more stuff about engines than I
>will ever know doubt very much it exists. That siad, yes, it is commonly
>accepted that shock cooling is not an issue in liquid-cooled engines.

It was my understanding that the Rotax had liquid cooling of the cylinder
heads, and air cooling of the cylinders. That wouold leave something to
shock cool.

Perhaps these engines are less sensitive than a tubercharged TIO-550...

Alan

[Jim Stewart]

Alan wrote:
> In article > writes:
>> Jay,
>>
>>> Effectively enough? I would guess so, but it'd be nice to be sure.
>> Well, to answer that question you'd need to start with conclusive evidence that
>> there is such a thing as shock cooling in air-cooled engines. You won't find it
>> and many people having learned and forgotten more stuff about engines than I
>> will ever know doubt very much it exists. That siad, yes, it is commonly
>> accepted that shock cooling is not an issue in liquid-cooled engines.
>
> It was my understanding that the Rotax had liquid cooling of the cylinder
> heads, and air cooling of the cylinders. That wouold leave something to
> shock cool.

Rotax 4-stroke owners, of which I'm one, are
not generally concerned with shock cooling.
I've probably done 50 simulated emergency
landings from altitude with no issue or concern.

My off-the-cuff engineering evaluation would be
that since the cylinders, being cylindrical, will
expand and contract in a symmetrical fashion,
minimizing the stress.


> Perhaps these engines are less sensitive than a tubercharged TIO-550...
>
> Alan