In rec.aviation.owning Larry Dighera wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
: wrote in
: :

: I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
: too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.

: Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
: and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
: inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

: In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
: engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
: is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
: require more frequent maintenance?

It's a *very* small displacement to generate the kind of power that it is... 1.35 liters, 5800
RPM, 10.5:1 CR to me is "high-strung."
http://www.kodiakbs.com/engines/912ULS.htm

I'm thinking something of a bit larger displacement, a little less RPM, with a bigger discrepency
between max power and continuous power... in other words, a bit more derated. I realize that this would
come with a weight penalty which is a bigger deal for the max-gross limited LSA. That should allow for a
longer TBO.

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************