Light Sport Aircraft survey

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote

More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Good looking plane. It should do well.

Want a suggestion? Offer it with something other than a Rotax or Jabaru,
even if it costs more. I'm just one person, but I won't buy anything
with
either of those choices.
--
Jim in NC

In article , Lakeview Bill wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?

I would suspect lack of support from local GA facilities - the 4 stroke
Rotaxes and the Jabiru are not particularly common in the US so few
mechanics will be familiar with them. Other than that, they are decent
reliable engines.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

In article , Lakeview Bill wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


I would suspect lack of support from local GA facilities - the 4 stroke
Rotaxes and the Jabiru are not particularly common in the US so few
mechanics will be familiar with them. Other than that, they are decent
reliable engines.


Those engines seem to have a bad reputation in the U.S. They are seen
as cheapo engines for people who can't afford "real" engines from cont
or lyc. One flight school I know of had diamond katanas with Rotax
engines and only got 900 hours out of them despite regular use. I don't
know how typical that is, but you often hear stories like that. Maybe
it's the Avgas we use over here (it certainly isn't good for small
continentals either, but like you said those can be fixed by just about
anyone). Not having owned or maintained an engine myself I don't know
but I do know their reputation is not good here. For example one of the
new companies (I think it was Liberty) was initially going to use a
Rotax and got no interest, changed to a Continental and now are taken
more seriously.

Those engines seem to have a bad reputation in the U.S. They are seen as
cheapo engines for people who can't afford "real" engines from cont or
lyc. One flight school I know of had diamond katanas with Rotax engines
and only got 900 hours out of them despite regular use. I don't know how
typical that is, but you often hear stories like that. Maybe it's the
Avgas we use over here (it certainly isn't good for small continentals
either, but like you said those can be fixed by just about anyone). Not
having owned or maintained an engine myself I don't know but I do know
their reputation is not good here. For example one of the new companies
(I think it was Liberty) was initially going to use a Rotax and got no
interest, changed to a Continental and now are taken more seriously.


I am fairly familiar with the Diamond/Rotax issues. The engines are not
bad. Whoever said that there are support issues was spot on. Whether this
will change with Sport Pilot remains to be seen.

There are several aspects of the Rotax engines that the average Lyc/con AP
will set precisely backwards without proper training and support. Neither
of which has been forthcoming from Bombardier.

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..
Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?

How shall I count the ways?

They require their oil, their oil filters, their everything. You pay dearly
for this.

They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
right, to be even close to reliable.

See above. If everything is not just right, they are not reliable. I know
the 912 and 914's are not 2 strokes, but what pieces the 2 strokes are. I
know, some will testify that they have never had a minute's problem, but
there are more out there that have. My gut, and my but says to not trust
them. I don't and I won't. Gut means a llot, to me.

They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


How shall I count the ways?

They require their oil, their oil filters, their everything. You pay dearly
for this.

They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
right, to be even close to reliable.

See above. If everything is not just right, they are not reliable. I know
the 912 and 914's are not 2 strokes, but what pieces the 2 strokes are. I
know, some will testify that they have never had a minute's problem, but
there are more out there that have. My gut, and my but says to not trust
them. I don't and I won't. Gut means a llot, to me.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the Rotax 2-strokes here,
it's just not informed. I've owned 6 of them over the years (just now
got #7 delivered a few weeks ago), 5 503's and a 2 447's. I have
hundreds of hours in front of/underneath Rotax 2-strokes at this point
(500 hours as a rough guess) so I've gotten to know some of their
strengths and weaknesses.

The chief strength of the Rotax 2-strokes is the field experience
available. We know how to install them, prop them, jet them, load them,
maintain them and what parts and peripherals to use with them. This is
the _#1_ strength of the Rotax - it's not so much that it's such a
superior design (it's not much more than a snomobile engine with a
beefed up bottom end and slightly different metallurgy in certain places
like the pistons), but again it's field experience we have available for
setup, installation and running that really makes them reliable.

They are also the only 2-stroke on the market that can really do
continuous high power for hundreds and hundreds of hours without failure
(provided it's installed, setup and run right, of course).

The chief weakness is probably the same as for all 2-strokes; they can't
handle a lot of abuse such as lean running, underpropping and so on.
They also require more frequent maintenance (typically for leaking seals).

But the truth is, the rotax 2-strokes are very reliable, long lasting
engines.

I know a lot less about the 912, since I've never owned one, so can't
comment on those (I don't know of any rampant reliability problems with
them, though, from the fairly numerous locals who fly them).

They

don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

I kind of like the scream of a 2-stroke rotax, but that might just be
because I'm used to it. OTOH, the coolest sounding is the merlin in the
P51.....

LS
N646F

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to
a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

Yeah Jim. Know just what you mean. There I was, out in the desert slogging
along in my "manly" sounding Ducati when a rice-burning Yamazuki screamed
past me. . . again. Three 33-1/3 mile laps. When I pulled into the pits, the
winners had already packed up and gone home. But that Ducati still sounded
cool. POS!

Rich "Pass the Sake" S.

"Rich S." wrote

When I pulled into the pits, the
winners had already packed up and gone home. But that Ducati still sounded
cool. POS!

Yeah, but you were doing it in style. Cool counts!

It is already a given that sport planes are not going to be fast. Might as
well get the cool quotient up there! g
--
Jim in NC

In article , Morgans wrote:
They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
right, to be even close to reliable.

That certainly doesn't hold true on the 4-strokes. The 4-stroke Rotax
(914UL, the turbosupercharged engine) seems to be pretty robust. In
particular, temperature control is FAR better because it's mainly
thermostatically liquid cooled, so there are fewer concerns over the
engine cooling too fast in a descent or overheating in a climb.

They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

They sound manly enough to me. They certainly FEEL manly enough when you
push the throttle all the way through to get max boost from the turbo.
Once in cruise, getting 50nm/gal (no wind) in the Europa is nice too.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote

In
particular, temperature control is FAR better because it's mainly
thermostatically liquid cooled, so there are fewer concerns over the
engine cooling too fast in a descent or overheating in a climb.

Are you 100% positive about the thermostat being in a 914? I know it is
water cooled, but I could have sworn that someone recently said (in a
different thread) that there was no thermostat.

I'm glad you feel warm and fuzzy flying a Rotax. The 912 and 914 could be
great, but with all of the other (IMHO) pieces of work Rotax has produced, I
have no faith in anything with that name of it. Sorry, but not my butt!
--
Jim in NC