Rotax engines- LSA's hope, or curse?

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?

"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

"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.

"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

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.

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