If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
January/February 2004 issue of Southern California Soaring is on-line | [email protected] | Soaring | 8 | January 4th 04 09:37 PM |
Soaring magazine | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 24 | November 14th 03 03:24 PM |
SSA Soaring Magazine | Mel Eastburn | Soaring | 0 | September 29th 03 12:03 PM |
Aug. Soaring Magazine (USA) | Nolaminar | Soaring | 6 | August 2nd 03 01:54 AM |
"Soaring" magazine on CD-ROM like EAA | Burt Compton | Soaring | 5 | July 12th 03 10:20 PM |