Rotax Engine Reliability! French Helicopter Builder/Pilot Matthieu De Quillacq hand flew his CH-7 Kompress Helicopter from his home base in France to a US Airshow! His longest overwater flight was 12+ hours, using the immense, carbon fibre fuel tank positioned in the P2 location! He hand flew all the way to the USA, with his Rotax engine humming along like a ultra reliable sewing machine! In an aircraft, reliability is everything, and Rotax get even better with every iteration. I personally wouldn't have carbs as I never liked them as a motorcycle mechanic, and certlainly wouldn't want them in a Helicopter engine installation, particularly Bing carbs, which, on our Police motorcycles, were simply awful. A modern, lightweight, relilable, fuel injected engine with dual redundancy where applicable is about as good as it gets for me. Great video!
I saw the Frenchman's interview @ Oshkosh. Blew my mind. Went by himself in a kit built tandem 2-seater Kompress. I always wondered if he made it back home. It's impressive when Porto's Sea Risen Rotax powered plane crossed the Atlantic. But doing it by hand in a helicopter is crazy brave off-the-charts.
@raymond3803 It certainly is! He's an incredible person and an amazing Pilot, can you imagine the self discipline necessary to hand fly your tiny Helicopter on a 12 hour over water flight! I consider him to be one of the most inspirational Pilot's in the world!
I attended a week of training at Lockwood a couple of years ago and can highly recommend it. I am building an S-21 which has a 915iS mounted on it. Even though I don’t use the Rotax training professionally, it was excellent background to help be design a safe installation of the 915 in my airplane and to maintain it well once in operation.
Nice Airplanes, probably much safer than a motorcycle. Well ya know. I just acquired that Over 70 status this year and so that included that 95' Honda Nighthawk cb750 motorcycle. ($600 barn find from West Virginia) ~ Got it running, but those carburetors. Four of those. Maybe I'll just go along with your "Build Challenge" for the rehab on those. I do like the concept. The way that I work too. One day at a time. Oh yea‼. New Hampshire.
With a bank of four vacuum gauges, balancing the carbs on your Honda should be a piece of cake! As a motorcycle mechanic I really enjoyed balancing carbs as the before and after was so profound! It is a remarkably simple process once you have a set of vacuum gauges and carb tools. You Tube will probably have videos for your specific motorcycle. Good Luck!
One thing Dean didn’t mention that bit me when signing up for their classes is that it is a two-step process. I forget the fine details now, but I signed up online and thought I was all set, but apparently the online signup doesn’t actually reserve you a spot in their class. You actually need to call them to REALLY get a spot reserved. I learned that the hard way and had to reschedule a later date as my initial preference had some of the classes already booked full before I found out that I really didn’t have a spot reserved. Maybe they have since fixed this, but this was the case in 2022.
Regarding swift fuel in aircraft engines, like Lycoming, did the engineers figure out what was causing the valve recession problems with burning unleaded like swift fuel?
Yes! Yes! When Rotax can mass-produce a liquid-cooled engine with a radiator, dry sump pump, dry sump oil tank, gear reduction drive, oil cooler. (Things a Lycoming does not have) With 20 more HP than a Lycoming. That's 20 pounds lighter than a Lycoming. And the same TBO. What's not to love about a Lycoming? No doubt, you voted for Harris.
From what I've gathered, the fuel and oil systems on Rotax can't do negative G for any significant amount of time. The fuel injected variants should have enough fuel in the lines for a brief periods of -G. But speaking of Gs, the RV-7/8 are rated to +6/-3 Gs at their aerobatic gross weights. I doubt Lockwood et al designed the new engine mount and cowling to those loads. The RV-9 is designed for utility category loads (+4.4/-1.75 Gs) under 1600 lbs and standard category loads (+3.8/-1.5 G) above that. Might be fine, but do some engineering work before you become the test pilot
How about more on models an lead times? We know from your Lycoming video that they are 2 years out. How about Rotax? Plus this rpm issue sounds like a major design flaw.
The RV9 was designed for the O-320. The Rotax 916 will find its niche when a new generation of aircraft emerge that were designed for it. A Rotax powered RV9 is an interesting idea, but I doubt the market for it is quite limited.
@@philipritson8821 "A Rotax powered RV9 is an interesting idea, but I doubt the market for it is quite limited." I don't think you meant what you typed. I suspect you meant, "A Rotax powered RV9 is an interesting idea, but the market for it is quite limited." I think you'd be surprised how much demand there would be for RVs with higher power Rotax engines. Air cooled engines with no turbos and overly expensive are no match for a lightweight, liquid cooled, FADEC controlled, turbocharged engine at a lower price. same HP, lower weight, lower drag, lower cost, etc.
@@Max__apex Are you ok? :) that sentence was a little messed up but I know what you mean. And yes I am gathering the insight to do it. It's not that difficult and indeed metal 3D printing can greatly simplify a lot of the production. You have to size the compressors and turbines right, get the blade angles and shapes right, it's not super trivial but let's say it's been done before and there are better tools now than ever. And once designed it's not exotic to manufacture. Many of the fans in the size of engine GA needs would be CD size. Something you can palm. The simplest design has 3 small rotors and one larger fan. The larger fan might be the width of a piece of paper. It's basically a car turbo or an angry space heater. It can be surprisingly simple. Indeed much simpler than a piston engine. If you look at a specific jet engine and think that looks complicated keep in mind spacex' latest engine simplification and compare it to other engines. You can also look in the gear well of a typical airliner and see an incredible mess that is the result of just less than brilliant engineers piling on. It could be drastically cleaner. Look in the avionics bay of an airliner. It's a data warehouse of junk because idiots made it. All that could be in the cockpit dash and the cockpit wiring could be 50x simpler at the same time. A jet engine is fans blowing air into a burn chamber that blows on other fans. That's pretty much what it is. The compressor just has to provide a pressure a bit higher than the resulting combustion that is then let out of a larger opening than the compressor air came in. That's how it force multiplies and keeps the direction of flow. Airspeed changes effective pressure so it's a bit more complex than that but basically. Say you compress air to 10bar and then burn fuel and let it out at 9 bar pressure. And surprisingly fuel can burn super fast if you spray it in hot compressed air. Small electric motor spins the inner shaft up a little for starting and sparkplugs ignite it. The electric motor can double as the generator. Because the shaft spins so fast a tiny electric motor can produce a lot of power. the power density in an electric motor is proportional to the rpm. it's only a matter of when it flies apart. And some air resistance
@@Max__apex Sherlock, I presume. What are you doing other than talking here? how is your talk so magic... or just maybe you are a status quo naysayer and not actually thinking
The problem with the conventional engines like lycoming and continental is their still old technology. I fly a rotax have for many hundreds of hours two strokes and four strokes their all pretty simple all carbureted the bing carburetors are easy to access takes about two minutes and a screwdriver to get them off but which one would I rather work on in the field…… probably a lycoming or continental just because of their simplicity.
I fail to understand how Rotax can build this amazing super light modern engine but after all the time they have been in the market they still haven't figured out how to build a gearbox that can run at all rpms without causing issues. Viking has that part figured out. Why doesn't Rotax modernize the gearbox? Thats not that difficult. It cost them lots of engine sales when builders are on the fence between a legacy direct drive and a rotax. The carb sync concept is another area that could be remedied with a single carb induction. Much simpler and if done properly wouldn't sacrifice any performance.
Viking does not have a clutch in their gearbox. If you have a prop strike the engine is gone most likely. Plus don't trust anything viking does, they are dodgy.
@chippyjohn1 agree to disagree sir. U are correct about the clutch. I dont plan to have a prop strike. As for Viking, they set the standard for customer service. I dont personally knowing anyone that's had a bad experience or that has been treated wrong and I am familiar with most of them. If you knew the history and the facts you would not call them doggy. Best company in aviation right now period and the record prices that. It's ok if you are one of those automotive conversion haters . They produce the best gearbox on the market. Gearbox allows us to swing bigger props for more torque . Fantastic for stol ops. I really like the weight advantage of the Rotax but the pilots I know have problems with them quite regularly and they are just way too expensive for something that many problems. I've been flying for 30 years and I've never seen anyone have a prop strike. I learned with the standard direct drive 4 cylinder like most pilots and learned at an early age to take care of the prop. That clutch is the weak point. I deal with gearboxes daily in my profession and that is true of all of them. The ones with just gears dont give any trouble as long as they are oiled properly. All large commercial engines rely on gears to time the engines because gear-timing is the most reliable in hard use industrial applications. I will be the first to admit, if I hit the lottery I would consider the new Rotax 916 for its power to weight ratio but 70 grand is just ridiculous. Plus you cant just go get one. Rotax is manufactured by the largest engine company in the entire world and theres no excuse to charge as much as they do other than they rape customers because its "aviation ". Absurd!
@richardturner6278 I'm all for automotive engines. I prefer and use them myself. I've watched Vikings videos and seen their website plus read other people's experiences after I became suspicious of them. Honesty and integrity are worth money. The dyno graphs on their website are made up for one. He contradicts himself in videos, attention to detail of their product is low and the way they went into administration taking peoples money then suddenly had finances to start another business is terrible. I don't see much use for a clutch in the gearbox, but some people do. Rotax does not also have much of a flywheel which effects low rpm running smoothly.
@@richardturner6278all fine justifications for someone who is cheap. There are zero gearbox limitations or probables during normal operations on a 915/916. Stay away from Viking. They are combative and argue back with everyone and their turbo engines aren’t altitude compensating and Peter off like a NA engine.
- Austrian. - Liquid cooled. - High RPM requires a gearbox. - Relatively new (well newer than the O-200 and O-320). - Underpowered and too light for an RV7/RV8. - Several generations of air maintained engineers have not had over 70 years experience servicing them. - Run best on unleaded automotive gas, which may not be available.at your run of the mill airfield. It think that covers it.
I learned a thing or 2 about the almighty Rotax, mostly that I'd like avoid it if I can. Use mogas but increase idle, use no lead but add lead sub for valves & to "just blow the dust" into the air we breathe. Yikes. I hear Austria's other great, KTM is also doing nicely....
Replacement for a 320 or 360 Lycoming Ha ha ha. OK sure. 915iS /916iS are rated at 135 hp / 137 hp continuous. Lycs rated at 100% T/O power all day, 180 hp. LOOK AT THAT SCOOP., longer nose equals more drag than an air-cooled engine. Cost? A Rotax is more than a Lycoming. Ever burb a Rotax? Pain. Let's see side by side RV-9 fly-offs with this Rotax powered RV-9 vs. Lyc powered RV-9. PLEASE. It is all talk until you get data. Cost? A Rotax costs MORE than a Lycoming. Yep turbo is nice. Guess what? Lycoming's can, have been and are turbo'ed for 60 years. Not new.
You’re a cranky idiot. A 916 is 80LBs lighter and paired with a CS will match any 180hp FP dinosaur engine from SL to 5,000 then walk away and do it all 1gph less. It won’t rust in 6 months from shitty metallurgy. Shock cooking, CHT’s, leaning the list goes on. And no you can’t easily find a turbo and throw it on any old legacy engine.
Too much automotive mentality has gone into the design of the Rotax engine. With a Rotax, a pilot has to take too many parts aloft when compared to a Lycoming and a Continental engine. Too many parts means that there are too many things to go wrong in flight. Why take coolant and its associated parts aloft when air can do the cooling job-?
I guess all of the automotive mentality is why modern cars are not only more efficient, but also far more reliable than older cars with carburetors, old ignition systems, etc. And if you look at Ron Wanttaja’s statistics, you will see that Rotax engines are very reliable with the 912 being MORE reliable than the Continental O-200.
What's the point of unleaded fuel ? Early 70 ' s , I know the case and what was said . The point is , our g o v has been up to no good for a long time . Does anyone remember the fuel crisis of the early 70,s ?
It is pretty well established that lead isn’t the best thing for humans to breathe or ingest. That isn’t just government propaganda. And lead causes other issues such as fouling of spark plugs, much faster contamination of oil, etc. Engines that can run on unleaded fuel are just superior to engines running on leaded gas in every possible way.
Useful video , nothing is more valuable than seeing and listening straight from the people who works on these engines on a daily basis .
Excellent presentation
I have attended 2 Rotax Training sessions at Lockwood. Dean is a great teacher!
Dean is a great instructor. His course is great to take even if you never turn a wrench on your engine.
Very nicely Done! You guys are Great 👍🏻 Thank you 😊🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Rotax Engine Reliability!
French Helicopter Builder/Pilot Matthieu De Quillacq hand flew his CH-7 Kompress Helicopter from his home base in France to a US Airshow!
His longest overwater flight was 12+ hours, using the immense, carbon fibre fuel tank positioned in the P2 location!
He hand flew all the way to the USA, with his Rotax engine humming along like a ultra reliable sewing machine!
In an aircraft, reliability is everything, and Rotax get even better with every iteration.
I personally wouldn't have carbs as I never liked them as a motorcycle mechanic, and certlainly wouldn't want them in a Helicopter engine installation, particularly Bing carbs, which, on our Police motorcycles, were simply awful.
A modern, lightweight, relilable, fuel injected engine with dual redundancy where applicable is about as good as it gets for me.
Great video!
I saw the Frenchman's interview @ Oshkosh. Blew my mind. Went by himself in a kit built tandem 2-seater Kompress. I always wondered if he made it back home. It's impressive when Porto's Sea Risen Rotax powered plane crossed the Atlantic. But doing it by hand in a helicopter is crazy brave off-the-charts.
@raymond3803 It certainly is!
He's an incredible person and an amazing Pilot, can you imagine the self discipline necessary to hand fly your tiny Helicopter on a 12 hour over water flight!
I consider him to be one of the most inspirational Pilot's in the world!
@@felixcat9318 No! I can't imagine doing that.
Did both courses, great information and people. Always answers the phone…
Thanks for reviewing these engines! Great info!
Excellent video brother I loved it because I fly a Lockwood super Drifter 912
I attended a week of training at Lockwood a couple of years ago and can highly recommend it. I am building an S-21 which has a 915iS mounted on it. Even though I don’t use the Rotax training professionally, it was excellent background to help be design a safe installation of the 915 in my airplane and to maintain it well once in operation.
👍👍👍
Nice Airplanes, probably much safer than a motorcycle. Well ya know. I just acquired that Over 70 status this year and so that included that 95' Honda Nighthawk cb750 motorcycle. ($600 barn find from West Virginia) ~ Got it running, but those carburetors. Four of those. Maybe I'll just go along with your "Build Challenge" for the rehab on those. I do like the concept. The way that I work too. One day at a time. Oh yea‼. New Hampshire.
With a bank of four vacuum gauges, balancing the carbs on your Honda should be a piece of cake!
As a motorcycle mechanic I really enjoyed balancing carbs as the before and after was so profound!
It is a remarkably simple process once you have a set of vacuum gauges and carb tools.
You Tube will probably have videos for your specific motorcycle.
Good Luck!
One thing Dean didn’t mention that bit me when signing up for their classes is that it is a two-step process. I forget the fine details now, but I signed up online and thought I was all set, but apparently the online signup doesn’t actually reserve you a spot in their class. You actually need to call them to REALLY get a spot reserved. I learned that the hard way and had to reschedule a later date as my initial preference had some of the classes already booked full before I found out that I really didn’t have a spot reserved. Maybe they have since fixed this, but this was the case in 2022.
Regarding swift fuel in aircraft engines, like Lycoming, did the engineers figure out what was causing the valve recession problems with burning unleaded like swift fuel?
I LOVE Lycoming❤
Yes! Yes! When Rotax can mass-produce a liquid-cooled engine with a radiator, dry sump pump, dry sump oil tank, gear reduction drive, oil cooler. (Things a Lycoming does not have) With 20 more HP than a Lycoming. That's 20 pounds lighter than a Lycoming. And the same TBO. What's not to love about a Lycoming? No doubt, you voted for Harris.
Do you have a video on the Rotax 582?
It's not available new anymore
What plane is that on the thumbnail
Van's RV-9
Would the same 916 fwf work for RV-7 and RV-8 for CG? (Edge has answer to more hp.)
From what I've gathered, the fuel and oil systems on Rotax can't do negative G for any significant amount of time. The fuel injected variants should have enough fuel in the lines for a brief periods of -G. But speaking of Gs, the RV-7/8 are rated to +6/-3 Gs at their aerobatic gross weights. I doubt Lockwood et al designed the new engine mount and cowling to those loads. The RV-9 is designed for utility category loads (+4.4/-1.75 Gs) under 1600 lbs and standard category loads (+3.8/-1.5 G) above that. Might be fine, but do some engineering work before you become the test pilot
I would like to see the results with the Moped Motor and a GEARBOX with a real Propeller ??
Sunoco, Shell would be ok but I wouldn’t buy fuel from circle K, doesn’t circle K have Shell fuel?
How about more on models an lead times? We know from your Lycoming video that they are 2 years out. How about Rotax? Plus this rpm issue sounds like a major design flaw.
Why are there carbs on these engines?
Carb or fuel injected.
Rotax engines come in both flavours.
feels like a new RV fuselage would be better. Move the cockpit/baggage forward a bit, so you don't have to move the engine as far forward.
The RV9 was designed for the O-320.
The Rotax 916 will find its niche when a new generation of aircraft emerge that were designed for it.
A Rotax powered RV9 is an interesting idea, but I doubt the market for it is quite limited.
@@philipritson8821 "A Rotax powered RV9 is an interesting idea, but I doubt the market for it is quite limited."
I don't think you meant what you typed. I suspect you meant, "A Rotax powered RV9 is an interesting idea, but the market for it is quite limited."
I think you'd be surprised how much demand there would be for RVs with higher power Rotax engines. Air cooled engines with no turbos and overly expensive are no match for a lightweight, liquid cooled, FADEC controlled, turbocharged engine at a lower price.
same HP, lower weight, lower drag, lower cost, etc.
Side note, Rotax could probably fairly easily make a decent turbofan jet engine for light planes but they don't have the vision for it
U feeling ok ?
Do you even that a drop of idea the expertise toodesign a turbine engine.
@@Max__apex Are you ok? :) that sentence was a little messed up but I know what you mean. And yes I am gathering the insight to do it. It's not that difficult and indeed metal 3D printing can greatly simplify a lot of the production. You have to size the compressors and turbines right, get the blade angles and shapes right, it's not super trivial but let's say it's been done before and there are better tools now than ever. And once designed it's not exotic to manufacture. Many of the fans in the size of engine GA needs would be CD size. Something you can palm. The simplest design has 3 small rotors and one larger fan. The larger fan might be the width of a piece of paper. It's basically a car turbo or an angry space heater. It can be surprisingly simple. Indeed much simpler than a piston engine. If you look at a specific jet engine and think that looks complicated keep in mind spacex' latest engine simplification and compare it to other engines. You can also look in the gear well of a typical airliner and see an incredible mess that is the result of just less than brilliant engineers piling on. It could be drastically cleaner. Look in the avionics bay of an airliner. It's a data warehouse of junk because idiots made it. All that could be in the cockpit dash and the cockpit wiring could be 50x simpler at the same time.
A jet engine is fans blowing air into a burn chamber that blows on other fans. That's pretty much what it is. The compressor just has to provide a pressure a bit higher than the resulting combustion that is then let out of a larger opening than the compressor air came in. That's how it force multiplies and keeps the direction of flow. Airspeed changes effective pressure so it's a bit more complex than that but basically. Say you compress air to 10bar and then burn fuel and let it out at 9 bar pressure. And surprisingly fuel can burn super fast if you spray it in hot compressed air. Small electric motor spins the inner shaft up a little for starting and sparkplugs ignite it. The electric motor can double as the generator. Because the shaft spins so fast a tiny electric motor can produce a lot of power. the power density in an electric motor is proportional to the rpm. it's only a matter of when it flies apart. And some air resistance
@@DanFrederiksen
Talking is possible ….. doing is a different story
@@Max__apex Sherlock, I presume. What are you doing other than talking here? how is your talk so magic... or just maybe you are a status quo naysayer and not actually thinking
The problem with the conventional engines like lycoming and continental is their still old technology. I fly a rotax have for many hundreds of hours two strokes and four strokes their all pretty simple all carbureted the bing carburetors are easy to access takes about two minutes and a screwdriver to get them off but which one would I rather work on in the field…… probably a lycoming or continental just because of their simplicity.
I fail to understand how Rotax can build this amazing super light modern engine but after all the time they have been in the market they still haven't figured out how to build a gearbox that can run at all rpms without causing issues. Viking has that part figured out. Why doesn't Rotax modernize the gearbox? Thats not that difficult. It cost them lots of engine sales when builders are on the fence between a legacy direct drive and a rotax. The carb sync concept is another area that could be remedied with a single carb induction. Much simpler and if done properly wouldn't sacrifice any performance.
Viking does not have a clutch in their gearbox. If you have a prop strike the engine is gone most likely. Plus don't trust anything viking does, they are dodgy.
@chippyjohn1 agree to disagree sir. U are correct about the clutch. I dont plan to have a prop strike. As for Viking, they set the standard for customer service. I dont personally knowing anyone that's had a bad experience or that has been treated wrong and I am familiar with most of them. If you knew the history and the facts you would not call them doggy. Best company in aviation right now period and the record prices that. It's ok if you are one of those automotive conversion haters . They produce the best gearbox on the market. Gearbox allows us to swing bigger props for more torque . Fantastic for stol ops. I really like the weight advantage of the Rotax but the pilots I know have problems with them quite regularly and they are just way too expensive for something that many problems. I've been flying for 30 years and I've never seen anyone have a prop strike. I learned with the standard direct drive 4 cylinder like most pilots and learned at an early age to take care of the prop. That clutch is the weak point. I deal with gearboxes daily in my profession and that is true of all of them. The ones with just gears dont give any trouble as long as they are oiled properly. All large commercial engines rely on gears to time the engines because gear-timing is the most reliable in hard use industrial applications. I will be the first to admit, if I hit the lottery I would consider the new Rotax 916 for its power to weight ratio but 70 grand is just ridiculous. Plus you cant just go get one. Rotax is manufactured by the largest engine company in the entire world and theres no excuse to charge as much as they do other than they rape customers because its "aviation ". Absurd!
@richardturner6278 I'm all for automotive engines. I prefer and use them myself. I've watched Vikings videos and seen their website plus read other people's experiences after I became suspicious of them. Honesty and integrity are worth money. The dyno graphs on their website are made up for one. He contradicts himself in videos, attention to detail of their product is low and the way they went into administration taking peoples money then suddenly had finances to start another business is terrible. I don't see much use for a clutch in the gearbox, but some people do. Rotax does not also have much of a flywheel which effects low rpm running smoothly.
@@richardturner6278Yes, we know that the only people who have prop strikes are those who planned it. 😂
@@richardturner6278all fine justifications for someone who is cheap. There are zero gearbox limitations or probables during normal operations on a 915/916. Stay away from Viking. They are combative and argue back with everyone and their turbo engines aren’t altitude compensating and Peter off like a NA engine.
Why is there so much hate on rotax?
- Austrian.
- Liquid cooled.
- High RPM requires a gearbox.
- Relatively new (well newer than the O-200 and O-320).
- Underpowered and too light for an RV7/RV8.
- Several generations of air maintained engineers have not had over 70 years experience servicing them.
- Run best on unleaded automotive gas, which may not be available.at your run of the mill airfield.
It think that covers it.
Seems kinda picky engine on maintenance and idle speed.
I learned a thing or 2 about the almighty Rotax, mostly that I'd like avoid it if I can. Use mogas but increase idle, use no lead but add lead sub for valves & to "just blow the dust" into the air we breathe. Yikes. I hear Austria's other great, KTM is also doing nicely....
You clearly haven’t any experience with a 915/916. Nothing that you speak of exists.
Substitute my simple and easy to work on Lycoming for this level of complexity, and with a gear box that only lasts 1k hours. Nope.
In aviation, I prefer products from well-established US companies that are not under the dominance of Chinese capital.
Replacement for a 320 or 360 Lycoming Ha ha ha. OK sure. 915iS /916iS are rated at 135 hp / 137 hp continuous. Lycs rated at 100% T/O power all day, 180 hp. LOOK AT THAT SCOOP., longer nose equals more drag than an air-cooled engine. Cost? A Rotax is more than a Lycoming. Ever burb a Rotax? Pain. Let's see side by side RV-9 fly-offs with this Rotax powered RV-9 vs. Lyc powered RV-9. PLEASE. It is all talk until you get data. Cost? A Rotax costs MORE than a Lycoming. Yep turbo is nice. Guess what? Lycoming's can, have been and are turbo'ed for 60 years. Not new.
Rotax is far better.
Yea but 160hp for 5mins at any level. How much HP do you get out of an Lyc at 7000feet let alone 9000+feet
How much is 100% of your Lycoming’s power at 12,500’?
You’re a cranky idiot. A 916 is 80LBs lighter and paired with a CS will match any 180hp FP dinosaur engine from SL to 5,000 then walk away and do it all 1gph less. It won’t rust in 6 months from shitty metallurgy. Shock cooking, CHT’s, leaning the list goes on. And no you can’t easily find a turbo and throw it on any old legacy engine.
Also neglected to mention the significant Rotax weight saving of both the engine and the fuel you have to carry to feed it
Too much automotive mentality has gone into the design of the Rotax engine.
With a Rotax, a pilot has to take too many parts aloft when compared to a Lycoming and a Continental engine.
Too many parts means that there are too many things to go wrong in flight.
Why take coolant and its associated parts aloft when air can do the cooling job-?
Yep, stay in the 1950s…hahahaha.
The reliability history of Rotax proves that it is not a problem.
@@Dazza-u4c The Rotax engine and its components are heavier than the equivalent aircooled aircraft engine.
Amazingly reliable, efficient and economical engine. I love my 912ULS and RV12.
I guess all of the automotive mentality is why modern cars are not only more efficient, but also far more reliable than older cars with carburetors, old ignition systems, etc. And if you look at Ron Wanttaja’s statistics, you will see that Rotax engines are very reliable with the 912 being MORE reliable than the Continental O-200.
What's the point of unleaded fuel ? Early 70 ' s , I know the case and what was said . The point is , our g o v has been up to no good for a long time . Does anyone remember the fuel crisis of the early 70,s ?
It is pretty well established that lead isn’t the best thing for humans to breathe or ingest. That isn’t just government propaganda. And lead causes other issues such as fouling of spark plugs, much faster contamination of oil, etc. Engines that can run on unleaded fuel are just superior to engines running on leaded gas in every possible way.