Hi All,
Watching the thread on FWF options.....just my two penny's worth....
For those of you wanting to ''save money'' by not going for the Rotax series
of engines, that ''saving'' is going to cost you dearly.....either in
time...or your life....
I have installed, and been involved in the setting up and testing of more
than 20 Rotax's in 912 / 912S and 914 form, apart from the initial shakedown
period, with a few minor tweaks and adjustments, they have all gone well, and
needed virtually no remedial work on them to keep them going.I have maintained
the
''Factory'' planes, apart from oil / filter changes, and looking at /
cleaning the plugs, they have all run with hardly a glitch.
Some out there have had problems with starter motors, we had a oil seal leak
on a Turbo, [ which was fully rebuilt by a turbo repair shop for 270 pounds
sterling, in 2 days], so where are the reliability problems ? Most of the
''problems'' I have heard about were down to poor installation / maintenence.
If you go the Subaru route, you WILL have a failure at some point, the only
question is WHEN ? [There was one a few weeks ago, airframe totalled, crew
OK].This powerplant is too heavy, it , as I have mentioned before, will spoil
the
fine handling.
The Honda system described, will also be too heavy [ despite it sitting well
aft in the footwell].
I seem to remember a CAM / Honda system mooted a dozen or so years ago that
was going to be ''the answer'' to every homebuilder's dream. What happened that
time 'round ?
The modified Automotive power unit salesman will quote you figures like''
these motors will go for 150,000 miles'' [ or some similar figure] but in a car,
they are only running at about 40 percent power for the majority of that time.
When you run them at figures around 90 percent / 100 percent, time will come
down to HOURS ! [ I have raced cars and boats for years, everyone else in the
pits had the same experience]
The weight issue also needs to be looked at. Whilst you may be able to
convince your Aviation Authority that you can fly at heavier weights, convincing
gravity, and the materials in the airframe is a little harder !
Whilst the plane will fly at weights as high as 1700 lbs, again I say, you
will have spoilt what could have been the nicest flying plane you may have
flown. Here is a quick test for you. Go buy one of those electric free flight
models, fly it around your local park, then add, say 15 percent weight in clay
to
it, and fly it again.[ Let me know how you got on ?}
The structure has been tested[ with a ''composite construction'' factor
added] for operations to 1370 lbs, again there is a very large reserve built in,
but why deliberately eat into that ?
With most of these ''wonder powerplants'', figure on tinkering for a couple
of hours on the ground, for every hour in the air, this also applies to a
certain six cylinder aircraft motor, you will need to be as good an engineer as
you are a pilot to get high hours with that one [ it so happens, the person who
champions that installation, over here in the UK, IS a good engineer].
I look with interest at all of the options, but everytime, the Rotax comes
back on top.
I have no ties with Rotax, just in case some of you think that may be the
case. It just saddens me to see you guys [ and gals] put your money and time
into
something that may dissapoint you later[ and by then, you wouldn't admit it
anyway ?]
Stuff a Rotax on the front, [work at your day job a few hours longer each
week to pay for it, if you have to], and go fly with what was intended.
Cheers,
Nev.
|