Well said Nev.
All the best for the New Year.
Seems like a Europa maybe just the thing to escape the potential force of a
tsunami as well with a reliable engine that starts!!
Cheers,
Tim
Tim Ward
12 Waiwetu Street,
Fendalton,
Christchurch, 8005
New Zealand.
Ph +64 3 3515166
Mobile 021 0640221
ward.t@xtra.co.nz
----- Original Message -----
From: <NevEyre@aol.com>
Subject: Europa-List: FWF Options
>
> 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.
>
>
>
|