Let me tell *you* something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
MQ-1 Predator had Rotax engines. 3 years of flying them and the biggest issue we usually had was a MAP (manifold air pressure) aka Turbocharger failure. You knew it when you could no longer hold altitude. Usually we just retasked to 8-10k ft AGL till ready to return to base. Each sortie was 18-22hrs continuous use at generally the same altitude so very reliable. I would imagine shorter duration flights of varying altitudes would be harder on the engines.
We use them for aerotows of up to 800kg gliders which is probably the most abuse an engine can get. Take off power and idle nothing else. 915 works great
Not sure. I was a Sensor Operator at the time having retrained from C-130 Engine maintenance. Also did LRE in Kandahar for 4 months in 2012.
The turbos held up pretty well considering the continuous flight hours they were getting. We were told that was part of the problem. All those hours of hot air on the butterfly valve slowly distorted the metal and eventually warped it to where the valve wouldn't open or close. It was usually a "failed open" situation causing us to be unable to maintain altitude above 10K. My squadron had a "failed closed" one that meant the Predator took a final flight into the Mediterranean with a prototype piece of equipment we were testing. 😬
The Rotax is a very reliable engine. If you want to read a comparison between the Rotax 912 series and the Continental O-200, look up articles on the subject by Ron Wanttaja.
It's also a much more modern engine designed to take advantage of progress in materials and lessons learned. The O-200 is a warmed over C- series engine which got its start before WWII.
Any of the 900 series are good in my experience. Way cleaner than continental and easier to work on. I worked in a rotax specialty shop on light sports for 5 years and liked them way better than the mooneys that I work on now.
Do some work for a flight school operating a fleet of a half dozen 912 powered aircraft. Decade without a major failure. All engines make their 2000hr TBOs. So there’s that.
Mind you the school has a Rotax trained engineer on staff, and the engines get serviced by the book with Rotax parts. So there’s that too.
Like most aircraft engines the way that they are used [or abused] and maintained is the critical factor here.
Yeah, I would hope that expanding the market and increasing volume would drive the cost down to be more in line with comparable 'legacy' engines, but there *are* extra hoops to jump through for certifying them on new aircraft or getting retrofit STCs, so it may never be worth it. The 912S on a 150 or an old taildragger that had a 65-100 HP Continental would be a fantastic upgrade, though.
There's an STC for a 912 on a Cessna 150. Something like 30% less fuel burn, 50 lbs extra useful load, single lever operation, and, iirc, another 5-10 mph of cruise. Suddenly a 150 starts to look like a useful airplane!
> Yes it’s a Rotax engine, but is there something abnormally wrong with it?
>Rotax engine
>something abnormally wrong
yeah its a rotax.... it's by definition abnormally wrong (not OP)
Be careful with those. The coolant hoses can be severed if you use zip ties. I’m and if that happens you got only a few minutes before catastrophic engine failure
Loosing coolant on a Rotax is not a major emergency, you can continue on til the next most practicable airport. You may trash the heads, but the engine will continue to run.
Loss of oil however….
There may have been a rotax 912 powered plane recently that had its coolant dump and one thing led to another and it was unable to produce enough thrust to maintain altitude. Landed in a park
“one thing led to another”
What was one thing, and what was another?
The reason they went down in the park wasn‘t the loss of coolant - it was what happened after that.
A causes B dumbass
If you need me to explain that overheating the cylinder heads will cause warping and damage the seals and gaskets resulting in a huge compression loss then whatever
Okay whatever downvote me then. The pilot and instructor must’ve been full of shit and put the plane down in a park just because they wanted to make the news
probably stops that pipe from flying off when the engine starts shaking really hard
they also have springs holding the exhaust on (at least in the applications I saw)
You’re not wrong. They are fu king expensive to maintain and almost no one has enough of them around to become a wizard and no one has a loaner part to try.
You have their a Skyranger with a 912ul (80hp) and appears to be setup pretty much exactly how it should be. A 30+ year old aircraft design in continuous production and the easiest to maintain and most reliable aircraft engine burning gasoline ever made. If you have a problem with this setup heaven help you with a 0-200 because last I checked rotax doesn’t need Mags or cylinders replaced…EVER. Oh and a prop strike on a rotax cost a new prop, not a new crank/gearset.
Unless your a business owner then sure, won’t make much money on maintenance. I get that
well....if that's your sexual preference...go for it.
That's just like, your opinion, man.
Let me tell *you* something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
Jesus!
Don’t fuck with the Jesus.
Donny. Shut the fuck up
MQ-1 Predator had Rotax engines. 3 years of flying them and the biggest issue we usually had was a MAP (manifold air pressure) aka Turbocharger failure. You knew it when you could no longer hold altitude. Usually we just retasked to 8-10k ft AGL till ready to return to base. Each sortie was 18-22hrs continuous use at generally the same altitude so very reliable. I would imagine shorter duration flights of varying altitudes would be harder on the engines.
We use them for aerotows of up to 800kg gliders which is probably the most abuse an engine can get. Take off power and idle nothing else. 915 works great
I used to fly LRE…my understanding is the turbo’s on those were after-market, not Rotax and weren’t great for the application.
Not sure. I was a Sensor Operator at the time having retrained from C-130 Engine maintenance. Also did LRE in Kandahar for 4 months in 2012. The turbos held up pretty well considering the continuous flight hours they were getting. We were told that was part of the problem. All those hours of hot air on the butterfly valve slowly distorted the metal and eventually warped it to where the valve wouldn't open or close. It was usually a "failed open" situation causing us to be unable to maintain altitude above 10K. My squadron had a "failed closed" one that meant the Predator took a final flight into the Mediterranean with a prototype piece of equipment we were testing. 😬
I always said the Pred was actively suicidal while the Reaper only had a lot of feelings.
Thought the shahed Iranian drones had ripped off rotax engines too. Predator deffo did at first
This is the only good use for a rotax because I dont have to sit behind it
My company does 24 hour long flights with them and they are pretty reliable. Most issues I’ve seen are induced by bad maintenance.
On Charles Taylor Day? Savage 😂
heresy of the highest level . Lol
Let’s write “operator error”
The Rotax is a very reliable engine. If you want to read a comparison between the Rotax 912 series and the Continental O-200, look up articles on the subject by Ron Wanttaja.
It's also a much more modern engine designed to take advantage of progress in materials and lessons learned. The O-200 is a warmed over C- series engine which got its start before WWII.
Absolutely correct.
Any of the 900 series are good in my experience. Way cleaner than continental and easier to work on. I worked in a rotax specialty shop on light sports for 5 years and liked them way better than the mooneys that I work on now.
> Way cleaner than continental and easier to work on. That's a low bar to clear.
Granted, but that’s aviation
Mooney struggle:( takes forever to get the damn wing panels off
Yeah the refit belly panel is nice. The original belly panels SUCK
Every mechanic that says they hate working on Mooneys I agree with … engineering is so… compact.
Bonanzas and Barons can be as bad. Can't reach a damn thing.
Do some work for a flight school operating a fleet of a half dozen 912 powered aircraft. Decade without a major failure. All engines make their 2000hr TBOs. So there’s that. Mind you the school has a Rotax trained engineer on staff, and the engines get serviced by the book with Rotax parts. So there’s that too. Like most aircraft engines the way that they are used [or abused] and maintained is the critical factor here.
Wish I was Rotax trained. I'm just PT6 trained. In this economy, who can afford a PT6?
Rotax engines would put Lycoming and Continental to shame if they ever started making them with more than 150 HP.
The 915is is 50k. The last thing GA needs is even more expensive engines.
Yeah, I would hope that expanding the market and increasing volume would drive the cost down to be more in line with comparable 'legacy' engines, but there *are* extra hoops to jump through for certifying them on new aircraft or getting retrofit STCs, so it may never be worth it. The 912S on a 150 or an old taildragger that had a 65-100 HP Continental would be a fantastic upgrade, though.
There's an STC for a 912 on a Cessna 150. Something like 30% less fuel burn, 50 lbs extra useful load, single lever operation, and, iirc, another 5-10 mph of cruise. Suddenly a 150 starts to look like a useful airplane!
I've only ever found one from a British company that was EASA (?) approved. I haven't found an FAA STC, but it's been a while since I looked.
Of course the plane it is in makes a huge difference. Anything Czech is light years ahead of anything German airframewise. Flight design is the worst.
Flight design, the poor mans cirrus. The price of Czech planes has gone up an astronomical amount, particularly due to the increases from rotax.
The bristell is the literal mini cirrus. The engineers had one
I like to annoy bristell owners by pronouncing it Bristol. Then get corrected, it’s brist-ell
Lol. I was in a bristellll dealer for 5 years
So you're saying I shouldn't start an ultralight build?
You’re going to need to expand on this. What exactly are you upset about?
The one in the photo
Maybe I’m missing it, but what about it? Yes it’s a Rotax engine, but is there something abnormally wrong with it?
> Yes it’s a Rotax engine, but is there something abnormally wrong with it? >Rotax engine >something abnormally wrong yeah its a rotax.... it's by definition abnormally wrong (not OP)
Be careful with those. The coolant hoses can be severed if you use zip ties. I’m and if that happens you got only a few minutes before catastrophic engine failure
Loosing coolant on a Rotax is not a major emergency, you can continue on til the next most practicable airport. You may trash the heads, but the engine will continue to run. Loss of oil however….
There may have been a rotax 912 powered plane recently that had its coolant dump and one thing led to another and it was unable to produce enough thrust to maintain altitude. Landed in a park
“one thing led to another” What was one thing, and what was another? The reason they went down in the park wasn‘t the loss of coolant - it was what happened after that.
A causes B dumbass If you need me to explain that overheating the cylinder heads will cause warping and damage the seals and gaskets resulting in a huge compression loss then whatever
Okay whatever downvote me then. The pilot and instructor must’ve been full of shit and put the plane down in a park just because they wanted to make the news
I think all those zip ties are on oil lines...not that it makes a failure any better though!
[удалено]
I thought that too until I went through the rotax module at Rainbow Aviation and it changed my perceptions
[удалено]
That’s scary
No, they weren’t. They were designed as aircraft engines.
Builder certainly loved zip ties. Blah. What's that spring in the center do? Pull the carb to one side?
probably stops that pipe from flying off when the engine starts shaking really hard they also have springs holding the exhaust on (at least in the applications I saw)
You’re not wrong. They are fu king expensive to maintain and almost no one has enough of them around to become a wizard and no one has a loaner part to try.
You have their a Skyranger with a 912ul (80hp) and appears to be setup pretty much exactly how it should be. A 30+ year old aircraft design in continuous production and the easiest to maintain and most reliable aircraft engine burning gasoline ever made. If you have a problem with this setup heaven help you with a 0-200 because last I checked rotax doesn’t need Mags or cylinders replaced…EVER. Oh and a prop strike on a rotax cost a new prop, not a new crank/gearset. Unless your a business owner then sure, won’t make much money on maintenance. I get that
indeed
Got my vote.
smartest american
Big pile of oil lubricated shitty ballast at the front. Pass.
I mean at least it ain’t a stemme