"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Compromising reliability is never an option on an airplane.

It is ALWAYS an option, and EVERY airplane has compromised reliability. Why
do you think that each engine has an overhaul interval? Do you really
believe that for each engine, the overhaul interval is as long as is
technologically possible? It's not. It's as long as can be reasonably made
given weight and cost limitations. I.e. a compromise.

Why do you think there are so many things done differently than, on say, a
car? No hardware store bolts, everything safety wired, ect, ect. So
don't tell me about compromises, with regard to reliability. No
compromise on safety is one reason that every thin aviation costs so much.

You obviously have no idea what the meaning of the word "compromise" is.

[...]
Must be because Rotax reliability is an issue with some people, that won't
go away. The fact that Rotax is certified is irrelevant. Certification
for an engine is not difficult.

And your justification for making this absurd claim is?

I could built a Chevy 350 and put it on a dyno, and certify it in a week
or so, if you give me a few bucks to do it.

Define "a few bucks". I've got a few bucks here in my wallet, and would
love to see you try to certify a Chevy 350 engine.

What does that tell you? I'll bet there would be plenty of people that
would not want to fly it, even if it has been certified.

Define "plenty". Obviously there are a few people out there who don't
bother to put their thinking caps on. No question about that. But a
certificated engine that meets or exceeds the same standards as existing
engines would do quite well.

No worse or better than any other. Do you have any studies or statistics
to back that up? No? I didn't think so.

I'm not the one accusing the engine of being faulty. Where are YOUR studies
or statistics to back that up? No? I didn't think so.

Pete