In article ,
" jls" wrote:

"Marco Rispoli" wrote in message
t...
"NewsGroups" wrote in message
...
Buy the Jabiru if you want to carry tools rather than a passenger....
Lets start with adjusting the valves every 25 hours and maybe retension
the heads every 10, then add all the failures, both electrical and
mechanical add the total lack of support and silly answers like... never
heard of that before, your the first one etc etc Get the Drift.

Michael Coates X-Air Australia


Hum ... ok. So I guess the Jab stinks. Do you have any experience with the
Rotax?

I am assuming that you don't have the Jabiru ... can I ask what are you
running?

Thank you for your feedback!

--
Marco Rispoli - NJ, USA / PP-ASEL
My on-line aviation community - http://www.thepilotlounge.com

I know nothing of the Jabiru except from hearing and reading about it, which
causes me to avoid it as a choice for anything I might build.

As for the Rotax 912, 912S 100HP, and 914, I have heard both good and bad,
mostly good. However, recently I spoke with a friend who was a CFII on an
airport with a 912 in a Diamond Katana used on that airport for instruction.
He condemned the engine, said it (and a few others at other nearby airports)
were often in the shop for repairs, and says he's sure that's the big
reason -- service dependability problems -- why Diamond dropped the 912 as
a powerplant and went to Continental and Lycoming.



A close friend is factory support for a major aircraft manufacturer who
uses the 912 and 914 in some of their aircraft. He tells me that the
switch to the Continental had very little to do with engine reliability
and more to do with the Continental being a better fit in performance,
operation, and maintenance for the north american market and for
training in general. Mechanics were more comfortable working on the
Continentals and instructors were more used to the mode of operation.
Historically, newly designed airframes coupled with newly designed
engines (relatively speaking of course) has been the formula for lots of
teething problems. This particular airplane engine combination has had
relatively few problems.

The choice of a Lycoming for their 4 seat bird has nothing to do with
the reliability of Rotax engines. The 4 seater needed a180 hp engine and
Rotax did not have one at that time.

(Certified) Aircraft engine design being the excruciatingly conservative
exercise that it is. I would think it unlikely that Rotax or Jabiru have
designed in any real serious flaws. However, quality assurance problems
during fabrication and assembly have let flawed engines get out the door
for all manufacturers. Those type of flaws tend to show up sooner in
these small, high revving engines.

--
Take out the airplane for reply