Richard Riley wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:45:32 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

:On 13 Jan 2006 16:32:35 -0800, " wrote:
:
: Another data point for Rotax engines comes from the fact that the air
: force uses them in some of the drones vehicles. Google UAV and Rotax.
: Draw your own conclusion on whether USAF endorsement is good or bad.
:
:Not necessarily a powerful endorsement. The engines have full-time,
rofessional maintenance technicians and are cheap enough that the government
:could replace them after a few flights. There's a lot of difference between a
:few dozen hours on an unmanned vehicle on a military maintenance schedule vs.
:thousands of hours on a non-professionally-maintained aircraft with a pilot
:aboard.

Aint that the truth.

A few months ago I was working on a proposal for a UAV program. We
were going to use a UAV airframe that was well proven and put some new
systems in it. It had an engine that I thought - at first glance -
would make a terrific Ultralight engine. 4 stroke, about 50 lbs and
50 HP. Then I found out that it had a TBO of 55 hours.


For Real, Richard?

What a heartbreak.