Rotax engines- LSA's hope, or curse?

"Peter Duniho" wrote

Airplanes are nothing BUT compromises. Better get out of flying. For
that matter, probably ought to avoid any engineered technology altogether.
Engineers spend practically all their time making compromises, matching
mission goals, available technology, and cost requirements.

Compromising reliability is never an option on an airplane. 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.

Compromises on missions, payloads, comfort, speed, stol, asthetics, yes.
Every one of those items is decided on with compromise.

Frankly, this thread cracks me up. I've seen practically the exact same
discussion repeatedly, from at least some ten (fifteen?) years ago. There
has never been any proven problem endemic with Rotax's certificated
engines. The bottom line is that the certificated Rotax engines meet the
exact same standards that any other certificated engine does, and ALL of
the major engine manufacturers have experienced engine failures.

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.

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. 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.

That there would be a handful of people who illogically single out one
engine manufacturer for suspicion, when they are no better and no worse
than the other engine manufacturers doesn't surprise me one bit. That
anyone who DOES know better would waste time trying to explain the
*logical* side of the issue to people not using logic, now that does
surprise and amuse me.

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

It is difficult for me, or any other "logical" person to believe your
assertion, when personal experience of people shows other persons
experiencing difficulties.

By the way, are Franklin engines just as good as Lycoming and Continental?
I don't know of a pilot that would put one in an airplane, yet they are also
certified.

You crack me up, Pete. g Keep up the good work! ;-)
--
Jim in NC