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

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote

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.

I have rarely met a person that loves to pick nits as much as you.

Pick 'em by yourself. I won't be part of your game.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Pick 'em by yourself. I won't be part of your game.

Nor should you, given your utter lack of a point.