Rotax leading

[zdc]

One LSA engine that seems to get left out when the discussion turns to powerplants is the Jabiru. I have no idea how well that engine has faired out in the field. That's the only airplane manufacturer that I know of that also makes its' own engine.

I personally love mine (Jabiru 3300) and it cruises at 120 Knots @ 2850 RPMS in my Lightning with ease. The EAB versions do 145 Knots and the engine is rated @ 3300 RPMS. I would never take anything away from any other engine manufacture out there, including the Rotax, it just boils down to personal preferences. I like the lower RPMS of the Jabby and the quiet smooth running.

Your airplane looks similar to a Piper Sport. Both acft look sleek and fast. But the Piper Sport owners I have talked to say you can expect a cruise speed of 110 kts solo and 105 kts with a passenger. Any idea of why such a difference in speed between the Lightning and Piper Sport?

[7900]

My understanding is that Cessna's long-term plan is to use the Lycoming IO-233, when it becomes available in production quantities. That makes perfect sense, since Textron owns both Cessna and Lycoming My guess is that migrating from the O-200 to the IO-233 will be much easier than if they had started off with the Rotax.

Well that plus the IO-233 is fuel injected, has more hp, a longer TBO, and can be serviced by most any A & P - none of which the Rotax has even after being in LSAs for seven years now.

My CPC told me the vast majority of of A & P's told Cessna in no uncertain terms they did NOT want the Rotax in the 162. Fortunately management listened and the company is being rewarded with over 1000 firm orders for the 162.

[roger lee]

Hi 7900,

The Rotax is a CDI ignition, will have a fuel injection very shortly, HP does not always equate to performance. That depends on the plane fuselage and drag, ect... Any A&P could always work on a Rotax in some applications and with Rotax training in other applications. Just like the A&P got Continental and Lycoming training in A&P school. The A&P can work on a Rotax now without Rotax school thanks to the FAA (they just need to be a little better educated). More education is never bad. The Rotax is the number one light aircraft engine and produces more engines world wide for light aircraft over others. The TBO is 2000 hrs. It will out last any air cooled engine as far as longevity. I have friends with over 3000+ hrs. and never touched their Rotax. Air cooled engines usually need a top end at some point usually the Rotax rarely ever does.
So the bottom line:
I don't think the IO-233 is better or worse, it just has different operation parameters and specs.
Chevy's and Ford's.


I always recommend to any perspective aircraft buyer of mechanic to get training with all engines and that puts things in perspective and helps control misunderstandings and myths.

[ArionAv8or]

Any idea of why such a difference in speed between the Lightning and Piper Sport?

Powerplant! For LSA purposes we have to throtte back the Jabiru 3300. LIke I said, the engine is actually rated at 120 HP @ 3300 RPMS and the EABs will normally fly around 3100, we have to stay at 2850 RPMs to limit us to 120 Knots. Most LSAs were designed to fall in the 120 Knots category and the Lightning was actually designed to fly faster. They had to reverse their thinking and slow the plane down to meet the requirements. We have different wheel pants, no gear leg fairings and have to use a different prop. Change out the pants, add leg fairings and throw on a 62X57 prop and you have a 140-145 Knot airplane. That was one of the reasons I chose the Lightning over the PiperSport to start with. That and the fact I really like the sleek look and solid sound and feel of the composite aircraft.

[drseti]

The Lightning certainly is sleek, and (potentially) fast. I thought the Jab 3300 was heavier than the Rotax 912. Any idea how the useful load compares to the other S-LSAs?

[7900]

Hi 7900,

The Rotax is a CDI ignition, will have a fuel injection very shortly, HP does not always equate to performance. That depends on the plane fuselage and drag, ect... Any A&P could always work on a Rotax in some applications and with Rotax training in other applications. Just like the A&P got Continental and Lycoming training in A&P school. The A&P can work on a Rotax now without Rotax school thanks to the FAA (they just need to be a little better educated). More education is never bad. The Rotax is the number one light aircraft engine and produces more engines world wide for light aircraft over others. The TBO is 2000 hrs. It will out last any air cooled engine as far as longevity. I have friends with over 3000+ hrs. and never touched their Rotax. Air cooled engines usually need a top end at some point usually the Rotax rarely ever does.

It always amazes me how people will spin reality to suit their own financial interests. Coming from a Rotax repairman your comments were expected.

The IO-233 also has CD ignition, and I didn't say the Rotax didn't.

You said "the Rotax will have fuel injection "shortly"- kinda sounds like a promise from a politician , "trust me it's coming", yeah uh huh.

You said, "HP does not always equate to performance" - tell that to owners of the Cubcrafter Carbon Cub SS 180 HP - lsa !!!

You said, and this one is my favorite, "Any A&P could always work on a Rotax in some applications and with Rotax training in other applications".

- Following your thinking then one has to potentially take their Rotax powered lsa to two ( or more ) A & Ps cause the first one may very well not be fully trained to do the entire repair and must pass what he can't do onto the next one(s).

- Most people prefer trusting their repairs to an A & P with many years of experience working on their engine and not one who's only partially or just recently "trained".

You said "The Rotax is the number one light aircraft engine and produces more engines world wide for light aircraft over others."

- Compare that to Lycoming who has been making aircraft engines for over FIFTY years and has built over 100,000 engines !!!

You said - "The TBO is 2000 hrs. It will out last any air cooled engine as far as longevity."

- The TBO for the IO-233 is 2400 hours. Your comment about longevity is just your opinion, there are just as many A & Ps who strongly disagree and have the engines to prove it.

You said - "I have friends with over 3000+ hrs. and never touched their Rotax. "

- NEVER touched ??? Guess they forgot about the carbs needing to be synched and the gearbox needing an overhaul, none of which is necessary on the IO-233 cause it doesn't have them !

I don't mean to jump you but some of your comments were a bit of a stretch and rather speculative. I think Cessna considered all the issues you raised and made the right choice in going with the O-200 and perhaps the IO-233 as well.

[roger lee]

Hi 7900,

Sorry, you completely missed my point on some comments and misinterpreted. I'm not pro any one engine, it just happens to be the most common one that comes to my shop for inspections. Why would you think I have a financial interest in Rotax. I work on everything. Doesn't matter to me what people have for an engine. It still equates to Chevy's and Ford's. If people are happy with their aircraft that's all that counts in my book. I guess it is like the old proverb "There is more than one way to skin a Cat", so that's why we have so many different types of power plants and aircraft and people are happy. It boils down to it just doesn't matter what you have go fly and have fun.

[ArionAv8or]

The Lightning certainly is sleek, and (potentially) fast. I thought the Jab 3300 was heavier than the Rotax 912. Any idea how the useful load compares to the other S-LSAs?

Empty weight directly from my POH is 835 lbs
I have full glass w/ synthetic vision and 30 gallons of fuel

2850 RPMs will yield 120 Knots w/ 5.5 gph. Most Sundays I fly in formation with an EAB Lightning that throttles back to 2600 RPMs to stay @ 120 knots. When he pushes the throttle forward he pulls away pretty quick.

[zdc]

The Lightning certainly is sleek, and (potentially) fast. I thought the Jab 3300 was heavier than the Rotax 912. Any idea how the useful load compares to the other S-LSAs?

Empty weight directly from my POH is 835 lbs
I have full glass w/ synthetic vision and 30 gallons of fuel

2850 RPMs will yield 120 Knots w/ 5.5 gph. Most Sundays I fly in formation with an EAB Lightning that throttles back to 2600 RPMs to stay @ 120 knots. When he pushes the throttle forward he pulls away pretty quick.

Sounds like you're happy. Would you care to share what the bottom line price was excluding sales tax?

[drseti]

It always amazes me how people will spin reality to suit their own financial interests. Coming from a Rotax repairman your comments were expected.

I'd like to explore some of your statements in greater depth, but before I do, I'd like to deflect in advance some possible allegations. For the record, I started flying 49 years ago, behind a Continental 65. For thirty years (and through three engines) I owned a Lycoming-powered aircraft, and loved both it and the engine. As a CFI, I've instructed in Continental, Lycoming, Franklin, Rolls Royce, Jabiru, and Rotax powered aircraft. To my way of thinking, an engine is an engine is an engine. I have no commercial affiliation with Lycoming (although I reside in Lycoming County, and am retired from a professorship at Lycoming College). I have no commercial affiliation with Rotax (although I currently own a Rotax-powered aircraft, and took the factory-authorized Rotax training so I can work on it). I hope this establishes my objectivity.

"Any A&P could always work on a Rotax in some applications and with Rotax training in other applications".

True statement. Any mechanic should get engine-specific training on anything he or she is going to work on. In the case of Rotax, each of their three courses (service level, maintenance level, and heavy maintenance) runs one weekend (16 training hours) and costs about $500. I also took the Lycoming course years back; it ran a whole week and was more expensive.

- Following your thinking then one has to potentially take their Rotax powered lsa to two ( or more ) A & Ps cause the first one may very well not be fully trained to do the entire repair and must pass what he can't do onto the next one(s).

Not necessarily. A simple phone call to the A&P will determine whether he or she is trained in, and comfortable working on, any particular engine. There are A&Ps out there who decline to work on the wonderful old Franklin engine, simply because they aren't familiar with it. One should respect this, not condemn it.

- Most people prefer trusting their repairs to an A & P with many years of experience working on their engine and not one who's only partially or just recently "trained".

I agree, there's no substitute for experience. New Rotax mechanics (like new Continental and Lycoming mechanics) should work for a while under the supervision of somebody with years of background to draw upon. The Rotax 912 has been around about 20 years now, and even though LSAs are new in the US, the European microlight community has been using them about that long. I have colleagues trained in Europe who have decades of experience with these engines -- and I turn to them for help and advice, as needed.

You said "The Rotax is the number one light aircraft engine and produces more engines world wide for light aircraft over others."
- Compare that to Lycoming who has been making aircraft engines for over FIFTY years and has built over 100,000 engines !!!

True, up to a point. Speaking as an engineer, I can say that Lycoming has (with a few exceptions) been producing essentially the same engine design for over 50 years. Rotax is trying something new, which is both good and bad. Some say that Rotax is the wave of the future, and Lycoming/Continental are the wave of the past. Each approach has advantages.

You said - "The TBO is 2000 hrs. It will out last any air cooled engine as far as longevity."
- The TBO for the IO-233 is 2400 hours.

Cited TBO tells only part of the story. The IO-233 is brand new. Nobody knows yet if it will make its stated TBO, fall short, or exceed it -- there's just no track record yet. (I'm hoping it will go far beyond 2400 in non-commercial service; only time will tell.) Rotax had an interesting contest last year -- they solicited old engines for trade-in, with a prize (a new engine, I think) to whoever provided the one with the longest time in service. They had many entries in the 3000 hour plus range, and some over 4000 hours.

You said - "I have friends with over 3000+ hrs. and never touched their Rotax. "
- NEVER touched ???

Of course, that's not what he meant. Never split the case or pulled the jugs, I would guess. Routine maintenance (for any engine) is a given. (And, yes, my Rotax requires more in the way of routine maintenance than my Lycoming did. But compare the new-in-the-crate price of $19,000 vs $34,000. You pay now, or you pay later...)

I think Cessna considered all the issues you raised and made the right choice in going with the O-200 and perhaps the IO-233 as well.

I'm sure they did, and they chose what was best for them. I respect that. European manufacturers have been overwhelmingly choosing the Austrian Rotax, which I guess is what's best for them. It's a business decision, pure and simple. Most of the Rotax powered aircraft are sold in Europe. Most of the Continental and Lycoming powered ones are sold in North America. Different markets entirely, possibly with different needs.

In the final analysis, we all choose what's best for us. My hope is that we all fly our planes safely, with whatever engine, and enjoy ourselves!

[zdc]

I'm not an engineer or a mechanic, so even though my thoughts on engines are unqualified and perhaps unjustified I can't help having the following feeling: The more sophisticated an AIRCRAFT engine is, the more it scares me. Maybe it's because I fly airplanes with only one engine so there is no redundancy. It just seems that the more sophisticated the more chance of a "glitch". If an aircraft engine quits on you, the fact that it WAS squeezing every bit of energy possible suddenly doesn't seem important.

[ArionAv8or]

The Lightning certainly is sleek, and (potentially) fast. I thought the Jab 3300 was heavier than the Rotax 912. Any idea how the useful load compares to the other S-LSAs?

Empty weight directly from my POH is 835 lbs
I have full glass w/ synthetic vision and 30 gallons of fuel

2850 RPMs will yield 120 Knots w/ 5.5 gph. Most Sundays I fly in formation with an EAB Lightning that throttles back to 2600 RPMs to stay @ 120 knots. When he pushes the throttle forward he pulls away pretty quick.

Sounds like you're happy. Would you care to share what the bottom line price was excluding sales tax?

$116,025.00

That included:
Dual Screen GRT EFIS w/ Synthetic Vision and EIS
DigiFlight II VSGV
Garmin SL40 and PS Intercom
Garmin GTX 330
406 Kannard ELT
LED MicroSun Landing Light and Taxi Light w/ WigWag
Pulsar ExP LED Nav/Strobe Lights
Long Range 30 Gallon Tanks
Dual Brakes and Boarding Steps

I have also added a Garmin 496 w/ XM weather so I have in-cockpit weather.

Another cool feature about having the aircraft built was that I got to design all my own graphics, kinda gives it the final personal touches. I absolutely love the aircraft and couldn't imagine anything else I would rather fly.

[zdc]

That is a very good price, particularly since the prices you see listed for imports don't include import and reassembly fees.

[drseti]

The more sophisticated an AIRCRAFT engine is, the more it scares me.

There is some logic behind that.

Maybe it's because I fly airplanes with only one engine so there is no redundancy.

Actually, the "redundancy" of a second engine is of questionable safety benefit, if one is to believe the accident statistics. There are at least three reasons for this:

(1) With a twin, when an engine quits, the pilot has to make a decision -- and quickly -- as to the best course of action. Depending upon altitude, airspeed, and the phase of flight, that decision might be to land straight ahead, climb to the highest possible single-engine altitude, turn back to the runway, or divert to a different airport. Making the wrong decision is all too often fatal. When the engine fails in a single, there's no decision to make -- you're going to land!

(2) While every multi-engine pilot is trained in engine-out procedures, unless you practice them frequently, those skills quickly erode. There is no requirement for recurrency training in a twin (one can legally take his or her flight review and instrument proficiency check in a single).

(3) As every engineer knows, any mechanical system has a finite lifetime. We don't know the exact time a given engine will fail (TBO doesn't really tell us this), only that, at some time, it will. So, on any flight, there is a finite probability (the exact figure is unknown to us) of an engine failure. Whatever that figure might be, if you add a second engine, the probability of an engine failure just doubled!

Safe single-engine flying,
Paul

[zaitcev]

The more sophisticated an AIRCRAFT engine is, the more it scares me.

The sophistication comes in different dimensions, and design simplicity is actually a sign of sophistication in my view. Crude design is not simple design. With that phylosophy in mind, UL Power's engines intrigue me quite a bit, but I would really love to see the source code of their control program.