Rotax Popularity?

[drseti]

Personally I think Lycoming should offer a certified IO-233 and a non-certified IO-233. Mainly because LSA is all about keeping the cost down, and a non-certified engine will be cheaper than a certified one.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I can't say this isn't what they're planning -- but they're not publishing too much about it until their process is better defined.

[Jack Tyler]

Excellent discussion so far. Not at all the opinionated ranting that Roger initially was concerned about. Paul, your posts in particular offered some info and a perspective I hadn't seen elsewhere.

The OP stated: "I made this rant because it seems like the only way to get a LSA without the Rotax 912 would be to build a kit, either that or find a way to replace the Rotax with an engine of your choice on an ATSM certified aircraft."

I think it's a fairly universal view that the SP regs and LSA classification is still in its early years, so what we see now is probably not all we are going to get. But even now, if you want a choice of S-LSA a/c, you can buy a Lightning or a Jabiru S-LSA with a Jab engine. No kit, not a long waiting list, high wing and low wing...and to check them out, you get to visit Nashville, too! So it's not like there aren't already choices.

Re: why a Rotax, another view on this is available by reading some of the threads on the Van's Air Force forum, in the RV-12 category. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/f ... y.php?f=73 Keep in mind that the RV-12 has one of the best useful loads in the LSA class and, even so, there are experienced E-AB builders who would like to but struggle with the realities of using an engine other than a Rotax. The issue isn't just weight alone but how to insure the CG remains viable for the a/c when the weight upfront increases significantly.

I don't think there's any simple answer to the smaller number of Rotax-qualified mechanics. Like any supply/demand cycle, one brings the other and the LSA community is small (in fact, tiny) when compared with the installed base of piston-powered a/c. But things are changing...and I see evidence now that owners (who have taken Rotax courses) have purchased specialty tools and are sharing them among the growing Rotax owners on a given field. But some areas of the country may lack qualified mechanics for some time to come, and that may be just one more reason why a given student might want to get a PPL and/or a given a/c buyer might want to consider a Part 23 a/c purchase.

[roger lee]

I agree this thread this time has been very tame and more informative and not anything like the last time this was talked about.
It's a good thing.

[jnmeade]

The idea that maintenance should be informed by knowledge is a powerful and persuasive one that I totally agree with.

[KSCessnaDriver]

What worries me mostly about the 233 is that certification process. Lycoming is going for Part 23 certification, which means the engine will be usable beyond the LSA community. This is good, because you need Part 23 certification to be IFR legal, for example. But FAA certification takes far longer than just demonstrating ASTM compliance, and costs more to achieve. Hence, the delays already cited. Let's just hope the engine becomes available, in production quantities, before the window of opportunity has passed.

What, you don't need a certified engine to fly IFR. I'm confused by your statement. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but could you explain more?

[drseti]

What, you don't need a certified engine to fly IFR.

You do, in fact, in an S-LSA. The only difference between the Evektor SportStar Max and their SportStar Max IFR, for example (other than cost), is that the latter is powered by the Rotax 912S (a Part 23 certified engine), while the former uses a Rotax 912ULS (the non-certified version). So, at least one S-LSA manufacturer seems to have achieved IFR certification simply by using a certified engine.

[jnmeade]

What, you don't need a certified engine to fly IFR.

You do, in fact, in an S-LSA.

FD CTLS N321FT is approved IFR, so I was told. It has a Rotax 912ULS.

[KSCessnaDriver]

You do, in fact, in an S-LSA. The only difference between the Evektor SportStar Max and their SportStar Max IFR, for example (other than cost), is that the latter is powered by the Rotax 912S (a Part 23 certified engine), while the former uses a Rotax 912ULS (the non-certified version). So, at least one S-LSA manufacturer seems to have achieved IFR certification simply by using a certified engine.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if you were talking S-LSA's only or everything. Makes much more sense now, carry on.

[zdc]

I recall reading somewhere, that ATSM was going to issue a new rule prohibiting actual IFR flight for LSA's. Those LSA's already certified for IFR would be excluded from the new rule. True or no?

[Pawlander]

FD CTLS N321FT is approved IFR, so I was told. It has a Rotax 912ULS.

Page 1-1 of the CTLS Aircraft Operating Instructions says "The CTLS may only be operated under visual flight rules (VFR)." Unless that particular aircraft has some special permissions, I think you'll find it is not approved for IFR.

AMD was building some 601/650 SLSAs that could be equipped and certified for IFR, but those were using Continental engines.

[3Dreaming]

What, you don't need a certified engine to fly IFR.

You do, in fact, in an S-LSA.

FD CTLS N321FT is approved IFR, so I was told. It has a Rotax 912ULS.

I think what you will find is it is equipped and certified IFR so it can work in the system, but flight in IMC is not allowed. Tom

[jnmeade]

Back to the original question, I'm a newby to the Rotax, but based partly on this thread, if I were given the choice between a Rotax and a Lycoming or Continental of equal weight, power and other characteristics, I'd take the Lyc or TCM.

[drseti]

if I were given the choice between a Rotax and a Lycoming or Continental of equal weight, power and other characteristics, I'd take the Lyc or TCM.

I suspect that if there were a Continental or Lycoming equal in weight, power, cost, and reliability to a Rotax, it would look a lot like a Rotax.

[jnmeade]

FD CTLS N321FT is approved IFR, so I was told. It has a Rotax 912ULS.

Page 1-1 of the CTLS Aircraft Operating Instructions says "The CTLS may only be operated under visual flight rules (VFR)." Unless that particular aircraft has some special permissions, I think you'll find it is not approved for IFR.

we're both right. That airplane is approved for IFR flight into IMC, and it is a special case. Here is what Tim Busch, the owner and operator of Iowa Flight Training, emailed me:

"Jim,

Our CTLS IS equipped for IFR flight and is legal and approved for flight in IMC. Actually, due to an accident in certification timing (kind of a loophole), it is all those things, however, LSAs manufactured after December 2010 are NOT legal until ASTM decides what to do to create a common standard for IFR. In effect, ours is grandfathered.

Having said all that, I wouldn't take it into actual IMC unless it was an emergency. I have verified with FAA that I can legally train and test instrument ratings in it.

Tim"

[jnmeade]

if I were given the choice between a Rotax and a Lycoming or Continental of equal weight, power and other characteristics, I'd take the Lyc or TCM.

I suspect that if there were a Continental or Lycoming equal in weight, power, cost, and reliability to a Rotax, it would look a lot like a Rotax.

Well, I disagree that it would look like a Rotax. I don't even think it would look like a Jabiru. Or even an AeroVee. I think it would look like a lightened up Lyc or TCM. But, you are certainly more expert in these matters than I am and all I'm doing, in the spirit of comradeship and conviviality, is expressing my own opinion, not even trying to defend it, so I won't argue with you.