Direction of Sports Pilot Industry

[ArionAv8or]

As a novice, that is new to all this, it appears to me, it is 'pending". What does that mean? Per Dan Johnson, dont know who he is or anything about him, except every time I try to learn something and his sight comes up, it says he wants $29 of my money.

To answer your first question:

Pending - remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: They have probably filed for certification and are awaiting the approval process.

The answer to your second question:

"DAN JOHNSON has been called "the leading reviewer of recreational aircraft." He has evaluated more than 340 aircraft in many leading magazines including: Light Sport & Ultralight Flying!, Plane & Pilot, General Aviation News, Atlantic Flyer, Powered Sport Flying, Kitplanes, Experimenter, and Sport Aviation. A 5,000-hour Commercial, Instrument, Multi-Engine Pilot and former Certified Flight Instructor, Dan's focus today is on Light-Sport Aircraft, ultralight aircraft, and homebuilt aircraft that Sport Pilots may fly.


Promoting aviation for more than 35 years, he is president of Dan Johnson Media Corp and of the publisher of ByDanJohnson.com. These two enterprises provide marketing and media services to a select group of aviation businesses and to the industry. Since its launch in April, 2004, ByDanJohnson.com has become increasingly influential in the worldwide Light-Sport Aircraft and recreational flying community.


Dan works closely with many other organizations to provide leadership within the Sport Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft sector. He is President and Chairman of the Board of Directors for LAMA, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association and serves as Membership Secretary on the LSA's F.37 Executive Committee for ASTM International.


Honored by the LSA industry, Dan was given the Minnesota Aviation Hall of Fame Writer Award (2007); LAMA's Outstanding Individual Award (2006); ASTM's Outstanding Leadership Award (2003); the Society of Experimental Test Pilots' Spirit of Flight Award (2001); and USUA's Moody Award (1999).


Dan hosted and narrated the FAA & EAA video, "First Flights in Your Ultralight / Lightplane." Two books plus two calendars have exclusively featured his flight reports and he is a regular speaker at airshows and aviation gatherings."

This information was taken from www.bydanjohnson.com from his biography section. You can research many aircraft without ever paying a dime. I have met Dan several times and he truly is a very nice guy who wants to help and educate potential buyers in the LSA segment. The one thing I would tell you is he will not list many negatives about any aircraft. His information is great when getting the gist of the plane and the manufacture, but if you want real hardcore truths about an aircraft you need to talk to owners and fly the plane yourself. I personally used a lot of information Dan Johnson provides to narrow my search when I was looking to purchase a new plane and found the information being presented accurate. Like I said before he is human and not infallible but when he makes a mistake he publishes a retraction and corrects the error. I don't know of anyone that has flown in more LSAs and has written more reviews than Dan, he is a great source of information and openly willing to share.

[3Dreaming]

[I couldn't find any place that says the IO-233 will be a certified engine, but found several that said it is not. Lycoming even says they are adding service centers to take care of the new engines. You might have to take it to one of them to get it worked on. http://www.lycoming.textron.com/news-an ... hkosh.html All I'm trying to say is if it is an ASTM complient engine Lycoming can say you have to have training to work on it. I guess until they start selling them it really dosen't matter. Maybe they are waiting on some of the outsourced parts from Austria.

Says right on Lycoming's July 26 press release for the 233 Series LSA Engine "Certification for the engine is pending." Additionally according to Dan Johnson's website report, Oshkosh Day 4, it will also be cheaper than the Rotax 100 hp 912 and delivers 115 hp as well.

Your other comments are pure speculation, cheap shot on the outsourced parts from Austria - thought you were better than that.

http://www.lycoming.com/news-and-events ... 6-10b.html

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/

I read both of your links. Right now Lycoming is offering an LSA engine that is non certified. The non certified engine may be cheapr than the rotax, but it sure is quite a bit heavier. If they offer a certified engine it will be more expensive just like Rotax's certified engine. For the LSA engine like I said if the manual says you have to have factory training to work on it you will have to comply to be legal.

As for my "cheap shot" it was dirrected at your cheap shot from your first post. Quote "First seeing how most of them have an engine made in Austria of all places ( the Rotax ) does not inspire confidence in newcomers who don't know its history." For sure Lycoming out sources parts as to where they come from it was just a guess.

[LightSportFlyer]

I read both of your links. Right now Lycoming is offering an LSA engine that is non certified. The non certified engine may be cheapr than the rotax, but it sure is quite a bit heavier. If they offer a certified engine it will be more expensive just like Rotax's certified engine. For the LSA engine like I said if the manual says you have to have factory training to work on it you will have to comply to be legal.

As for my "cheap shot" it was dirrected at your cheap shot from your first post. Quote "First seeing how most of them have an engine made in Austria of all places ( the Rotax ) does not inspire confidence in newcomers who don't know its history." For sure Lycoming out sources parts as to where they come from it was just a guess.

If you bothered to actually read what I posted I never said the Lyco was already certified but that the IO-233 is supposed to be a certified engine soon. Again according to Dan Johnson's post its 30 lbs heavier, which only makes it "quite a bit heavier" to people like you.

And until you come up with proof as to any of the Lyco parts not being made in this country your opinions are nothing but baseless assumptions bought and paid for by Rotax.

[3Dreaming]

I read both of your links. Right now Lycoming is offering an LSA engine that is non certified. The non certified engine may be cheapr than the rotax, but it sure is quite a bit heavier. If they offer a certified engine it will be more expensive just like Rotax's certified engine. For the LSA engine like I said if the manual says you have to have factory training to work on it you will have to comply to be legal.

As for my "cheap shot" it was dirrected at your cheap shot from your first post. Quote "First seeing how most of them have an engine made in Austria of all places ( the Rotax ) does not inspire confidence in newcomers who don't know its history." For sure Lycoming out sources parts as to where they come from it was just a guess.

If you bothered to actually read what I posted I never said the Lyco was already certified but that the IO-233 is supposed to be a certified engine soon. Again according to Dan Johnson's post its 30 lbs heavier, which only makes it "quite a bit heavier" to people like you.

And until you come up with proof as to any of the Lyco parts not being made in this country your opinions are nothing but baseless assumptions bought and paid for by Rotax.

I read every word you said, and read both of the links. No where does it say does it say that the Lycoming will be certified soon, it just says pending. It looks like Lycoming will build both a certified and LSA engine just like Rotax. The weight difference is more like 60 pounds regardless of what the little quip says. A Rotax engine with oil and water radiator, oil tank, and exhaust is about 150 pounds compared to the Lycoming number of 213. 60 pounds is about 10% of the empty weight of some of these airplanes. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
Also nowhere did I say Lycoming was having parts made outside the USA. I simply was taking a jab at your proclamation that things made in Austria were bad. I can say that in 30 years of working on airplanes I have seen parts for a Lycoming and Continental engines that have had stamps saying "Made In ****" places other than the USA.

[rsteele]

Wow! Heated exchange over aircraft engines. Who would have thought it.

The majority owner of Rotax is actually an American holding company, with a Canadian company in second place. Weird how it works.

I'm not a big fan of pay sights. But Dan Johnson has been promoting light planes since Hang Gliding was brand new and was a real pusher for sport pilot and LSA. He also runs LAMA, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association. The only industry group I'm aware of that gives a hoot about LSA and acts as an advocate with the FAA. I'm sure Dan would be glad to have your money, there is a lot of info there for free. The EAA is also a good source - the you have to join them too if you want all the content.

I wish Lycoming well with their new engine, but I wonder if it's not "too heavy too late". The same applies with Conti's new O200D The Rotax is actually earned a pretty strong reputation with anybody that's been around them for a while. When that new LSA owner wants to go flying with spouse and spouse wants to actually take luggage, that 30lb weight difference (which I believe will be closer to 60) is going to look like a real problem.

If service availability weren't an issue, I think the new AeroMax engine smacks them all down. Lighter than Rotax, full FADEC, direct drive (no gear box) and air cooled.

Tail Winds,
Ron

[dstclair]

It's somewhat amusing how the light sport engine debate heats up from time-to-time. And usually by people who haven't done any research beyond press releases. I flew behind Lycoming and Continental for years. No complaints until my 'tried and true' Continental died due to a manufacturing defect. How could these bullet proof engines ever fail

Seriously, there are several good, reliable engines out there with their own pros/cons which include Jabiru, Rotax, Lycoming and Continental (haven't heard of the AeroMax). Nothing beats Rotax in power to weight ratio in the 100 hp class. The extra heft of the Lycoming/Continental is significant for LSA's unless you never plan to fill the baggage AND co-pilot seat AND fuel tank(s). Some might want the comfort of a legacy aviation brand and what looks like up to 15 hp more. The weight may be worth it them and their mission. Aren't choices great!

Also, Piper didn't seem to think an Austrian engine was such a bad choice

As to service, I've got no problem with Rotax requiring both initial and recurrant training. Imagine your mechanic current on the most critical piece of equipment on your plane....

Give it a rest, guys. This debate is way too old.

[LightSportFlyer]

I read every word you said, and read both of the links. No where does it say does it say that the Lycoming will be certified soon, it just says pending. It looks like Lycoming will build both a certified and LSA engine just like Rotax. The weight difference is more like 60 pounds regardless of what the little quip says. A Rotax engine with oil and water radiator, oil tank, and exhaust is about 150 pounds compared to the Lycoming number of 213. 60 pounds is about 10% of the empty weight of some of these airplanes. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
Also nowhere did I say Lycoming was having parts made outside the USA. I simply was taking a jab at your proclamation that things made in Austria were bad. I can say that in 30 years of working on airplanes I have seen parts for a Lycoming and Continental engines that have had stamps saying "Made In ****" places other than the USA.

Man you just invent whatever you need out of thin air just to suit your cause. Regardless of what true professionals in the industry say you just ignore the truth and invent whatever stats you need to "prove you're right" and the real professionals without an ax to grind like you do are all wrong.

And you going out on a whim and purely guessing that "maybe, just maybe" Lycoming's new lsa engine just might have parts made outside the usa once again proves how desperate you are to simply prove yourself right. Glad that incredibly biased mind of yours won't ever work on my a/c.

The OP posted an honest point and you took this off topic to promote the Rotax which lines your own wallet. When Cessna builds over a 1000 of their Skycatchers with either a Continental or IO-233 in them and American engines outnumber your precious Rotax, if you don't like that then go argue with the market and be sure to tell it how you still know better and they're all wrong.

[zdc]

LightSportFlyer, you wouldn't take a fine watch to the local repair shop to be fixed would you? The Rotax engine 60 years ahead of the offering by Lycoming and Continental. It is a finely engineered piece of machinery, and Rotax wants trained technicians working on them. You wouldn't take your BMW or Mercedes to a shade tree mechanic would you. Also if Lycoming wants when they have the IO-233 available they could put in thier manual that you have to have factory training, so people could be in the same boat there.

I have talked to several A&P's, who are not ROTAX trained, that would be willing to work on the ROTAX, as long as they have a manual to consult. To them an engine is an engine. Keep in mind, they know they are assuming liability when working on any aircraft. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the regulations to prohibit a non ROTAX trained mechanic from servicing a ROTAX engine. However, having a non ROTAX trained A&P work on a ROTAX engine may void the warrenty.I see no advantage of a ROTAX over a conventional engine other than weight, and some disadvantages such as coolant and fuel issues.

[N918KT]

I thought the Rotax can use both autogas and 100LL.

[zdc]

I thought the Rotax can use both autogas and 100LL.

It can use both, but premium [non-ethanol] auto gas is preferred. A ROTAX should have the oil changed every 50 hrs when using auto gas but every 25 hrs when using 100 LL due to the lead build up.

[roger lee]

Hi All,

I'm very up on the rules and Regs for SLSA and experimental's and in reference to mechanics. If I could post the documented pages I would, but can't on this website.
If you are working on an experimental you are right that an A&P can work on a Rotax without a class, but you aren't making a very good or informed decision. There are just too many differences between this engine and others. If you are talking about an SLSA you are wrong and all mechanics must have a suitable level Rotax class for the operation they are performing. There have been 14 A&P's that I know of that have had their licenses suspended for one year for working on a Rotax in an SLSA without a Rotax class. One was fined a $1K. It states right in the Rotax Line Maint. manual in section 2 what one must do to work on a Rotax engine if it is a certified Rotax or in an SLSA. The SLSA Mfg's say to follow the Rotax maint. manual for inspections and that locks everyone in place. Even if the maint manual on an SLSA says an owner/pilot can do the work it always says to follow the Rotax maint manual which says you are required to have one or more Rotax classes behind you. No SLSA Mfg. will say to work on the engine and not follow the Rotax manual because then they own that engine and all its liability. If you attended a Rotax class over two years ago you are still out of luck unless you took the update class and if that went past the 90 day grace period you have to take the entire class over. There is no gray area here, it is black and white and can be confirmed by calling Carol Carpenter of Rainbow Aviation in Corning, CA that teaches the 120 hr LSRM class or Edsel Ford of the FAA who is head of LSA.
This subject has been discussed on several forums and the out come is always the same. You absolutely positively need a Rotax school as a mechanic to work on a certified Rotax engine or an SLSA where the company says to follow the Rotax maint manual. This includes all mechanics, none are exempt.
The Rotax is not a Continental or Lycoming and that is what a regular A&P was taught and there are too many differences in a $19K Rotax 912 engine to mess up with out a class. How do I know because I have to fix many of the errors that non Rotax trained A&Ps do to Rotax 912 engines all year long. Most of my clients now come from 6 different states and won't let a non trained person even near their Rotax engine any more.
A friend of mine that owns an SLSA and a CFI that has been flying SLSA for quite a while just finished his first segment up at Rainbow Aviation in Corning, CA for his LSRM license and he called me last night. His first comment was how much he didn't know about LSA, Rotax and mechanic's rights. I considered him more knowledgeable than the average pilot by far.
If you allow a non trained person to service your Rotax within the warranty period forget the warranty and if it is an SLSA forget your insurance. These people are starting to take a hard stance because of the problems untrained people are causing to Jabiru's and Rotax engines. Jabiru also has training courses. There have been to many "mechanic induced failures" a.k.a. "MIF's".
There are more and more Rotax trained mechanics out there, find one and make sure he follows the check list printed in the Line maint. manual. If you have an experimental, the Rotax is too expensive an engine to experiment with, go get a Service and a Line maint Rotax class behind you. You will be amazed at what you thought you knew. If you think a class or a good mechanic is too expensive wait until you have to repair your nice top dollar 912 engine because the maint. person made a little mistake. Some repairs are only in the hundreds if you're lucky and some are $5K-$7K.

Since I can't post the documentation here come over to the ctflier.com website and ask me there under the Rotax engine section. I will post all supporting documentation. I have posted this documentation on the Matronic's website under the Rotax section before.




Second items is Auto fuel verses 100LL.
Yes the Rotax can use both, but Rotax does not recommend the 100LL. They advise to stay away from it. The lead gums up the everything. Valves, seats, cylinders, plugs, lead in the oil tank, fouls the gearbox clutch, ect.... As a matter of fact if you use 100LL most of the time, by 800 hours your 912ULS gearbox clutch probably isn't working any more. It needs to be removed, opened and cleaned and that needs to be sent in for a special jig setup to pull it apart. If you have to use 100LL you are not supposed to use any TCP in a Rotax, but can use Decalin as a lead scavenger. Don't even worry about the ethanol in auto gas as far as the 912 engine goes because it isn't an issue, but you do need to make sure the rest of your fuel system is okay with it.

If you attend a Rotax class all these questions are answered and ones you haven't even thought of yet.


HI ZDC,

I agree with the oil change intervals, but the newer version of the Rotax Line maint. manual will allow up to 100 hrs. I think, along with many others, that this is too long and since the oil is the life blood of the engine it is the wrong way to go. It is still recommended in the Rotax classes for shorter oil change intervals.

If you qualify for the newer 2000 hr. TBO then you have to keep the maint. check list from inspections, have a discrepancy list and corrections done, logbook entries in detail and do oil analysis to qualify after you replaced the couple of small oil parts.

[3Dreaming]

I read every word you said, and read both of the links. No where does it say does it say that the Lycoming will be certified soon, it just says pending. It looks like Lycoming will build both a certified and LSA engine just like Rotax. The weight difference is more like 60 pounds regardless of what the little quip says. A Rotax engine with oil and water radiator, oil tank, and exhaust is about 150 pounds compared to the Lycoming number of 213. 60 pounds is about 10% of the empty weight of some of these airplanes. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
Also nowhere did I say Lycoming was having parts made outside the USA. I simply was taking a jab at your proclamation that things made in Austria were bad. I can say that in 30 years of working on airplanes I have seen parts for a Lycoming and Continental engines that have had stamps saying "Made In ****" places other than the USA.

Man you just invent whatever you need out of thin air just to suit your cause. Regardless of what true professionals in the industry say you just ignore the truth and invent whatever stats you need to "prove you're right" and the real professionals without an ax to grind like you do are all wrong.

And you going out on a whim and purely guessing that "maybe, just maybe" Lycoming's new lsa engine just might have parts made outside the usa once again proves how desperate you are to simply prove yourself right. Glad that incredibly biased mind of yours won't ever work on my a/c.

The OP posted an honest point and you took this off topic to promote the Rotax which lines your own wallet. When Cessna builds over a 1000 of their Skycatchers with either a Continental or IO-233 in them and American engines outnumber your precious Rotax, if you don't like that then go argue with the market and be sure to tell it how you still know better and they're all wrong.

LightSportFlyer, for the third time I have no idea where the parts for the Lycoming are made. I was making fun of you for bashing engines made in Austria. I have no ties to Rotax other than I own an aircraft with one of thier engines, and I have taken the training to work on them. I also own an aircraft with a Lycoming engine, and have owned 3 others with Lycoming engines. I have also owned one with a Continental. I have no bias towards any of the engine manufactures. In fact until I had a chance to learn about Rotax engines I would have said they were no good based on observation of the 2 stroke engines. At no point in any of my post have I said anything bad about a Lycoming engines, unlike you who seems to have somthing against Rotax. You were the one who posted first bashing engines made in Austria, and complaining about the training required to work on them. The point you are missing about the Lycoming that I was trying to get across to you is who can work on the engines. I agree that most mechanics have been around Lycoming engines and now how to work on them, but it is not that simple. If the engine is placed in a SLSA aircraft then the aircraft manufacture gets to say who is qualified to work on it. If the aircraft manufacture says to follow the engine manufactures procedures the the engine manufacture says who is qualified to do the work. Rotax says you have to have training, so you have to have it to legally work on the engine. Lycoming if they so chose can also put that requirement in thier manual, and if they do then you have to have the training to be legal to work on them. Since this is an LSA engine some of the people who will work on them might be a LSRM with no Lycoming experience, so this would be a good reason to require training.
As far as inventing to support my cause I would like to know what you think I invented, so I can provide you with the documentation you desire.

[LightSportFlyer]

Hi All,

Rotax does not recommend the 100LL. They advise to stay away from it. The lead gums up the everything. Valves, seats, cylinders, plugs, lead in the oil tank, fouls the gearbox clutch, ect.... As a matter of fact if you use 100LL most of the time, by 800 hours your 912ULS gearbox clutch probably isn't working any more. It needs to be removed, opened and cleaned and that needs to be sent in for a special jig setup to pull it apart.

Thanks Roger for taking the time to write a very objective and informative post. I did not know the 100LL will screw up the Rotax's gearbox so badly and so soon. That sounds like a rather complex repair that's probably not cheap or easy to get done right locally too. Personally that's just another reason for me not to like the Rotax.

I checked several of the airports in my area and they all told me they only sell 100LL so that's a big consideration for me. Lycoming states the IO-233 IS designed to run on aviation gas and it doesn't have a gear box either so those are two big issues that I won't have to worry about plus I can save some serious money on too.

3D - I never "bashed" Rotax, I said the idea of an engine made in Austria that does not have anywhere near the service network that Lycoming has does not appeal to me ( and alot of other prospective owners ) nor does it inspire much confidence. I want flying to be fun and I don't want to put up with the hassles of finding someone far away to work on a foreign made engine with a comparitively small service network.

When you "invented" the wild speculation, and as yet totally unproven, that the Lyco "might" have some foreign made parts thus making it no more American made than the Rotax well that is really beneath your supposed level of expertise - we all thought you're better than that.

While I am a newcomer to aviation in regards to the original topic ( trying to sell more lsa's to the general public ) I feel what I have to say is very important as it's people just like me ( and what I chose to spend my money on ) that the lsa and engine manufacturers are really interested in.

So be careful who you "poke fun" at - our dollars put bread on the table of A&P's just like you.

[roger lee]

Hi LightSportFlyer,


I hope this helps and wouldn't discount a Rotax 912 just yet. Talk to the people in the know, it has an incredibly reliable history and is the number 1 LSA and small aircraft engine for a good reason.

If you have to tear a gearbox down and have the clutch and everything else brought up to par it would cost around $350.
The Rotax will fly to TBO using 100LL, but will need additional maint during that time to get there, but so do the other guys. You don't have different time tables for the other engines because they have always used 100LL and the short time tables is a standard for them. As a Rotax owner you actually get longer maint. intervals if you use 91 oct. A Continental and Lycoming are also affected by 100LL you just never really here as much about it because it has been a normal issue for many many years. 100LL will mess up the other engines too. I have seen trashed valves, frozen rings, trashed cylinders, pistons, ect.. on the other engines. Even with the others if you can get an STC for your engine to run 91 oct. you are ahead of the game even with Continental and Lycoming. Jabiru even recognized that 100LL is harmful and gave everyone permission to use 91 Oct in the Jabiru engine. I take all my 91 Oct. fuel to the airport. You are right that very few airports carry 91 oct. The other engines all burn oil because they are air cooled and have larger tolerances than a Rotax. The other engines tend to leak more often than a Rotax. A Rotax has a better HP to weight ratio than the others. I have friends that are in the 3000 hr. plus range with their Rotax 912 and have never done a thing to it.
They once needed 100LL, but it's day is waning and it's time to go away. They are working on it and are testing new fuels as we speak.

[3Dreaming]

LightSportFlyer, for the fourth time, aww never mind. Here are a couple links for you to look at. I know the first is a little old, but the outsourcing has been going on a long time. I also guess that just because Lycoming has an international purchase order agreement doesn't mean they buy parts internationally. If you feel that I invented anything else please let me know.

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182897-1.html

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supplie ... orders.pdf