RKittine wrote:One of the things that came up was how these type planes relate to the old Bonanza and its reputation. People with too much money and not enough experience. Look at the Cirrus, with at least 5 of them being totaled when ending up under a parachute in open fields where a dead stick landing probably would have resulted in both plane and pilot walking away. Also $190K for a Rotax powered craft?
jjbaker wrote:RKittine wrote:One of the things that came up was how these type planes relate to the old Bonanza and its reputation. People with too much money and not enough experience. Look at the Cirrus, with at least 5 of them being totaled when ending up under a parachute in open fields where a dead stick landing probably would have resulted in both plane and pilot walking away. Also $190K for a Rotax powered craft?
The Dr. Killer was a real airplane and the V- Tail version of it I flew way back in the 90's was asking for some elevated respect, compared to other single low wing high performance complex planes at the time. The Cirrus somehow managed to take that spot, despite the fact that is really hasn't killed many people. One of the issues with airplanes in this pricerange is that they attract the wrong people into the industry. At 400- 500, 600, yeah, even 700K for one of these Mini Bugatti's of the skies, you don't get clients who place a lot of value on anything other than zooming around in style. When I flew my first Corvallis TT I was impressed with the airplanes handling, but absolutely unimpressed with all the buttons and electronic gadgets. The airplane screams "electronic push button monkey dependency". Then you fly it and watch the fuel flows and must essentially ask: How can something so sleek be such a pig on gas...? I mean could we really buy Columbia's design and never waste a single thought on giving this Ferrari a proper power plant and propeller? They are not exactly flying off the shelves I would assume...
RE: ROTAX Powered Airplanes
I know ROTAX is a sour subject in the USA. Had that engine be developed over here, we wouldn't see so much resistance against it. Same with Thielert, Porsche, Limbach and other manufacturers who refined efficiency, weight and reliability for a lighter airframe application. Without firms like this, General Aviation would be pretty much non existent in pretty much all of Europe, where AVGAS reaches upwards of $13.00 a gallon. Even at $5-6 dollars per gallon on High Octane car gas, you can't afford to run anything that swallows 10-12 or even 18 gallons an hour. There is simply no excuse left for using leaded gas, there's no excuse left for saying that fuelburns like this should be normal. The "Pilots Adventurous Lifestyle" and "Money Doesn't Matter" attitudes breed the same and the economy can't sustain the game, the industry is already dying from it. I remember the hick hack before Cessna announced that the Groundcatcher 162 Flopp-A- Doodle would/ could be powered by no less than a Lycoming 200 engine. Question: Why not a living room fan motor, its was already made in freaking China??!!
I remember flying a Porsche Remo, towing gliders. I remember towing with a Limbach powered Motorglider. I remember spending some 100 hours behind ROTAX 912/ 912S and don't have any aversion against the engines. The fear and hatred against those engines is stunning. I think we'll see many more of them in LSA's before too long. The Rotax is the one and only reason I would even remotely look at an airplane like the A5 Icon. At least it won't guzzle gas!
We should have a Cirrus "Float To Safety" thread one day.
I will never understand how a simple fixed gear housewife accelerator like this can end up underneath a chute so darn often.
The operator should always be more engaged and smarter than the equipment being used...
CFII wrote:I've not flown Rotax but they're so common, how bad could they be? Any comparative engine failure/accident rate data?
CFII wrote:On the speculation of hand propping a geared prop, would it even be possible to get the blade speed high enough to do any good? If so, why would it be any more dangerous than a direct driven prop?
KlausNW wrote:CFII wrote:On the speculation of hand propping a geared prop, would it even be possible to get the blade speed high enough to do any good? If so, why would it be any more dangerous than a direct driven prop?
The gearbox mixes up the prop position, it's more difficult to find top dead center which makes it hard to get a good swing before the spark fires.
YES, the engine will fire at very slow RPM... don't bet your life on it, some already have.
I went to Rotax school a couple years ago, there's a little bit of disinformation passed around. One of the myths is that the engines won't start when you're turning them through before checking the oil. If the ignition is hot she's ready to run just like any engine.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests