I fail to understand how Rotax can build this amazing super light modern engine but after all the time they have been in the market they still haven't figured out how to build a gearbox that can run at all rpms without causing issues. Viking has that part figured out. Why doesn't Rotax modernize the gearbox? Thats not that difficult. It cost them lots of engine sales when builders are on the fence between a legacy direct drive and a rotax. The carb sync concept is another area that could be remedied with a single carb induction. Much simpler and if done properly wouldn't sacrifice any performance.
Viking does not have a clutch in their gearbox. If you have a prop strike the engine is gone most likely. Plus don't trust anything viking does, they are dodgy.
@chippyjohn1 agree to disagree sir. U are correct about the clutch. I dont plan to have a prop strike. As for Viking, they set the standard for customer service. I dont personally knowing anyone that's had a bad experience or that has been treated wrong and I am familiar with most of them. If you knew the history and the facts you would not call them doggy. Best company in aviation right now period and the record prices that. It's ok if you are one of those automotive conversion haters . They produce the best gearbox on the market. Gearbox allows us to swing bigger props for more torque . Fantastic for stol ops. I really like the weight advantage of the Rotax but the pilots I know have problems with them quite regularly and they are just way too expensive for something that many problems. I've been flying for 30 years and I've never seen anyone have a prop strike. I learned with the standard direct drive 4 cylinder like most pilots and learned at an early age to take care of the prop. That clutch is the weak point. I deal with gearboxes daily in my profession and that is true of all of them. The ones with just gears dont give any trouble as long as they are oiled properly. All large commercial engines rely on gears to time the engines because gear-timing is the most reliable in hard use industrial applications. I will be the first to admit, if I hit the lottery I would consider the new Rotax 916 for its power to weight ratio but 70 grand is just ridiculous. Plus you cant just go get one. Rotax is manufactured by the largest engine company in the entire world and theres no excuse to charge as much as they do other than they rape customers because its "aviation ". Absurd!
Too much automotive mentality has gone into the design of the Rotax engine. With a Rotax, a pilot has to take too many parts aloft when compared to a Lycoming and a Continental engine. Too many parts means that there are too many things to go wrong in flight. Why take coolant and its associated parts aloft when air can do the cooling job-?
Replacement for a 320 or 360 Lycoming Ha ha ha. OK sure. 915iS /916iS are rated at 135 hp / 137 hp continuous. Lycs rated at 100% T/O power all day, 180 hp. LOOK AT THAT SCOOP., longer nose equals more drag than an air-cooled engine. Cost? A Rotax is more than a Lycoming. Ever burb a Rotax? Pain. Let's see side by side RV-9 fly-offs with this Rotax powered RV-9 vs. Lyc powered RV-9. PLEASE. It is all talk until you get data. Cost? A Rotax costs MORE than a Lycoming. Yep turbo is nice. Guess what? Lycoming's can, have been and are turbo'ed for 60 years. Not new.
What's the point of unleaded fuel ? Early 70 ' s , I know the case and what was said . The point is , our g o v has been up to no good for a long time . Does anyone remember the fuel crisis of the early 70,s ?
Thanks for reviewing these engines! Great info!
Useful video , nothing is more valuable than seeing and listening straight from the people who works on these engines on a daily basis .
Did both courses, great information and people. Always answers the phone…
👍👍👍
I fail to understand how Rotax can build this amazing super light modern engine but after all the time they have been in the market they still haven't figured out how to build a gearbox that can run at all rpms without causing issues. Viking has that part figured out. Why doesn't Rotax modernize the gearbox? Thats not that difficult. It cost them lots of engine sales when builders are on the fence between a legacy direct drive and a rotax. The carb sync concept is another area that could be remedied with a single carb induction. Much simpler and if done properly wouldn't sacrifice any performance.
Viking does not have a clutch in their gearbox. If you have a prop strike the engine is gone most likely. Plus don't trust anything viking does, they are dodgy.
@chippyjohn1 agree to disagree sir. U are correct about the clutch. I dont plan to have a prop strike. As for Viking, they set the standard for customer service. I dont personally knowing anyone that's had a bad experience or that has been treated wrong and I am familiar with most of them. If you knew the history and the facts you would not call them doggy. Best company in aviation right now period and the record prices that. It's ok if you are one of those automotive conversion haters . They produce the best gearbox on the market. Gearbox allows us to swing bigger props for more torque . Fantastic for stol ops. I really like the weight advantage of the Rotax but the pilots I know have problems with them quite regularly and they are just way too expensive for something that many problems. I've been flying for 30 years and I've never seen anyone have a prop strike. I learned with the standard direct drive 4 cylinder like most pilots and learned at an early age to take care of the prop. That clutch is the weak point. I deal with gearboxes daily in my profession and that is true of all of them. The ones with just gears dont give any trouble as long as they are oiled properly. All large commercial engines rely on gears to time the engines because gear-timing is the most reliable in hard use industrial applications. I will be the first to admit, if I hit the lottery I would consider the new Rotax 916 for its power to weight ratio but 70 grand is just ridiculous. Plus you cant just go get one. Rotax is manufactured by the largest engine company in the entire world and theres no excuse to charge as much as they do other than they rape customers because its "aviation ". Absurd!
Too much automotive mentality has gone into the design of the Rotax engine.
With a Rotax, a pilot has to take too many parts aloft when compared to a Lycoming and a Continental engine.
Too many parts means that there are too many things to go wrong in flight.
Why take coolant and its associated parts aloft when air can do the cooling job-?
Yep, stay in the 1950s…hahahaha.
The reliability history of Rotax proves that it is not a problem.
@@Dazza-u4c The Rotax engine and its components are heavier than the equivalent aircooled aircraft engine.
Amazingly reliable, efficient and economical engine. I love my 912ULS and RV12.
Replacement for a 320 or 360 Lycoming Ha ha ha. OK sure. 915iS /916iS are rated at 135 hp / 137 hp continuous. Lycs rated at 100% T/O power all day, 180 hp. LOOK AT THAT SCOOP., longer nose equals more drag than an air-cooled engine. Cost? A Rotax is more than a Lycoming. Ever burb a Rotax? Pain. Let's see side by side RV-9 fly-offs with this Rotax powered RV-9 vs. Lyc powered RV-9. PLEASE. It is all talk until you get data. Cost? A Rotax costs MORE than a Lycoming. Yep turbo is nice. Guess what? Lycoming's can, have been and are turbo'ed for 60 years. Not new.
Rotax is far better.
Yea but 160hp for 5mins at any level. How much HP do you get out of an Lyc at 7000feet let alone 9000+feet
What's the point of unleaded fuel ? Early 70 ' s , I know the case and what was said . The point is , our g o v has been up to no good for a long time . Does anyone remember the fuel crisis of the early 70,s ?