Is it just me, or does this thing look like a maintenance nightmare??
I think that I would rather maintain 2 Lycoming, than 1 Rotax!
What happened to simplicity??
Oh well. I guess we're stuck with it....
Tom
The Rotax is more complex than a Lycoming. If you can find a Lyc with the same power and weight, you might want to use that. What's that? There isn't one? Then, yep, we're "stuck" with the Rotax 912. There are reasons Van picked the 912, and it's not just because nearly every other LSA uses it, but rather the other way around - the 912 is well suited to use in LSA.
I never owned a Lyc before I got the CT. The Rotax seems to be a little bit more complicated, but that's to be expected with a design that's 50 years newer. There is no need to fear progress....
Daily checks with the Rotax involve checking the oil, coolant and play in the gearbox - fairly easy, but you need to design the cowl with good access for the coolant tank. We have to remove the CT's cowling every pre-flight (12 camlocs).
Annual / 200 hr inspections are more involved. You need to check carb balance (takes ~ 30 mins) and if you run 100LL, clean out the oil tank Check gearbox / slipper torque (15-20 mins). Check magnetic plug and re-safety (5-10 mins). Clean out carb bowls (30-60 mins). Open up the gearbox every 600 hours for inspection. Change plugs every 50 hr with 100LL or 100 hr with Mogas ($3 each).
It uses different oil which is harder to find, but it is available. There is now a semi-synthetic that's approved for use with 100LL (full synthetics don't work well with 100LL because of the gearbox).
Upsides to the 912 are numerous: Light weight, small size, resistant (but not immune) to carb ice, no mixture, redundant cooling systems (engine will keep running without damage at partial power if you loose the coolant), more tollerance to shock cooling, approved to run on 91 octane Mogas with 10% EtOH, dual EI, etc.
Biggest downside is getting a mechanic who isn't afraid to work on it.
TODR
