erikpmort

erikpmort

Well Known Member
Why hasn't rotax made a bigger motor for us yet ? I refuse to build anything until I see a modern type of motor available for a Rv 10 or 14. I want it all- fadec, E ignition, fuel smart, easy to cool (liquid?)

Oh and not 50k ok ?
 
The 12 is awesome but the performance is marginal for people that live at altitude. I know that's all relative, however...
 
erikpmort said:
Why hasn't rotax made a bigger motor for us yet ? I refuse to build anything until I see a modern type of motor available for a Rv 10 or 14. I want it all- fadec, E ignition, fuel smart, easy to cool (liquid?)

Oh and not 50k ok ?
Click to expand...

the Rotax 914, will still put out 115Hp up to 15,000ft being turbo charged, what will an IO540 output be at that altitude?
 
Eigth or so years ago Rotax built a V6 that was capable of producing 225 - 275hp. It was built and put on the shelf as a non viable product. Not from the production side or reliability, but from a marketing demand and liability worries side. Rotax is a VERY cautious, deliberate company. It must be a sure thing before they bring something to market.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=15256

You would think the Avweb author would have known a little of the history of Rotax and larger HP engines. A working V6 model was at OSH 7-8 years ago.
 
Last edited:
erikpmort said:
Why hasn't rotax made a bigger motor for us yet ? I refuse to build anything until I see a modern type of motor available for a Rv 10 or 14. I want it all- fadec, E ignition, fuel smart, easy to cool (liquid?)

Oh and not 50k ok ?
Click to expand...

The sad fact is that the volume (units/yr) are not high enough to support investment in development. in 2012 there were about 1000 piston engine planes sold worldwide. 25% were Cirrus (all models). Chevy sells 1000 Corvettes a month, and it has substantial commonality with high cost to develop components. Kit planes (AB) are another matter but still the demand is diverse in terms of specifications.

No company can invest $100-400M to design, develop, certify, and tool for 1000 engines per year. If there were ROI in it, it would happen.

Too many factors working against the product. Many of these factors are present in the amateur built category and that (IMO) is why Van's has found a sweet spot with his balanced designs.

I am just happy we are part of this sweet spot, as low tech as it is.
 
Efficiency

Geico266 said:
Eigth or so years ago Rotax built a V6 that was capable of producing 225 - 275hp. It was built and put on the shelf as a non viable product. Not from the production side or reliability, but from a marketing demand and liability worries side. Rotax is a VERY cautious, deliberate company. It must be a sure thing before they bring something to market.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=15256

You would think the Avweb author would have known a little of the history of Rotax and larger HP engines. A working V6 model was at OSH 7-8 years ago.
Click to expand...

I was told by someone "in the know" that the Bombardier V6, with all of its "modern" design, could not match the efficiency or power to weight ratio of the big bore flat six aircraft engines that it was competing against...and it was far more complex.

And don't forget that Honda had a "modern" flat four aircraft engine concept that they never pursued.

Sometimes "modern" is not necessarily better for our low speed, steady-state operation aircraft engine application.

Skylor
RV-8
 
Last edited:
erikpmort said:
I refuse to build anything until I see a modern type of motor available for a Rv 10 or 14. I want it all- fadec, E ignition, fuel smart, easy to cool (liquid?)

Oh and not 50k ok ?
Click to expand...
Since you state you 'refuse' to build without having it all ('I want it all'), well . . . it sounds like you might just end up never building! But, who ever does get to have it all; Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, LaBron James? If you go through life thinking you are not going to do anything because you can't 'have it all', your life will pass before you as you stand on the sidelines watching the rest of the world live experiences you 'refuse' to partake of!
 
RVbySDI said:
Since you state you 'refuse' to build without having it all ('I want it all'), well . . . it sounds like you might just end up never building! But, who ever does get to have it all; Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, LaBron James? If you go through life thinking you are not going to do anything because you can't 'have it all', your life will pass before you as you stand on the sidelines watching the rest of the world live experiences you 'refuse' to partake of!
Click to expand...

Where's the "like" button, Doug? :)
 
Piston engine development pretty much peaked during WWII. There have been very few advancements sine then and most of those involve electronic ignition and engine control.

Why do you believe that a Lycoming is not good enough? Seems like most who say Lycomings are dinosaurs don't have any technical knowledge to back up their emotional adversity to these engine, or they read some rambling from some other guy and the believe everything they read. If its on the Internet it must be true!

FYI you could install EFII electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition on a Lycosaursous like the one I am putting together for an RV-7 I am working on right now. Or you could put a truly "modern" engine like a Subaru on your airplane! Wait a second... Didn't Merlin's and Packards have dual overhead cams back in the late 30s... Nah...they are dinosaurs.
 
Mike H said:
Wait a second... Didn't Merlin's and Packards have dual overhead cams back in the late 30s... Nah...they are dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

And water cooling, and 4 valves/cylinder, and PSRUs ..............Pretty sure the Merlin only had a single cam per bank though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.