In those markets, the Lyco O-200 is an option, but also in those markets most people are incapable or unwilling to operate any kind of engine management
In those markets people build their own engines. They service their own engines, takes them apart, put them together. They trim their Rotaxes by larger cylinders, turbo, FI, FADEC. Some even modify the Bings to get manual mixture control. Bolt on governors for CS props etc etc.
In those markets, the Lyco O-200 is an option
I am not aware of a Lycoming O-200, you mean Continental O-200? Cessna put that one in their C162 which as we all know crushed the Rotax sales…
They just need careful thermal management, which is no problem for anybody with more than half a brain (and about €2k in engine instrumentation)
If your engine broke down at 800h, you would quickly revise that statement… Plenty of people have made that experience and many of them have more than half a brain.
Nothing is good in Lyco/Conti land. Our fuel is going away, the replacement fuels lock out a sizeable part of the existing fleet (the most capable aircraft). Engine reliability is terrible, especially for the 300+ HP engines. You can count the number of avgas pistons operated on an AOC on one hand these days. A few years ago, they were still widespread and it’s not just about fuel availability, it is mostly about reliability that they have disappeared.
At the end of 2000 hrs or so you have very little to reuse
That is only true for the certified versions – which I suspect to make up the tiniest part of their sales volume.
The non-certified 80hp 912 has been known to be flown for 3000 hrs and more with no more than “normal” maintenance.
Sorry Jan, I should have been less specific… I meant at the first overhaul cycle not at a specific number of hours. Most aircraft engines, certified or not, are run on condition to overhaul.
OK, Silvaire, still 2000 hours is an awful lot. I bought my plane and engine almost new, flying 100 hours per year I am good for 20 years and I am not so sure my medical will last until I’m 80. The answer to that is of course the resale value; but honestly I don’t care too much.
And, as I understand it, the non-certified Rotaxen are run until a problem shows, with only basic maintenance (oil, filter, spark plugs…). The more conscious owner/pilots will check cylinder wear and replace cylinders/pistons at occasion. But you are right that replacing/redoing the crank is too expensive.
I do am curious about your idea of creating a six cylinder version of the 912/914; I think that is also what LeSving had in mind when mentioning a more powerful version. Surely there must be a market for such an engine; Jabiru did the same thing to their (not very well reputed) 4-cylinder 2200 and had some commercial success with the 3300. But such an engine would be attractive mainly for the certified market and that is not Rotax’s strong point, as yet. Just like their customer Pipistrel, they find it difficult to get away from the world of grass runways, and planes fueled from a couple of jerrycans.
In those markets people build their own engines. They service their own engines, takes them apart, put them together. They trim their Rotaxes by larger cylinders, turbo, FI, FADEC. Some even modify the Bings to get manual mixture control. Bolt on governors for CS props etc etc.
Hm, hmm. Servicing the engines, yes. Take them apart, some but not all. Build their own engines? I’ve yet to see the first engine concocted behind the kitchen stove by an amateur pilot. Larger cylinders? FADEC? Never seen either. Adding one’s own turbo, perhaps, perhaps; but in most of these craft there is insufficient room under the hood for such a bulky addition.
People that are knowledgeable about engines, and like tinkering with them, seem to be mostly concerned with converting automobile or motorbike engines. I remember my own guru saying “such a Rotax is too expensive to tinker with, you better leave it for what it is”.
PS your recent messages have been a pleasure to read – at least as regards readability and language – thank you indeed!
Rotax do sell some engines on certified airframes. So they are not averse to that.
I am certain they have looked at making bigger engines and found that it isn’t quite so simple as is made out on pilot forums.
Firstly they would need to make it Lyco/Conti form factor compatible (flat four or flat six) and then what exactly are they going to do to improve on the Lyco/Conti engine designs?
There isn’t much major you can do to improve on them. Just little bits here and there. Lyco are now doing roller tappets, which addresses their main problem.
Any improvement on the engine management front would need FADEC but that is hardly rocket science and as soon as Lyco were to be seriously threatened they would throw in FADEC very fast. The only reason they don’t do it already is because the market is very conservative and they won’t go ahead of it. They probably should do electronic ignition…
So Rotax would have a very vulnerable business model. The moment you start to succeed, is by definition the moment where the market is ready for new technology, and the carpet will be pulled out from under you by the established players. Nobody with a brain is going to have a go at that. You have the same situation in most areas of avionics.
Of course Rotax will never say that. If you ask them, they will tell you that the reason they don’t do it is because it would cost them $1000,000,000 to certify the engine and then it will cost them $1000,000,000 in product liability insurance – the boilerplate excuses in aviation where you don’t want to reveal the real reason you are keeping out of some market 
I am certain they have looked at making bigger engines and found that it isn’t quite so simple as is made out on pilot forums.
Actually the have that engine, two versions of it, a 200HP and one 300HP. They are certified and all. But, BRP decided put them on the shelve indefinitely to focus on recreational aviation, after 10 years of development and God knows how many million dollars spent.
Specs
The end
Actually the have that engine, two versions of it, a 200HP and one 300HP.
Not really…
Both engines are built around a 120°-V layout, making them smaller than engines with similar power. The compact shape will let cowlings be slimmer and more aerodynamic.
IOW, it won’t fit any current aircraft. Who is going to buy it? Nobody.
They are certified and all
says it will complete certification of the 300hp (225kW) engine by the end of the year
And the usual explanation
However, Ohrnberger says BRP is unlikely to sell the engine design “due to product liability laws, particularly in the USA”.
Time to stop posting info which is wrong, perhaps?
it won’t fit any current aircraft
This is confusing me, Peter. If the engine is smaller than the existing, then surely the existing cowl will fit it???
