Jump to content

Rotax Stator Rumor


gbigs

Recommended Posts

I guess that depends on the mechanic. My A&P charges less than $65/hr.

 

It's certainly not "half rate"...if you are paying $130/hr, you are not getting anywhere near a normal rate. Lockwood charges $95/hr and they are considered high.

Which is sad because hog and luxury car work is considered low at the 100 mark...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 1 month later...

I have a Rotax 912iS and it is in the shop for the stator upgrade right now, just dropped off. Rotax is covering parts and labor. I had to cover the parts cost up front (about $1000) and will be reimbursed. The shop is a major well known distributor and they are planning on billing Rotax directly for labor if allowed. If I end up having to pay labor and be reimbursed I'll be happy to do it. If there is some cost to me I'll happily pay it to do my part and have any additional squawks that may be discovered addressed. I specifically asked the shop to change the oil and be alert for anything showing wear and replace it. The SB is an upgrade that a lesser company would likely not cover, my airplane shows no problems at all. I don't expect aircraft ownership to be based on lowest cost but on highest reliability and capability. I have had no engine safety issues in approx 200 hours on the 912iS and wouldn't even consider a carbureted engine. What issues I have had were centered around incorrect sensor wire tie downs causing a few infrequent false faults after the sport upgrade that "cleared" on reset. Rotax diagnosed these and also paid to correct them even though it could have been argued they were installation issues. The engine is fantastic, sips fuel, great power, modern computer control system and has had no other issues at all, none. My previous 2 (out of many) aircraft were a turbo normalized Bonanza G36 and before that a 58 Baron. Both had minor issues when new and while Continental ended up resolving them they were no where near as easy to deal with as Rotax. Rotax has broken the mold in terms of setting the highest standard of support in the aviation industry. I have no affiliation with Rotax other than owning an aircraft with their engine in it but have been in aviation for over 35 years as a pilot, airplane owner and senior executive from a major US aerospace company. LSA owners are the cheapest crowd of aircraft owners I've ever seen and I concur with the previous comment that the cheapest part in the plane is often the pilot. We are incredibly lucky to have access to low cost aircraft in a country with no user fees, cheap fuel, and abundant choices in everything from airframes and engines to avionics and support. It saddens me to see such penny pinching as that expressed in this thread and what I've seen during "hangar talk". Rotax is upgrading the stator out of an abundance of caution and at their expense. The engine is incredibly redundant and provides abundant electrical power but manufacturers and buyers keep putting more avionics and "gear" into LSA's. I have a multi-screen G3X system, autopilot, XM, LED lighting systems, etc, in a machine that is limited to 120 knots VFR. That's well in excess of what my IFR Baron had and while I like it, it is clearly over the top given the mission. As an American and a pilot, I like the "over the top" equipment and am quite appreciative that Rotax is proactively upgrading the electrical system, at their expense, to ensure I can power it all. It's worth considering that some of the new seaplanes on the drawing boards even have electric "trolling motors" being repurposed as thrusters for water handling. We can expect the electrical systems to be fully "tapped" and no doubt Rotax knows this and as such are upgrading the stators to ensure the engine is never the weak link. I have no doubt that the 912iS is a huge leap in capability and technology and I can't thank Rotax enough for continuing to drive aviation engine technology forward. I can burn Mogas, don't use oil, it's relatively quiet, has low emissions, and is affordable.

 

If you don't aviation is affordable you clearly haven't worked through the development costs and complexities of aircraft or recently purchased and maintained complex part 23 airplanes. My "low cost" LSA cost more than my first house(s) but I didn't fly them and I know what amazing capability and freedom it affords me. When I hear pilots complain that these planes ("should cost half, or be at or under $100K") are too expensive I wonder if they fully appreciate that making an 800# low volume modern airplane is miraculous.

 

Rotax support is awesome and better than I ever got from Lycoming or Continental and I've owned numerous examples of both. If you've been around Aviation awhile you know how inexpensive flying is once again. It hasn't been this affordable since the '70's and we're even out from under the thumb of the FAA! We need GA to thrive again and to get that we all need to be champions of the industry when they've earned it. Rotax has earned it. The airframe manufacturers don't even come close to being as supportive as Rotax, this is first hand experience.

 

I apologize for any typos from working with this little phone screen and emplore my fellow aviators to appreciate it when we have a great supplier. It took me a long time to trust these little engines but now I do and I truly trust Rotax. I have had reason to put support to the test with the airframe, avionics, and engine and hands down Rotax is the best with Garmin second and all others well behind. I don't post as a rule and am very private but in this case felt compelled to speak out. GA is coming back, that's great! Expect SB's again, it's part of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Rotax 912iS and it is in the shop for the stator upgrade right now, just dropped off. Rotax is covering parts and labor.

 

Rotax is not covering all the labor...you will still get a bill for some of it.  It is a full engine pull and replace.  You will also be paying for the oil change.   The GAMA report that came out this morning showed a decline in sales from last year, down about 5%.  Flight Design shipped 13 planes in Q1 and no planes in Q2.  http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GAMA-Reports-Declines-In-2016-Aircraft-Shipments-226752-1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification.  Am aware that the engine has to be removed and re-installed not replaced. I'm also aware that the oil change is extra but it looks like the rest is going to fit in the allowance by Rotax, will know soon enough.  

 

My aircraft is a new Tecnam P2008 but weighed in on this forum since you folks have a much better (for that matter have a) forum. I stand by the fact that Rotax has been super to deal with and have literally been amazing in their outreach and willingness to cover anything of concern on the engine without question.  I also stand by the fact that if there is a residual cost to me I will be happy to pay it, the engine is amazing and there is no way I'll let cost become a driving factor in doing anything recommended or required.  Perhaps it's my experience with maintaining part 23 aircraft and having been hit with costs out of the blue that make anything in the LSA world pale by comparison. 

 

Thanks for sharing the report. It is interesting to note the increase in Cessna 172's and TBM's for example and a sad note on the FD's. I've been wondering if the new Class III medical reforms would take a toll on sales and cause potential buyers to wait and see what comes out of the FAA, seems a bit early for that to account for the 172 situation though.  On the FD side, the uncertainty in manufacturing and support seem to have really hit them, much more than I would have anticipated.  We really need GA to re-invigorate and it looks like my optimism could well be a bit premature.

 

The P2008 is gaining market share and I'm not surprised given it's refinement and performance.  I'm also well aware of the "high price" of the P2008 but that honestly had little bearing on my personal decision.  Compared with anything else out there, and I did compare everything currently being built, it fit  my mission profile the best and it's combination of performance, comfort and styling won out.  We are all partial to our own airplanes of course and I was quite uncertain if it was the right choice. Now that I have owned it for awhile, and have a couple of hundred hours on it, flying and owning it has made me a believer.  My biggest concern was whether to get the 914 or 912iS and I couldn't be happier with the iS decision.  The plane always gets to the "speed limit", climbs out extremely well even from high DA airports, and is quite refined.  I have 485# useful load with the 912iS and fully G3X options and the chute is being added costing me about 26# UL.

 

The FD was high on my consideration list but the companies uncertain future weighted heavily on my decision.  I also have a very tall torso, am 6'1" with very short legs and I hit my head (headset to be precise) on the FD but have a couple of inches to spare with the P2008 and that too drove me in the Tecnam direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  My aircraft is a new Tecnam P2008 but weighed in on this forum since you folks have a much better (for that matter have a) forum. I stand by the fact that Rotax has been super to deal with and have   I have 485# useful load with the 912iS and fully G3X options and the chute is being added costing me about 26# UL.

 

Couple of tips for you. 

 

1. it may be too late but burning Mogas versus 100LL in the Rotax is a much cleaner and less costly way to go in the long run.  The lead requires you to use semi-syn oils and change that oil twice as often as Mogas. And the fuel is twice the cost.   The fuel-injected version is superior to the carb'd version agreed, many on the forum fly the older SW planes with the carb'd engines and will argue this point. 

 

I had an EGT sensor go out enroute to Vegas in a new CT and Rotax was willing to cover the part and labor but not the ferry fuel or time to get the mechanic to the remote airport to make the repair.    The plane was grounded per Rotax instruction.

 

2. retrofitting a parachute is a bad idea.  the testing and planning required to make the parachute work properly are integral to the proper operation of the chute.  Also, the BRS chute needs to be anchored in the airframe as it's being built to make sure it wont pull lose on the pull.  Unless those anchor points have been installed during assembly of the airframe already there is no sure way to get that part of the job done correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification.  Am aware that the engine has to be removed and re-installed not replaced. I'm also aware that the oil change is extra but it looks like the rest is going to fit in the allowance by Rotax, will know soon enough.  

 

My aircraft is a new Tecnam P2008 but weighed in on this forum since you folks have a much better (for that matter have a) forum. I stand by the fact that Rotax has been super to deal with and have literally been amazing in their outreach and willingness to cover anything of concern on the engine without question.  I also stand by the fact that if there is a residual cost to me I will be happy to pay it, the engine is amazing and there is no way I'll let cost become a driving factor in doing anything recommended or required.  Perhaps it's my experience with maintaining part 23 aircraft and having been hit with costs out of the blue that make anything in the LSA world pale by comparison. 

 

Thanks for sharing the report. It is interesting to note the increase in Cessna 172's and TBM's for example and a sad note on the FD's. I've been wondering if the new Class III medical reforms would take a toll on sales and cause potential buyers to wait and see what comes out of the FAA, seems a bit early for that to account for the 172 situation though.  On the FD side, the uncertainty in manufacturing and support seem to have really hit them, much more than I would have anticipated.  We really need GA to re-invigorate and it looks like my optimism could well be a bit premature.

 

The P2008 is gaining market share and I'm not surprised given it's refinement and performance.  I'm also well aware of the "high price" of the P2008 but that honestly had little bearing on my personal decision.  Compared with anything else out there, and I did compare everything currently being built, it fit  my mission profile the best and it's combination of performance, comfort and styling won out.  We are all partial to our own airplanes of course and I was quite uncertain if it was the right choice. Now that I have owned it for awhile, and have a couple of hundred hours on it, flying and owning it has made me a believer.  My biggest concern was whether to get the 914 or 912iS and I couldn't be happier with the iS decision.  The plane always gets to the "speed limit", climbs out extremely well even from high DA airports, and is quite refined.  I have 485# useful load with the 912iS and fully G3X options and the chute is being added costing me about 26# UL.

 

The FD was high on my consideration list but the companies uncertain future weighted heavily on my decision.  I also have a very tall torso, am 6'1" with very short legs and I hit my head (headset to be precise) on the FD but have a couple of inches to spare with the P2008 and that too drove me in the Tecnam direction.

 

Fan...,

      With an SLSA purchase decision approaching I appreciate what you have to contribute to the discussion.   If you posted those from a smart phone, you win the iron-thumb award.  I once published a daily travelog from Rome from my iPhone at the cost of 2 hours a day for a month.  It took almost 60 days for my thumbs to recover when we got back home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The iPhone posting does bite...

 

On the parachute, the plane has the harness and box already installed, it is pre-configured, and it is a factory option. The factory only puts them in if the customer elects to do so. Most Tecnam airframes come parachute ready. It is common for Tecnam to add them if the plane is factory ready, which this one is. They won't "retrofit" one. Hard to believe they test the parachute in every plane delivered with one then seal back up the composite. Where is your info coming from? Perhaps you were thinking a retrofit from scratch? This is not that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  The fuel-injected version is superior to the carb'd version . 

 

A few of the things that make it superior.

 

1. Lower power to weight compared to the 912ULS, for those times when extra power is not needed.

2. Cost more than the 912ULS. This is important, especially when you are trying to prove you are better than everyone else.

3. It is more complex. More complex is always better. Right??

 

:rolleyes:  :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Just so everybody knows. This was said with tongue in cheek. I have worked on and flown both the 912iS and the 912ULS. I think the 912iS is a fine engine. It is certainly different than the 912ULS in many ways, but to say it is superior is a little bit of a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few of the things that make it superior.

 

1. Lower power to weight compared to the 912ULS, for those times when extra power is not needed.

2. Cost more than the 912ULS. This is important, especially when you are trying to prove you are better than everyone else.

3. It is more complex. More complex is always better. Right??

 

I warned the guy this would happen:

 

1. the extra weight of the engine is minor, about 35 lbs...you can get that delta just in a fat pilot

2. the torque (with sport upgrade) is higher than the older engines and thus better performing...and the sophistication of the ECU and electronic monitoring and in-flight engine management make the extra cost far worth it.

3. the fuel burn is at least 20% more efficient (the sport version even higher, around 30% less fuel burned).

4. the threads here on carbs document trail of troubles: leaks, icing, choking and maintenance hassles which more than warrant the modern use of fuel injection in the engine.

 

The final proof the 912iS engine is better?  No one orders a new plane with the 912ULS anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The iPhone posting does bite...

 

On the parachute, the plane has the harness and box already installed, it is pre-configured, and it is a factory option. The factory only puts them in if the customer elects to do so. Most Tecnam airframes come parachute ready. It is common for Tecnam to add them if the plane is factory ready, which this one is. They won't "retrofit" one. Hard to believe they test the parachute in every plane delivered with one then seal back up the composite. Where is your info coming from? Perhaps you were thinking a retrofit from scratch? This is not that.

 

That's good.  By testing I meant the manufacturer does drop testing to make sure the design works.  Not that each plane made is dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not the first to ask.

 

Ask Vans which of the Rotax versions they ship the most, Flight Design (before they stopped shipping planes in Q2) said no one buys the 912ULS anymore in their new aircraft. 

 

AOPA:  Rotax lowers fuel burn, boosts performance with 912 iS Sport https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/april/01/rotax-upgrade

 

Aviation Consumer.com:  Rotax 912 iS Efficiency: Better than Claimed  http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/43_8/industrynews/Rotax-912-Aircraft-Engine_6406-1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another practical consideration...

 

Mechanics with the specialized tools and equipment to work on an injected ROTAX are few and far between, at least right now.

 

Not a big deal if one lives near a population center with a large ROTAX dealership. But for a large swath of the country, it's quite a haul to find someone to work on a malfunctioning injected ROTAX.

 

That will change over time, and no doubt that fuel injection is the future. But for the present, it does have some drawbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I warned the guy this would happen:

 

1. the extra weight of the engine is minor, about 35 lbs...you can get that delta just in a fat pilot

2. the torque (with sport upgrade) is higher than the older engines and thus better performing...and the sophistication of the ECU and electronic monitoring and in-flight engine management make the extra cost far worth it.

3. the fuel burn is at least 20% more efficient (the sport version even higher, around 30% less fuel burned).

4. the threads here on carbs document trail of troubles: leaks, icing, choking and maintenance hassles which more than warrant the modern use of fuel injection in the engine.

 

The final proof the 912iS engine is better?  No one orders a new plane with the 912ULS anymore.

 

Having more money than sense doesn't automatically make an engine better.

 

1. The 912iS engine is 11% heavier than the 912ULS.

2. The torque increase is only 3% over the 912ULS. It is hardly noticeable, especially when you factor in the increased weight. Based on flying CTLS with both fuel injected and carbureted engines.

3. I have flown 2 different CTLSi with the 912iS engine. If the fuel flow indicator in the planes were to be believed, there is nowhere close to 20% reduction in fuel burned, sport or not. This is compared to several 912ULS powered aircraft I have flown.

4. While I agree that the carbs have their own issues, the 912iS is not without it's own problems. I have more than once had to troubleshoot excessive amp draw on a 912iS. IIRC you also had this issue, along with a failed sensor that you complained about earlier in this thread.

5. When I replace the CTLS that I have now, I will have to think long and hard about the engine choice. From a operational standpoint there is no way to justify the 912iS. For what I do the carbureted engine is a better choice. On the flipside I do have to think about reselling the airplane. There are far to many people like yourself who thinks the latest, greatest, and most expensive is always better. The truth is those are the people who can afford to buy the airplane, so you put the 912is engine in it just for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice on the bluetooth keyboard, will certainly heed it as using the tiny keys with my fat fingers is frustrating.

 

Also, thanks for the warning on the site feedback, the heads up is appreciated.  

 

As far as the cost comment goes, pretty snarky stuff that's more appropriate for a fashion website than an aviation forum.

 

In terms of complexity, the 912iS is actually a simpler engine when you consider the elimination of the dual self leaning carburetors which are finicky items that haven't been in cars (or in this case, dual carbs, so motorcycles) for decades.  The 912iS complexity is in the sensors and monitoring of the engine and the engine control computers but these are really mature technologies long overdo for application into piston GA engines.  These parts of the 912iS engine are really robust and are fully redundant as is the fuel injection system.  Rotax raised the bar for Lycoming, Continental and all of the engine manufacturers which is good for us all.  To be sure this was a very expensive development program and I'm very grateful that Rotax made the investment instead of resting on their laurels. There is a great video on the Rotax owners forum on 912iS redundancy to add to the list of objective 912iS engine reviews already provided above.  This does not take anything away from the 912ULS, it's proven itself over the years but if you buy new today you can potentially benefit from technological progress by selecting the 912iS. 

 

If cost is the primary driver for your engine decision, any premium paid for the 912iS vs a 912ULS will be re-cooped by comparing Life Cycle Costs (LCC) which include overall costs like operating expenses, maintenance, and resale value not just acquisition cost.  That said, as previously stated, it wasn't in the trade space for me relative to this airplanes configuration.  The decision was made purely on mission, maintenance, capability and redundancy.  If you do consider engine cost, LCC is the best comparison. The differential in engine costs versus the cost of the total airplane and the tradeoffs that can be made in avionics and airframe options made engine cost drop out of the engine decision in my personal case. This is surely more certain a trade-off for S-LSA's or factory built planes.

 

This will be different for each owner but I suspect, all other things being equal, a thorough evaluation will make the 912iS win every time and I agree with the post about new aircraft being almost exclusively ordered with the 912iS. I did struggle with the 912iS vs 914 decision since I live in the mountain west and DA is always in the trade space.  For me, the LCC, higher torque, being stuck with a fixed pitch prop, amount of actual high DA usage, and the totality of mission requirements is what led to my decision.  If I lived in Colorado, I would wait for the 915.  It is also clear that if you are building from a kit, the 912iS has some additional integration requirements that may preclude it from being used depending on what you are building and how far along you are.  As usual one size does not fit all and cost is never the only consideration and in some cases, like mine, it ended up not being a consideration in the totality of the decision.

 

This is a great resource and I appreciate the insights of this group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, thanks for the warning on the site feedback, the heads up is appreciated.

 

As far as the cost comment goes, pretty snarky stuff that's more appropriate for a fashion website than an aviation forum.

 

In terms of complexity, the 912iS is actually a simpler engine when you consider the elimination of the dual self leaning carburetors which are finicky items that haven't been in cars (or in this case, dual carbs, so motorcycles) for decades. The 912iS complexity is in the sensors and monitoring of the engine and the engine control computers but these are really mature technologies long overdo for application into piston GA engines.

 

If cost is the primary driver for your engine decision, any premium paid for the 912iS vs a 912ULS will be re-cooped by comparing Life Cycle Costs (LCC) which include overall costs like operating expenses, maintenance, and resale value not just acquisition cost. That said, as previously stated, it wasn't in the trade space for me relative to this airplanes configuration. The decision was made purely on mission, maintenance, capability and redundancy. If you do consider engine cost, LCC is the best comparison.

 

This will be different for each owner but I suspect, all other things being equal, a thorough evaluation will make the 912iS win every time and I agree with the post about new aircraft being almost exclusively ordered with the 912iS.

 

This is a great resource and I appreciate the insights of this group.

First off 912is Fan,

 

Welcome to the forum. There is no doubt that the 912iS is a wonderful engine that is a leap forward in technology.

 

Please take the warning about posters on this forum with a grain of salt. It comes from someone who would tell you your P2008 is not as good as a CTLSi, because it has old style antiquated aluminum wings.

 

As for my snarky cost comment. It was directed towards someone who thinks their airplane is better than anything else out there , because they could afford to buy all the options. Also more importantly is that it is better because of who owns it. It also comes out of frustration from almost 4 years of outlandish post and comments.

 

Anyway, for the most part you will get good information from knowledgeable people on this forum.

 

Now to address some of your comments.

 

I am a Rotax IRMT who is trained to work on both the 912ULS and 912iS. I am quite aware of the differences between the 2 engines. At this point Rotax has had some teething pains with the injected engine. There is no doubt they will get it worked out.

 

As for the cost. I don't know what Tecnam charges for the upgrade to the 912iS, but the Flight Design cost was around $10,000. Now if you look at fuel cost. In most cases with the carbureted engine in average operations you will likely burn around 4 gallons per hour. If you fly the airplane to the TBO of 2,000 hours, you will use 8,000 gallons. If the injected engine does get 20% better fuel economy you will use 1600 gallons less fuel. At $4.00 per gallon your fuel savings is $6400., and it is even less if prices are lower like they are now. That means you would have to save over $3600 in maintenance in the life of the engine to TBO, just to break even. Based on my experience so far with both engines the time savings on maintenance of the 912iS will not make up the $3600 difference.

 

I use my airplane for instruction and rental. The new CTLSi's are coming in 50-60 pounds heavier than my old carbureted CTLS. When I figure in the cost premium with the additional weight, it just doesn't make sense for someone like me to upgrade to the fuel injected model. At least with a Flight Design CTLSi.

 

I also maintain a P2008 with a 912ULS. It is a beautiful airplane, but even without the weight of the 912iS it would be too heavy to use for instruction and rental. To be honest I haven't seen or heard of any 912iS equipped aircraft that really have enough useful load to make a good training and rental aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I suggest that you've left out one important consideration in your cost calculation, and that's resale value.

 

Your used injected model might be worth a lot more than £3600 in terms of differential value compared to a ULS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I suggest that you've left out one important consideration in your cost calculation, and that's resale value.

 

Your used injected model might be worth a lot more than £3600 in terms of differential value compared to a ULS.

 

Al, I didn't leave it out of the consideration, I just didn't include it in my post. I don't think it will significantly increase the resale value. The $3600. difference after fuel savings is based on the airplane going to TBO. If the engine is at TBO the resale value of the airplane is already going to be in the tank. If you sell the airplane before TBO you will not realize the all the fuel savings, so you will have to get even more because of the injected engine to break even.

 

The one positive of having the 912iS when reselling is while it may not be worth more it might be easier to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...