Put me down as one who is happy with the Rotax 914. There have been a few
minor issues in the first 250 hours, but they are not the engine's fault.
It did help to balance the carburetors. I had to adjust the turbo linkage.
Overheating was an issue early on, now solved but not the engines fault.
Every engine has these quirks. I have a Skylane and have to replace exhaust
gaskets more often than I think I should, its a nagging issue for 25
years(also the starter going bad, the voltage regulator replace. on AD
mags,etc). I consider the Lycoming O 540 a fine engine anyway. Things break
and you fix them. From what I hear, the Rotax engine has a good record of
getting people back on the ground safely. It can run rough if you give it a
lot of 100LL and no TCP. It is designed to run best on auto gas. I like
the Rotax quiet operation. It is very neighbor friendly in the noise
department. Look them all over but I think you are correct that the squeaky
wheels are the ones most often heard.
Ken Carpenter
A123 N9XS 914 Mono
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred R. Klein" <fklein@orcasonline.com>
Subject: Re: Europa-List: Rough 914
<fklein@orcasonline.com>
>
> on 8/28/04 10:52 AM, Dave Anderson at dja767@charter.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi group,
> >
> >
> > Here is another problem to solve. I have noticed a roughness at the
middle
> > range of RPM on the 914 engine...
>
> >I never get easy problems. They always seem to be perplexing problems...
>
>
> $.02 worth of comment, unfortunately of no help to Dave:
>
> I'm most sympathetic with anyone who experiences recurring engine
problems;
> Dave's appears (to me) to be another of a long string of complaints or
> difficulties by many Europa flyers with the Rotax engines. In reading
them,
> I am increasingly distressed in that one of the primary factors leading up
> to my decision to buy the Europa was that it was paired with a reliable
> engine based on current (rather than 1930-1940's) technology...I just
> couldn't justify going with alternatives which relied on the
> Lycoming/Continental paradigm.
>
> From the shared experiences I read about, my confidence in the Rotax
appears
> misplaced.
>
> I'll be upfront by saying I've yet to invest a nickel in the Europa FFWD
> kit, so I have an open mind (and eventually an
open-but-limited-pocketbook)
> to consider the obvious question about moving forward with my original
> intention of sticking with the integrated, well-proven, stock,
> company-supported, hi tech, Rotax FFWD package.
>
> Perhaps I'm only reading about the squeaky wheels...perhaps there are
> several hundred Rotax-engined Europas putting in fuel, tearing up the
skies,
> changing oil, having a ball and nary a squawk. I've monitored the
> transatlantic globe girdling trip of that German diplomat (my apologies,
his
> name escapes me)...surely his installation speaks to reliability.
> Unfortunately, my sense is that the Rotax needs a lot of, if not constant,
> tweaking.
>
> Of course I've read nothing to suggest that Rotaxes are falling out of the
> skies, but my goal (or is it an impossible dream?) with my Europa is to
log
> 500-1000 hours with only "normal" maintenance after an initial shakedown
> ...something akin to the 550 hrs. I've logged in my 1946 Stinson. Seems
> reasonable what with our technological advances.
>
> To that end, I'm willing to be shown the errors in my assessment, but I'm
> also willing to look at alternatives...as long as I can stay away from
> putting an original airframe/powerplant together, something which is far
> beyond my competance. I would consider, for example, going with a CAM 125
> ala Alex Bowman's monowheel, pictures of which along with minimal
narrative
> are available at http://www.firewall.ca/main.html (click on Photo
Gallery),
> should all FFWD components become available. (I first saw Alex's completed
> ship at the EAA Arlington WA fly in and it was very impressive.)
>
> ...somewhat perplexed...
>
> Fred
> A194, happily starting on wings
>
>
|