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.
There is one guy here in Norway that develops and sells all kinds of stuff for Rotax. There are several similar companies in Germany as well, but I don’t remember their names.
SilentHektik is one, they collaborate with the Rotax guru from Yutz, France. Their stands at Aero were adjacent, and when I asked to see one particular accessory I was taken to the other stand to have a look.
Time to stop posting info which is wrong, perhaps?
Exactly what is your problem? Seriously. These Rotax engines are common knowledge. They have been on display and on posters everywhere 10 years ago. Every single thing I have brought up on this forum, you have questioned in a rather hostile manner. I find that very strange, because it is all common knowledge stuff for anyone who has been flying for a while. I also do not understand this hostility, where is that coming from?
I understood the Rotax V6 never flew because of engineering issues – it apparently blew up in taxi testing after extensive dyno time. I’d be happy to be proved wrong since that was an Oshkosh rumor. Regardless it was a strangely naive techno-business approach: intentionally non-rebuildable, cam chains etc.
The Italians do a lot of small aircraft engine development too. I think its great.
Silvaire, what do you mean by “intentionally non-buildable”? Your same complaint as about the certified 912/914, that once at TBO they are essentially to be binned? Yes, that is regrettable, but it is how the world runs today. Repair and maintenance are considered necessary evils, to be avoided wherever possible.
As for the cam chains: one of my reasons for choosing my present car with its IVECO 3.0 diesel is precisely the use of a cam chain rather than a belt; and it’s a choice I do not regret. For an aircraft engine they might be heavy, though.
Rebuilding: economically necessary for low volume, high cost machinery as opposed to high volume ‘consumer durables’
Cam chains: gears are normal for aircraft engines, and for good reason.
Reports from the UK suggest that it costs more than 100L to buy it wholesale, so there is no point in the airport(s) stocking it.
TOTAL had promised a big price advantage but have never delivered on that.
I noticed it wasn’t available at EGBJ/Gloucester (the only place I have seen it in the past) last time I went there. Leaded fuel in aviation seems to be so entrenched it would take regulatory action for it to be replaced by unleaded fuel, and as far as I know there’s still quite a few engines not approved for 91UL.
There are loads of engines not approved for 91UL. Mine (IO540-C4) was one of the last ones before Lyco stopped. AFAIK no turbo engines, or any with a comp ratio over 1:8.5 (which is what mine is) are approved.
So the biggest users of fuel can’t use the stuff.
This made TOTAL’s gamble a big gamble.
I would have thought that the biggest users of fuel would be the flight schools?
