“However I would not entrust life of my family to that engine. Enough for me when the manufacturer says in the manual that the engine can stop any time and you must always have a place ready to land nearby your position. ”
And you think, that just because Conti doesn’t mention it in the manual, it can’t happen? Dream on 
However I’m with bosco – there’s a reason why there are so few conversions after all those years. For sure it’s not because of a reliability problem of the Rotax 912.
The training industry is generally short of cash for capital expenditure. Only a busy school could afford it, and from what I see it was only busy schools which went for the diesel conversions. I suspect most C150/152 type operators are really quite broke.
Here is a small real story.
Just yesterday was pretty windy here. I had made plans to have lunch with pilots I know wo arr based 11nm from mine. (Don’t tell Peter, it was a 11nm burger run:P).
I took a 152 from my all-cessna club. I landed surprisingly well with about a 20kts crosswind (my currency is not great).
They showed their awesome aquila which does 118kts, for cheaper. I sat in it and it reminded me the APM, maybe better. Seems a great plane. We had lunch and my friend who is checked out in it (a better pilot than me definitely) told me « I would have taken you for a ride, but with this crosswind, I don’t even want to try ». So I came back to my 152 and flew back 11nm.
Conclusion : my 152 is for sure old, slower, less sexy, but it took me there and back yesterday, while he could only talk about flying :p
Raven wrote:
However I would not entrust life of my family to that engine. Enough for me when the manufacturer says in the manual that the engine can stop any time and you must always have a place ready to land nearby your position. They know their stuff :)
What the manual says is actually that “any engine may seize or stall at any time. etc.” Which is perfectly accurate.
I know of several cases where Lycoming engines have seized suddenly. And?
Jujupilote wrote:
Here is a small real story.
Just yesterday was pretty windy here. I had made plans to have lunch with pilots I know wo arr based 11nm from mine. (Don’t tell Peter, it was a 11nm burger run:P).
I took a 152 from my all-cessna club. I landed surprisingly well with about a 20kts crosswind (my currency is not great).
They showed their awesome aquila which does 118kts, for cheaper. I sat in it and it reminded me the APM, maybe better. Seems a great plane. We had lunch and my friend who is checked out in it (a better pilot than me definitely) told me « I would have taken you for a ride, but with this crosswind, I don’t even want to try ». So I came back to my 152 and flew back 11nm.
Conclusion : my 152 is for sure old, slower, less sexy, but it took me there and back yesterday, while he could only talk about flying :p
Max. demonstrated crosswind for the A210 during certification was 15 kts, that’s why Aquila pilots are reluctant to fly in any heavier crosswind. It’s not a hard limit though and during the PPL my FI told stories of landing an A210 with 25 kts crosswind, but it’s not something I would recommend. The most I ever flew with was about 13 kts crosswind component, and that wasn’t fun.
Also 118 kts is not something you get with the typical 65% power setting of 2000 RPM and 24" MP in cruise, more like somewhere between 105 and 110 kts. 118 kts would require the 75% power setting, with max. continous power you can get well above 120 kts.
Max demonstrated crosswind is linked to stall speed (roughly 0.2*VS0) rather than Rotax vs Lyco
I used to fly a TMG with Rotax912 in 20kts crosswinds (you need that for ridge/wave flying ), I would have gone higher but it is a low wing tailwheel, in the other hand a C152/172/182 should be able to do 35G45 in good hands
Gentlemen,
I don’t want to “make a fight” about Rotax vs Lyco/Conti.
The story I told you is my own experience. So that made my subjective opinion about Rotax itself.
We were close to a big incident (or worse) if it would have happened say 10 minutes later, and NO chance that this story could have happened on other “dinosaurus” Lyco/Conti.
I understand that maybe majority of you now, fly Rotaxes. With success. They are small, light, powerfull and more efficient. A bit less “classical” if anyone cares :)
I will however stick to dinosaurs :)
So due to incoming Christmas – I wish you all – many many happy flying hours for the future – no failures – cheap fuel and very very low landing fees!! :))
Merry Christmas!!
Ibra wrote:
Max demonstrated crosswind is linked to stall speed (roughly 0.2*VS0) rather than Rotax vs Lyco
Isn’t it rather that if there is no max demonstrated crosswind in the POH, you should assume 0.2*Vso?
I wrote my little story to show that the cessna airframe does not only have disadvantages.
Another is that they can be parked outside. Our fleet sits outside since forever, and we never had any corrosion or structural issue. Our mechanics are awesome experts of cessnas I should add.
Well I think this is a great idea as the industry has simply not been able to come up with a replacement two seat training that actually does the job. Which is the reason why decent C152’s are changing hands for 50K plus at the moment
However for it to succeed over say 2000 hours it had to have lower operating costs than the C152 and at present with its TBO limits I can’t see this being the case. I would also like to see how reliable the conversion is.
A&C have you cast your eyes over one?
I think there is a lot to like
18kg greater load now that addresses one of the airframes current weaknesses. The lower fuel burn which gives about 5 hours endurance means one could fill the aeroplane and then operate it all day.
The shorter take off performance would also be use full. This time of year off soft, wet grass I am often runway length restricted. No more filling up after every flight.
I note it can run on mogas and mogas with 10% ethanol now this is great as its cheaper than avgas and in the rotax’s case results in 100 hour oil changes and other maintenance benefits.
I know people argue that the O-200 is a better engine but its not. The rotax is far longer lived. There is no such thing as a top end overhaul or sticking valves and I have never known a 912 ‘”make metal” It does have its weaknesses but they tend to be the accessories which are (relatively) cheap to replace.
