Piper to abandon the Piper Sport

[julian_storey]

Piper Aircraft Inc. will terminate its business relationship with Czech Republic-based Czech Sport Aircraft to market that company’s Light Sport Aircraft, citing differences in business philosophies.

“After a year working with Czech Sport Aircraft, Piper determined that it is in our company’s best long-term interests to discontinue the business relationship which distributed a Light Sport Aircraft manufactured by the Czech company and distributed under Piper’s brand by a separate distributor network,” said Piper CEO Geoffrey Berger. “Clearly, the company has a different business perspective and approach to the market than Czech Sport Aircraft,” he added.


Wonder where this leaves owners?

[Justiciar]

How many Piper versions have been sold? It would be interesting to know what these differences are! Presumably, the aircraft can continue to be sold by them with its restricted type certificate or as a kit?

[Dave Gittins]

I just got back from Kissimmee after a family Xmas vacation and flew both the SportCruiser and the PiperSport. They are identical to fly and delightful little aeroplanes.

This was my first time in LSAs and using Rotax engines and my main comment is that the handling is a little "skittish" after being used to PA-28s and C-172s. The rotation at 40 kts and landing at a similar speed were pretty easy to get used to and there was nothing untoward about the rest of the handling.

Thoroughly enjoyed meself.

The major difference between the SportCruiser and the PiperSport was the instrument fit. The SportCruiser has conventional instrumentation (to about Tiger Moth level of fit) and the PiperSport has glass on each side and an autopilot. LHS for flight instruments and RHS for engine and systems.

[A and C]

A glass cockpit is an option on the SC.

I am inclined to think that this move buy Piper is about business rather than a reflection on the aircraft.

[vanHorck]

... more about business than a reflection on the aircraft.....

Well, I cannot say I am impressed with Piper first going for this cooperation and then ending it so soon.... Heads should roll, this is not good business, not is it good for Piper's name.

An aircraft company should not be run through knee-jerk management

[PapaNovGolf]

Hmmm. Splitsville after such a short time as well. I wonder if it's economics that forced this decision ie. not enough sales, wrong price point etc. :hmm:

[IO540]

Piper is supported mainly by spares sales and the occassional PA46 sale.

The company doesn't have a future. The PA28 etc fleet has perhaps another 20 years to run, during which it will decline continually. The PA46 is very dated and hangs in there only because nobody has gone for that niche. The Meridian has competition from the Jetprop but most JP conversions are done on used Malibu airframes. The Piperjet is way way behind everybody else, into a market which is much smaller than most expected a few years ago.

In a company like that it will be extremely hard to retain any talent - especially in the USA. It's a bit like Honeywell (GA dept) - hardly anybody left in there with any get up and go.

As a Czech myself, it would not suprise me if the Czech company was playing funny games too. The Czechs are very good at that - the ex communists make the trickiest capitalists because they think all bets are off when it comes to acceptable corporate behaviour. Didn't they have an American owner?

[patowalker]

As a Czech myself, it would not suprise me if the Czech company was playing funny games too. The Czechs are very good at that - the ex communists make the trickiest capitalists because they think all bets are off when it comes to acceptable corporate behaviour. Didn't they have an American owner?

Czech company, Slovak owned. As you suspect, the are past masters at playing funny games, which is precisely why the company no longer has an American owner.

[dstevens]

A wonderful contribution from a friend of mine, reproduced below (hope he doesn't mind!):

How to buy an aircraft manufacturer very cheaply.....

1. Create great expectations that you want a close operating relationship with the manufacturer
2. Agree exclusive distribution rights – the manufacturer is now totally dependent on you.
3. Try to buy the company.
4. The private owners want too much money.
5. Break the exclusive distribution agreement. The manufacturer was dependent on you and is now left high-and-dry.
6. Manufacturer goes bankrupt (or nearly does).
7. Step in and buy the company for next-to-nothing.
8. Be hailed as a great hero for saving many jobs.
9. Be hailed by your shareholders as a genius for buying a superb aircraft production line for next-to-nothing
10. Take over managing the factory, improve efficiency, customer care and response times.
11. You now own a world-beating product with no start up costs and little risk for your shareholders.

As they say across the pond, "go figure".......

[patowalker]

2. Agree exclusive distribution rights – the manufacturer is now totally dependent on you.

Except that does not apply here. There are 87 Sport Cruisers on the UK register and just 4 Piper Sports. On the FAA register there are 104 Sport Cruisers and 56 Piper Sports.

... and

I want to update you on our activities in the US since the announcement. I can tell you that the existing US PiperSport distributors have been meeting via
phone conference daily and have today agreed to work together to explore
business structures with CSA, continue to build spare parts inventories and
change very little in how we import, assemble and distribute the Czech airplane
in the US for now. We want to continue to stabilize service and support. Most
of us already carry and hold spare parts for our customers.

The US distributor group will try to get the message of unity and continuity to
the market while we prepare to meet with CSA executive leadership in Sebring
Florida this month. We want to continue forward supporting the Czech aircraft
(can I say SportCruiser again yet?).

[dstevens]

Not sure your reply to (2) is correct.....all the SC's were sold BEFORE the Piper deal, CSA terminated its reseller contracts, and stated on its own website that the SC was no longer available. Now, sure, CSA can put humpty back together again, and go back to the old arrangement, but meantime the drop off in orders WILL hurt them. The question is, do they have enough cash to ride it out. Hope so.

[Sir George Cayley]

Just got my mits on January's Pilot Mag. Front cover?

Piper Sport LSA. Well I never:rolleyes:

Sir George Cayley

[1800ed]

Interesting notice on the CSA website:

http://www.czechsportaircraft.com/images/notice.jpg

[Genghis the Engineer]

I notice that the Piper Sport is still on Piper's website (http://www.piper.com/home/pages/PiperSport.cfm), notwithstanding the news about the coming break in business relationship also being there.

I can't honestly say I'm surprised; I've had dealings with Piper and CzAW - they're chalk and cheese, and there are things in the way that CzAW do business, that if I were running Piper, I'd not be at-all comfortable with.

G

[patowalker]

They must have inventory to sell off. The CSA website has reverted to Sport Cruiser.

CZAW never had dealings with Piper. CSA is a different company, under different management and ownership, but they are still chalk and cheese with Piper.

Having bought both a Zenair and Sport Cruiser kit from CZAW, I would prefer to deal with Chip than the new lot any day.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What happened to Chip? Whilst I'm not sure I always agreed with him, he was a likeable and competent chap.

G

[gasax]

Chip was forced out by the Slav finance lot who had as I understand it provided much of the finance for Chip's expansion to enable SportCruiser production. They then formed CSAW when they got rid him (pretty close to the original company name of CZAW?) by making CZAW bankrupt.

They are an interesting and pretty hard headed bunch as it would appear Piper have now found out. It will be interesting to see where it all ends!

[patowalker]

They then formed CSAW when they got rid him (pretty close to the original company name of CZAW?) by making CZAW bankrupt.

CSA actually.

As far as I know, Chip is in Prague. It probably won't be long before he surfaces with another business. After all, he initially went to CZ to build surfboards.

[smarthawke]

I heard that the guy in the UK who got the SportCruiser through as an LAA kit lost his position as the UK importer at the same time as Chip's departure...

That was when the new importer suddenly appeared (!) and then that was all going to get interesting as Piper UK (part of Piper Germany) felt that they ought to be the UK rep for the PiperSport (not surprisingly). In fact, I also heard the Piper UK had just won that battle before Piper pulled the plug.

At the time of the Piper deal, it was also mentioned that (allegedly), Chip had some kind of rights over the SC and Piper had paid the wrong person/people...!

Anyone know if there was any substance to the above rumours?

[patowalker]

There is a dispute over intellectual rights to the SC, but whether that had any bearing on Piper's decision to pull the plug, I don't know.

[Rod1]

smarthawke

Some of that is certainly true. The co that got the original CS through LAA approval was Sprite aviation. When Chip was forced out a new distributor was set up, but Sprite had kits in stock and carried on supping them. I think the new lot did not supply any new kits, but not sure on that. The new lot then failed to get its contract extended due to the deal with Piper. I assume there will be a next chapter very soon…

Rod1

[IO540]

Not sure if this is relevant but sole agencies have been illegal in the EU for many years.

Not that this stops traditional aviation "sole agency for a given area" dealerships carrying on as in the 1950s...

[patowalker]

I think the new lot did not supply any new kits, but not sure on that.


Correct. They did not gain LAA approval.
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/338%20SPORTCRUISER.pdf

[dstevens]

By its very nature, almost everything on pprune is speculation, and nothing wrong with that.....but I would take some pursuading that the reality of the Piper thought process is any more complicated than:

(1) We need to enter the LSA market, and quick. But money is tight.
(2) Hey, here is a really nice low wing LSA, ready to go.... lets resell that under our brand, and our corporate-might will force CSA to make all the changes we want at their expense. Brilliant.
(3) Wow, people like this thing, and are buying loads! Great!
(4) Oh dear, we don't seem to be able to get CSA to do business as we would like, and our brand is at risk.
(5) Quick, pull out before we get in any deeper.
(6) Hey, why don't we try and buy them now, they are bound to accept our offer now their one and only customer has gone - us!
(7) What do you mean, no?

:)

[Genghis the Engineer]

stevens - I suspect you are right.

By contrast, Cessna took their time, designed their own using in-house expertise, made some embarrassing public mistakes but survived them, and is now about to enter a market which their most obvious competitor has just apparently withdrawn from.

The perils of early adoption! Cessna do look positioned to do very well over the next couple of years in this market however.

This month's AAIB bulletins are worth a read by the way - a Sportcruiser that overran a runway, and in investigation it seems that the take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual (and Piper's for that matter) is 55% of what LAA measured it to be. That doesn't exactly give you high confidence in any other aspect of the product's engineering does it.

G

[patowalker]

That doesn't exactly give you high confidence in any other aspect of the product's engineering does it.

Nothing to do with engineering and everything to do with redaction. The misquoted performance figures corresponded to an optional VP propeller.

Just a bit of a mix up between the marketing brochure and the POH. :)

[Rod1]

“a Sportcruiser that overran a runway, and in investigation it seems that the take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual (and Piper's for that matter) is 55% of what LAA measured it to be”

I thought the LAA tested fig was for the original aircraft with a VP prop? The current stuff is not LAA approved (post Sprite aviation), so none of the Piper stuff has been LAA approved.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

But Piper are (still) quoting the same figure- 180m LDR on a hard surface, as the sportcruiser POH referenced by the AAIB report.

I can't imagine that LAA would have failed to point out to AAIB before publication if their performance figures corresponded to a different aeroplane - instead they are quoted as saying they will review and possibly insist on re-issue of the manuals.

Plus I can't offhand think of any reason why an aeroplane with a fixed pitch prop would take 180m to land, when the same aeroplane with a VP prop would take 327m.

G

[patowalker]

Genghis,

Sorry. Disregard my comments. I got confused with the explanation given for the incorrect take-off figures quoted in the POH that grounded the SportCruisers / PiperSports on an EASA permit. That error was discovered, not as the result of an accident, but during the first annual.

[Rod1]

Me too!:ugh:

From the report

“In 2007, the Popular Flying Association (now the Light Aircraft Association) required flight tests of the SportCruiser to evaluate its suitability for issue of a UK permit to fly, which was subsequently granted. From the flight test report, at just less than MLW (598 kg) and using normal braking, the landing distance from 50 ft on a tarmac runway was recorded as 327 m.”

The SC has a 12kn max demonstrated cross wind, which was the reason the pilot landed on the grass in the first place. That must be very restricting!

Rod1


Rod1

[Shoestring Flyer]

Just to clarify....

1. Factory built Sportcruisers or Pipersports come under EASA and their consequential maintenance regime and are nothing to do with the LAA.
2. All Sportcruisers/ Pipersports, factory built or kits, have as standard equipment a ground adjustable fixed pitch prop.
3. A VP or CS either 2blade or 3blade prop is an optional extra and fitment is technically not an option to a EASA aircraft although I believe a couple may have slipped through the net as it were.
4. A POH is not 'factory supplied' for an LAA kit aircraft due to the many variations/options that are available and that can occur and can affect performance in a kit aircraft build.
5. The trouble regarding the performance figures shown in the factory built EASA POH handbooks which resulted in the temporary grounding by the CAA, of EASA factory built aircraft only,arose when Piper and CSA tried to 'amend' the original standard equipment Sportcruiser figures.
6.Onega Aviation were until the Piper fiasco the UK agent for factory built Sportcruisers and latterly a few, four I think, Pipersports.
7. Sprite Aviation are still, today, the only organisation that is approved by the LAA to supply Sportcruiser kits ( see LAA TADS for the Sportcruiser).

[EDMJ]

Factory built Sportcruisers or Pipersports come under EASA and their consequential maintenance regime

Are there any of these around in EASA territory, and as what (VLA, EASA permit-to-fly, EASA restricted type certificate?) are they registered? They are surely too heavy to pass as microlights.

[Rod1]

They are on an EASA permit-to-fly as a temporary measure with expected transfer to ELA1 when / if that is finalised. There are a small number in the UK, so I assume there will be in other EU locations too.

The EASA permit-to-fly is not connected in any way to the LAA permit system and the CAA has concerns about the situation. It is somewhat unclear what happens if the PtoF expires and ELA1 is not finalised. It is also unusual for an aircraft to be granted a retrospective C of A when its manufacturer was not approved at the time it was built. EASA may sort all this out, or it may be a bit of a disaster.

Rod1

[patowalker]

http://www.czechsportaircraft.com/pdf/CSA-Press-Release-18th-Jan-2011.pdf

Looks like they are going to resurrect the dead Parrot.

CZAW | the Parrot (http://www.czaw.cz/parrot.htm)

[dstevens]

I couldn't see where the Parrot was referenced in the Press Release???

CZAW and CSA are two different companies, of course....

[ivorPhillips]

The dead parrot scetch from monty python!!
(the parrot is dead. No its not)

[patowalker]

I couldn't see where the Parrot was referenced in the Press Release???You have to read between the lines:

At AERO CSA will also introduce our new high wing design.CZAW and CSA are two different companies, of course.... Of course. I just put the link in there because I'm a fan of the Norwegian Blue.

[airpolice]

Beautiful plumage!

[John Miller]

I can't figure out what all the fuss is about. If it were me, I would simply go out there and get myself a Tecnam - far nicer than a Skycatcher or Sport Cruiser anyway.:ok:

[mixsfour]

Strictly speaking I understand it was a 'ground adjustable prop' that was the subject of the disputed performance figures not the "in flight adjustable" (i.e. not constant speed) VP prop available as an option.

[Mickey Kaye]

"go out there and get myself a Tecnam - far nicer than a Skycatcher or Sport Cruiser anyway"

But I'm not sure it robust enough for flight training. But then neither do I think the pipersport is but then I though piper might have the will power to address this.

The skycather might be strong enough for training but for the european market it really should have been fitted with a rotax.

So it looks like the only suitable training aircraft are the good old 150/2,172 and pa28.

Something more economical is needed and and soon.

[John Miller]

MK, you are right. I did most of my training on Cessna 150s and did what Cessna was hoping and that was to later (much later) acquire a Cessna 182 (since gone).

Cessna's thrust was to train pilots and have them buy its products afterwards, which worked like a dream (it was done so aggressively, especially in Europe, that other manufacturers struggled).

However, there are training organisations running these 'ultralight' aircraft, although the cost to customer isn't a great deal less. One such is AFOS in Johannesburg - (they successfully run Tecnams by the way). In order to find additional sales, some of these manufacturers suddenly latched onto the flight training industry, claiming their aircraft were well suited to teaching pilots how to fly. The reality is that many of these types are not suited to training - they show reluctance to recover from a spin or their nosewheel structure isn't strong enough or they just plain don't handle very well and can't take gusty circuit conditions.

Nothing much wrong with a 150 or 152 - they can make it difficult for the training school proprietor to make any money though. And for what it's worth, I'm keenly looking forward to discovering why Cessna chose to use an O-200 engine for the 162 - I see no advantage. I believe it was serious mistake, despite the improvements made to the wee Continental.

[smarthawke]

Sure there is a certain mindset adjustment required when operating VLAs like the Tecnam P2002-JF for ab initio training but there are plenty of 'light' machines around doing the same job which survive alright like the Eurostar.

If people are trained correctly from the outset as to how to treat and operate the aircraft then they should be just fine. We don't have any problems with our p2002-JF so far and they're a very popular amchine all around the world. The nose gear is similar to the Mooney with a trailing link and rubber doughnuts.

A C152 nose landing gear/engine frame is only good for 3 bounces in a row before it cries enough.

The C162 prototype had a Rotax 912S under the cowling but the USofA (engineers (mechanics and the public at large) didn't like/trust/understand the 912 as it wasn't American and it was different. Continental shaved everything they could off the O-200 to make the lightweight 'D' variant as light as possible. Still got mags, single carb drinking 22LPH - 4-5 more than a Rotax which will hit Cessna in Europe.

[Firewalled]

But I'm not sure it robust enough for flight training. But then neither do I think the pipersport is but then I though piper might have the will power to address this.


Mickey,
I disagree. Not only are Tecnam's wonderful flyers, they have earned a reputation to be cheap to operate and maintain. I know a flight school that uses P92's. Over 5,000hrs of time, countless student slamming and still without a hitch.:ok:

As a side note, some people start unbelievably biased towards the Rotax engine, but they are just different to operate from Lycoming's. If you have a good tech, and read the manuals, they run flawlessly.

[patowalker]

CSA claims to have sold six SportCruiser in the week since Piper pulled the plug.
Some SC owners have expressed relief that they will no longer have to pay Piper prices for spares.

[Mickey Kaye]

What? 100hp rotax develops the same power as a 100hp continental unless one of the manufactures is telling tails.

In the training environment the rotax burns less full in fact some 6 liters an hour less.

As for build quality when did you ever hear of a top end overall on a rotax or a dropped value. Common on the o-200.

Given the choice I would always fly behind the rotax. Cheaper and more reliable.

Thanks for the comments on the P92 I will have to check one out.

[gasax]

Silvaire you are barking up the wrong tree.

The Rotax actully makes MORE power. Well to be precise more usuable power. Having run the same airframe with an O-200 and 912S this is definitely true.

At 100% the engines do indeed produce the same power. However apart from in a dive the O-200 cannot make the 2750rpm needed to produce 100hp. Of much more importance is the 75% figure - which from my Continental manual was 2475 - an rpm figure which again it could not make in level flight.

So the most it could manage was about 55% static and 70% in level flight - so 55hp to get off the ground and 70 odd in level fight.

In very, very, stark contrast the 912S can turn up to 85% in level flight - giving significantly higher speeds. Static it produces close to 70% - giving much better takeoff performance.

And whilst it is producing this extra performace it averages 4 lt/hr less consumption!!!!

[John Miller]

Well engines are one thing - let's talk about handling. I have yet to fly a Tecnam that doesn't recover easily from a spin (though I've only done this in their high wing models). They are light and responsive and all land easily with a natural flare and easy hold-off to touchdown. They all have sticks. On the downside, they have that horrible single lever brake system, which means having to remove a hand from the stick or throttle to use it - not a great arrangement. They are not comfortable to fly (nor do they 'feel' particularly secure) in turbulence or gusty conditions but that is the same for most aircraft in this weight category.

In fact almost all of these types are pleasant to fly, including the PiperSport (apart from its poorly harmonised ailerons). Very few of them are cleared to spin though this is not surprising considering a string of fatal accidents in various parts of the world involving two or three designs, which should raise eyebrows for any potential flight school buyer. At least Cessna appear to have tackled this directly and publicly, which says a great deal about the company.

I've never been let down by either an O-200 or a 912 (in fact I've never been let down by any aero engine), but to my mind the current generation of newer 'Rotax-type' engines make more sense.

[Bler]

Hi all,

it is very interesting to read all about PiperSport here :o)

I am the owner of a PiperSport and of course surpriced by all that sort of true or false informations...who realy knows...owners, competitors, people
which has never flown this airplane or those which know him so well that this could be a chance to try to cach it cheaply...who really knows ?

Well, whatever is politic or economic reason, the company CSA in Kunovice produce very nice, comfortable, very well equipped airplane and after one year beeing a satisfied owner, I have to say, impressed by his characteristics.It is very forgiving airplane and easy to fly and play with.

The answer to Genghis the Engineer for take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual ....

I have landed on 100m airplane modeler grass strip with full flaps on 50knots smooth landing approach and stopped on 80 metres without butterflies in my stomach. Tall story ? No, single, with 60 litres of gas and a good concentration on it. Take-off less than those 100 metres.
I have got two bladed constant speed 100hp Rotax.
All pilots can make mistakes depended on many factors. Everybody can try it, judging is so easy...

Important for me was one year service experience. Whatever phone call or my service request, CSA solved all quickly directly in Kunovice airport with no excuses.

I had got broken fuel float. After I came, six people took care of the airframe control, cabin control, undercarriage, engine...I just got the coffee and looked at this Formule1 team in box. Believe me, with the satisfaction, that I did well to buy it.

Whoever is the owner - Slavia Capital or Piper - I trust CSA company as
proffesional airplane company. They simply make great work. They know
to built the airplanes for many years and doesn´t mattter if the name is SportCruiser or PiperSport. Both of them are very good airplanes. It is my personal experience.

It is worth of a worldwide distribution. Well, pilots, let´s fly better and don´t beat the air :o)

P.

[smarthawke]

People have beat me to it regarding fuel burn. Enough said... The other thing in the Rotax favour is the installed weight. True comparative weights vary depending on who's claiming it but the Rotax 912S is at least 50lbs lighter than an O-200D. On a 1320lb MAUW aeroplane throwing 50lbs away needlessly was not Cessna's finest move...

On its delivery flight from Italy, our P2002-JF averaged 16LPH at 100KIAS. Our P2006T twin has a total fuel burn of 38LPH at 135KIAS.

Of course another advantage of the 912s is that it is certified for either Avgas 100LL or Mogas (EN228 Premium Unleaded) and up to 10% Ethanol. In fact it prefers Mogas and if you are burning in excess of 30% Mogas then the oil and filter changes are at 100 hours. And all of 3 litres of oil at that with hardly any burnt between changes. Compare that to the Avgas only O-200D and its 12 litres of oil over a 100 hour period plus whatever it burns getting there...

Regarding the Tecnam brakes. Toe brakes are an option on the P92 and P2002-JF, standard on the P2008 (info from the UK dealer's website: Tecnam UK (http://www.tecnamuk.com/) ).

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have landed on 100m airplane modeler grass strip with full flaps on 50knots smooth landing approach and stopped on 80 metres without butterflies in my stomach. Tall story ? No, single, with 60 litres of gas and a good concentration on it. Take-off less than those 100 metres.

With no headwind, using the speeds recommended in the POH, and at or above 50ft /15m at each end of the runway? (Plus you clearly weren't at MTOW).

G

[Firewalled]

A large part of the Rotax's efficiency is the gearbox. The engine runs at a more efficient 5,500-5,800ish rpm(similar to auto engines). That and the higher compression ratios allowed because of the water cooled cylinder heads. One particular feature about Rotax is, no traditional mags. Magnets are cast into the crankshaft and these brush against coils (similar to a dynamo). The ignition units themselves are sealed boxes and you don't have to worry about inspecting them.

[blueandwhite]

I used to enjoy flying behind a Rotax.

Then one of my co-owners was crossing the channel when it failed. He and his wife were lucky and skilled to survive.

He still flies behind a Rotax.

One of the other co-owners never flew again -behind any engine.

I fly behind a 320 - but would have a rotax happly if it had the power I want. (I use an inmersion suit over water)

At the end of the day we all make our own choices.

[patowalker]

I used to enjoy flying behind a Rotax.

Then one of my co-owners was crossing the channel when it failed. He and his wife were lucky and skilled to survive.

Was the cause identified?

[IO540]

I recall another debate on this recently (flyer?).

The Rotax wins a bit on efficiency by using a higher comp ratio, but loses that by having smaller pistons bobbing up and down more often. The SFC of the two engines ends up within a few % and probably closer.

That's assuming the Lyco/Conti engine is leaned correctly i.e. peak EGT or LOP. Historically, the PPL training machine has not been teaching engine management so some 20-30% of the fuel is wasted.

Years ago I saw some analysis on engine efficiency and the old engines beat every modern car petrol engine on SFC.

There is also no doubt the old engines are more reliable than the Rotax. They have fewer bits and no gearbox. A geared engine running at a higher RPM will only ever be able to approach the MTBF of a simpler engine running at low revs.

The other reason (other than mixture mismanagement endemic with Lycos/Contis by "traditional" pilots, as a result of poor training and poor engine instrumentation) why Rotax-powered planes use less fuel is because they are smaller! The fuel flow for a given IAS is mostly a function of the cockpit dimensions. The cross section is the biggest thing. A tandem 2-seater will burn probably about 1/3 less fuel than a side by side 2 seater. Most of the Rotax powered planes have really "intimate" cockpits compared to say a TB20 so no wonder they burn half the juice.

The RPM v. torque argument is spurious. The prop has to absorb the engine power and the thrust comes only from the power.

[Firewalled]

Firstly, I'd like to say that I am in no way an engineer or mechanic, just a PPL who loves Rotax a lot.


I think you'll find if you run a Rotax at the same power as the Continental it will burn about the same amount of fuel.


Silvaire,
While you are undoubtedly more knowledgeable than me, I'm sorry but I still don't get this. What do you define as power? If HP, 100hp is 100hp. For an equal amount of HP, the fuel consumption is surely less on a Rotax?

There is also no doubt the old engines are more reliable than the Rotax. They have fewer bits and no gearbox. A geared engine running at a higher RPM will only ever be able to approach the MTBF of a simpler engine running at low revs.

IO540,
I respectfully disagree. The ignition system I described above has less bits than traditional mags. The oil system has no pumps, it operates off crankcase pressure. I think all in all, parts are about equal.

Regarding the gearbox, I have never personally heard one, but when a gearbox is close to failing, it makes a hell of a lot of racket (specifically a distinct clattering sound) and usually refuses to restart again on the ground. I think you will have a hard time finding in-flight gearbox failures. Also the very few gearbox failures on the 900 series engines were operator induced. The engine really hates it when prop rpm drops below 1,000. You can feel it running rather rough, but just as soon as you bring tha power over 1,000, it is as smooth as silk.

The fuel flow for a given IAS is mostly a function of the cockpit dimensions. The cross section is the biggest thing. A tandem 2-seater will burn probably about 1/3 less fuel than a side by side 2 seater. Most of the Rotax powered planes have really "intimate" cockpits compared to say a TB20 so no wonder they burn half the juice.

Great point:ok:

Years ago I saw some analysis on engine efficiency and the old engines beat every modern car petrol engine on SFC.

Quite interesting. Do you have a link?

[IO540]

For an equal amount of HP, the fuel consumption is surely less on a Rotax?

Power comes from burning fuel. Once you are running stochiometric, that's your lot. Physics is physics.

The ignition system I described above has less bits than traditional mags. The oil system has no pumps, it operates off crankcase pressure. I think all in all, parts are about equal.

However, total magneto failures are not statistically significant. Oil pumps do get shredded sometimes; that's true, but usually only after something else got shredded first...

Also the very few gearbox failures on the 900 series engines were operator induced

You could say that about most engine failures :)

Quite interesting. Do you have a link?

It was in Usenet, about 10 years ago. Some SFC data was posted by a car engine designer. However, I have been recently told by GAMI that the old engines beat every car engine, and they should know.

Most of the R&D that goes into car engines is to give good MPG and low emissions when running at low power.

[Mickey Kaye]

"Power comes from burning fuel. Once you are running stochiometric, that's your lot"

Which simply never happens in the training environment as aircraft are not equipped with the necessary equipment. Also whether rightly or wrongly training organizations don't teach students how to lean.

So in the training environment a 100hp rotax burns less fuel and cheaper fuel than a 100hp Continental - Fact

[IO540]

So in the training environment a 100hp rotax burns less fuel and cheaper fuel than a 100hp Continental - Fact

That's true but if I was a Rotax marketing exec and I said to customers "our engine will deliver more MPG purely because the people who fly with the competition are stupid or badly trained and fly mostly bigger planes with crappy instruments" I think that would be a "career limiting" move :)

[Firewalled]

Power comes from burning fuel. Once you are running stochiometric, that's your lot. Physics is physics.



Ahh, it makes sense.


That's true but if I was a Rotax marketing exec and I said to customers "our engine will deliver more MPG purely because the people who fly with the competition are stupid or badly trained and fly mostly bigger planes with crappy instruments" I think that would be a "career limiting" move

:D

[Rod1]

“You could say that about most engine failures ”

Yes! According to LAA eng the Rotax 912 series is the most reliable engine in the LAA fleet! As I have said many times, the prop is a significant advantage on a Rotax.

Rod1

[A and C]

The reliability of the Rotax is probably due to the fact that they are all quite new because of the "on condition" rules on the LAA some of the Lycoming & continental engines have not been apart for overhaul for twenty to thirty years.

If you look at the failure rate of Lycomings & contnentals that have had an overhaul in the last ten years or so I think you would find another story.

[gasax]

You could also look at the attrition rate on Lycon cylinders and their record of cracking - almost regardless of who manufacturers them. Or of course Continentals inability to produce a crankshaft without defects or Lycomings 'instant wear' valve guides or disposable camshafts.

As Rotax's age doubtless there will be issues - but the exisiting Lycon engines are very far from reliable or long lasting across the fleet. Although once they are treated well they are reliable.

[IO540]

If you look at the failure rate of Lycomings & contnentals that have had an overhaul in the last ten years or so I think you would find another story.

I am sure that's very true - also of those whose oil filter actually gets cut open ;)

You could also look at the attrition rate on Lycon cylinders and their record of cracking - almost regardless of who manufacturers them. Or of course Continentals inability to produce a crankshaft without defects or Lycomings 'instant wear' valve guides or disposable camshafts.

That's all true, and Lyco have had the biggest crank issues.

However, I think this is the chickens coming home to roost as a result of most of these engines going into poorly instrumented planes, and flown by uneducated pilots.

Cylinders don't just crack for no reason. They crack if the CHT is allowed to build up excessively, in high power (high chamber pressure) conditions, and rapid cooling from a high CHT probably doesn't help.

I would expect a regularly flown engine, non-turbo, with an EDM700 or similar, with the CHTs kept below 400F, to make TBO easily. My engine was apart at 700hrs (for the crank swap) and the only parts which were outside new limits were the exhaust valves (which were replaced). I fly LOP all the time in cruise.

It is a pity that the old motors do need careful engine management, and it is a failure of the mfgs and of the training apparatus to get this message across, but it is not at all hard to achieve.

[Cows getting bigger]

Agreed.

"Dear Customer, if you spend a few pounds on an EDM 700 or equivalent and follow a few simple procedures, we think you will get at least 30% more life (and better fuel consumption) from one of our engines before you have to send it back to us for overhaul." :eek:

[Rod1]

The Rotax 912 was launched in the late 1980’s. Now I know that compared with the US engines which can trace their ancestry back to the 1930’s ground power units, that is not very old, but come on! The Rotax will always win the reliability war if it is being properly maintained. It removes the shock cooling problem and the “mags” are orders of magnitude more reliable and the product has much better (though not perfect) QA.

Rod1

[EDMJ]

I think it's also worth mentioning - in the Rotax' favour - that mixture control is automatic, thus presenting an aviation newcomer straight out of a modern car with one archaic control less to deal with (or not) or complain about. I also think they start more readily than a Lyconental when cold, and believe they (must) use (cheaper?) automotive oil as a lubricant.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think it's true that Rotaxes start better then Lycontinentals when cold, but they can be a pig when "warm" (shut down 30-60 minutes).

Losing the archaic mixture control (although it's an optional extra on a few installations) you do add the archaic choke control!

On most installations, you also lose the carb heat CONTROL, which is a big bonus.

The use of automotive fuels and oils definitely presents a huge saving (interestingly, I know a Rotax dealer who sells lots of 912 spark plugs to BMW motorcycle owners who use the same plugs, but they cost 4 times the price if sold for motorcycle use!).


On net, I also prefer the Rotax - and would point to the Tecnam P2006T as an example of a really good use of a 900 series engine.

G

[IO540]

Cold starting a Lyco is easy. Warm starting a fuel injected Lyco is not ;) You need a Skytec starter motor...

The cost of oil is not really significant. I pay about £60 for 12 quarts of Aeroshell 15/50 which lasts for 50hrs so that's just over £1/hr - against some £70/hr for avgas. 9qts goes into the engine at the service, leaving 3 for topups and I usually need to buy 1 more quart during the 50hrs.

[Firewalled]

Cylinders don't just crack for no reason. They crack if the CHT is allowed to build up excessively, in high power (high chamber pressure) conditions, and rapid cooling from a high CHT probably doesn't help.


Because the Rotax is liquid cooled, and CHT never goes above 150C (usually operates between 90C to 120), and the engine block is made out of the same alloy with the same expansion rates, shock cooling isn't really a problem. Hence, better design has solved this problem hasn't it? :E

I don't think the Bing carbs are as unreliable as Silvaire says they are to be quite honest. And I can't seem to find any evidence online of failures. Though having dual carbs (on the 912 at least) doesn’t mean that if one fails you are still alright. The engine operates as two separate banks of Left and Right cylinders basically. A tiny change of mixture in one and you have a hell of a lot of vibrations. A lot, and it would probably shut down.


unless Bing does something different when these carbs are supplied for aircraft, the floats are plastic not brass.


They are. A 2 black plastic floats mounted on a slide.

BTW for how much does a new Lyco sell for?

[ivorPhillips]

Genghis If you are needing the aircraft after a short shutdown all you need to do
Is let it idle with the fuel off until she falters then switch off, this will eliminate the possibility of a vapour lock At the carbs, with cool fuel she will start up fine,
NGK plugs can now be used with a box of 10 for £21 (914)
It doesn’t have a choke it has a cold start jet operated by cable

Silvare1 the rubber Diaphragms on the Bings and carb sockets are replaced
Every 5 years or on condition which ever comes first?
The floats are solid plastic with no possibility of sinking and the carbs have
Heat shields that double as fuel catchment trays with a drain tube to the rear of the engine, so no chance of dumping fuel onto the engine on my 914.
True they don’t fully weaken at altitude but it also doesn’t have a mixture control
To be misused by a incompetent pilot

IO540 I use 3 litres of aero shell sports plus4 at £23 with none used between changes,
She burns 17 litres’ of Mogas an hour about £22 at current prices, and a bonus is
A very low level sound footprint, (Good for the neighbours) and a reduced landing
Fee in Europe, All this from a 1200cc engine producing 100hp (115hp Take off)
No need to worry about carb icing, I could go on but I think it’s a reliable and well
Engineered engine IMHO

[IO540]

Because the Rotax is liquid cooled, and CHT never goes above 150C (usually operates between 90C to 120), and the engine block is made out of the same alloy with the same expansion rates, shock cooling isn't really a problem. Hence, better design has solved this problem hasn't it?

Of course liquid cooling is a better technical solution, but it costs weight and reliability.

If Rotax made an IO540-type engine (250-350HP depending on accessories) how much would it weigh?

Diamond had problems with the Thielert coolant systems, and they had all the existing technology and experience to draw on.

Of the energy generated by combustion, around 44% goes out of the exhaust, 8% is lost via the oil cooler, and 12% is lost directly from the cylinders to the airflow (ref (http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182883-1.html)). So you have a lot of hardware just for that 12% or so.

BTW for how much does a new Lyco sell for?

Depends on how you buy it. Big variations. I don't know how much an O-200 sells for but a new IO540-C4 lists at about $60k from Lyco, but in reality you can buy them for about $40k. OTOH almost nobody buys a brand new engine; there is invariably an exchange deal going on.

IO540 I use 3 litres of aero shell sports plus4 at £23 with none used between changes, She burns 17 litres’ of Mogas an hour

Sure; you fly a much smaller aircraft. I would expect it to use less fuel.

[FlyingStone]

As IO540 points out, it's all about the type of aircraft and mission you are planning to fly with it. The problem with Rotax - as I see it - they currently aren't capable or interested in playing with Lycoming in Continental with anything that requires more than 115hp - for ex. C172/PA28 or heavier. Agreed, you cannot put 150 kg engine into a 400kg aircraft, but that doesn't make Rotax all-in-all better than Lycoming or TCM engines - it's like comparing light and relatively powerful two-stroke engine of a lawnmower with Rotax and saying it's better, because it's lighter. As far as Mogas use goes, my position remains the same - it's not useful for longer flights to other countries, since it is rarely found at international airports - Jet A-1 seems to be the long-term winner here, not Mogas.

From my experience (with Thielert, just for clarification), water cooling in aviation engines isn't that great. In summer, you have to make cruise climbs to avoid coolant temperature to go over the limit and in the winter you have to make very shallow descents - again to stay within the limits, whereas with conventional engine you have the advantage of manual mixture control to keep CHTs and their rate of change on a normal level. Just as said before, water cooling isn't a weight problem if the engine volume (and thus cooling area) is small. As soon as you increase volume to 3 or 4 liters (sure, VW produces 1.4 TFSI with 175hp output, but would it last 2000 hours on 75% power?), the water cooling becomes very heavy in comparison to traditional air cooling. Of course, if you take reliability in account, loss of cooling liquid could limit your maximum power (to prevent overheat) significantly, while air cooling is at least partly efficient even when at speeds near Vs.

Concerning the fuel consumption during various mission profiles (training, touring, etc.), if argument against Lycontinentals is that most people run them fully rich (especially during training, after-PPL renting etc.) and thus fuel consumption is much higher: I personally think it isn't the engine's or manufacturer's fault, but the instructor should have a word with himself. Sadly, most people think (and is also written in some Piper's POHs) that the full rich mixture is the "best and safest" for the engine. I'm not going to get into discussion about how fast an aircraft with Rotax goes in cruise - most Rotax installation are very modern, thus being much more aerodynamic than average spamcan, not to mention few hundred kilos lighter. With oil consumption, it's the same story: engine with higher displacement that produces much greater power will always burn more oil - unfortunately the engineering hasn't yet developed to such an extent that it would be possible to completely seal the combustion chamber and at the same time reduce piston friction to zero.

[Rod1]

“From my experience (with Thielert, just for clarification), water cooling in aviation engines isn't that great. In summer, you have to make cruise climbs to avoid coolant temperature to go over the limit and in the winter you have to make very shallow descents - again to stay within the limits, whereas with conventional engine you have the advantage of manual mixture control to keep CHTs and their rate of change on a normal level.”

In 4.5 years of Rotax experience I have never had an issue with temps. Having said that I tend to cruse clime at 100kn and 1000fpm in preference max r of c as it gives much better forward vis. Tests have shown that in very hot weather at max r of c you can get quite hot if you go straight up to 8000 ft, but if you keep going to 10,000 it does not make much difference. Such a clime will start at about 1650 fpm, so 8000 ft does not take very long. Never had an issue in decent at all at normal speed. Most rotax installations have 2 X CGT, 2 X EGT, Oil t, Oil P, water T and volts so you have a good idea of what is going on.

Rod1