Well its known that one should rotate any assembly drawing originated in Australia by 180° to match the European point of view. Otherwise the machinery will "stand on its head" if you know what i mean.
Yes that’s why I would never use a Rotax engine in my aircraft they look too complicated and not very reliable that person had two engine failures in a very short time good thing he did not lose his life I suppose Rotex would not even care if he did die.
If any manufacturer of an engine was unable to “find” fault with their own engine after in-flite failure, that other brand new engine would have been on its way back to the land down under along with the original “rebuilt” POS. I get that you were looking for round engine sound and power but it’s your ass on the line not theirs.
As someone who has built and operated extremely high performance automotive engines I can tell you ... an amalgam of inferior parts does not an engine make. These failures obviously stem from a lack of component product testing. Those pushrods, rocker arm assemblies, and plastic gears do not fail with low hours unless they were poorly designed or contain materials unsuitable to the task. I suspect both. Regardless ... the Lycoming O-320 will likely be a bullet proof engine for you, as it has been in America for many decades.
For anyone that still insists on having a Rotec radial engine after seeing all the failures and poor quality of parts (many that are imported from China). Y'all can save a lot of time and get the same result in the end. Put four rounds in a six shooter revolver, spin it put it to your head and pull the trigger once every fifty hours you fly with a safe trusted engine. You still get to fly but this will keep everyone on the ground and the plane not equipped with a Rotec safe. This just my opinion, of course I recommend bypassing the Rotec and live a long and happy life.
Rotec is a back yard design, l wouldn't use a rotec radial as a boat anchor. I'm an Australian, and a pilot l also have an association with a prominent radial engineer here. He wouldn't give them any credit for quality engineering or material quality. Enough said.
This is just another story about the rotec radial engine failures, and there is a lot of stories out here. Rotec seems to have a reliability problem, and it's there 'I don't care' attitude. But they aren't the only radial producer, and from what I have read, Verner radials are very dependable. I know that were I to build any kit that traditionally was powered by a radial, it damn sure wouldn't be a rotec.
I don't understand why these are such a lemon yet the 2 strokes and 912 series have been so successful. It's like these are made by another company that Rotec bought.
Rotec should've made to pay for cost of rebuilding the planes, plus compensation for clearly carrying out very shoddy work. Rotec are clearly a 'second-rate' company turning out badly assembled / designed engines. It needs to take a very serious look at itself and ask if any of the management would be prepared to fly a plane with one of their engines in.
I had a Rotec in my jet ski ... 120HP two stroke ... and it ran reliably the whole time. Of course, there was no valve train in it, but it did have an oil pump to pressure lubricate the output shaft with two stroke oil from the tank. It was circulated through the bearings and back to the tank. Another oil pump injected that two stroke oil into the crankcase to burn with the fuel/air mix. Had variable-dimension manifolds for the three exhaust plenums, sort of adjustable length guillotine slides that altered the length of the expansion chambers according to intake vacuum. I was very surprised to read of this slack quality control for these radials. Perhaps the company has grown too quickly.
@@okbuddyretard I know only little about Verner engines exept that a few projects switched to them after the Rotec desaster. There where no complains. Let’s find out! Have fun 😎
