Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856794
Great news :D
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856804
It's not as pretty as the last one, but it should be a good performer, and with the four stroke you've got a fighting (flighting?) chance of the engine not stopping at inopportune times!
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1856820
Paul_Sengupta wrote:It's not as pretty as the last one, but it should be a good performer...


Not many folk would call an Xair pretty, but I do think they look good in a cheeky sort of way. The Skyranger is generally a much better performing aeroplane even when the same engine is fitted - but it looks very 'practical'.

One bit of advice for Leia, if I may be excused being presumptuous -
look after the nose leg - they look long and they are. You need very definitely to land on the mains first and keep the nose off the ground as long as possible or sure as eggs the nose wheel will go down a rabbit scrape and bend the nose leg, or turn you over.
Pretend the nose leg is made of glass.
Compared to the agricultural undercarriage of the Xair, which will flatter almost any landing, this does need attention. Otherwise the Skyranger will be a doddle and lovely to fly.
(I don't mean to be alarmist. There's nothing wrong with the Skyranger - but some folk can get a bit lazy in an Xair.)
aligee liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856845
Paul_Sengupta wrote:It's not as pretty as the last one, but it should be a good performer, and with the four stroke you've got a fighting (flighting?) chance of the engine not stopping at inopportune times!


Looked after properly, there's not a lot of difference in reliability between Rotax 2 and 4 stroke engines (and both are massively better than a certain Australian 4-stroke brand.)

G
Jim and Pat Dalton liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856850
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Looked after properly, there's not a lot of difference in reliability between Rotax 2 and 4 stroke engines


Don't tell Leia that, after they had three engine failures with the two stroke and have now decided to get a 4 stroke aeroplane!

I thought the 912 was more reliable than that!
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1856856
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Looked after properly, there's not a lot of difference in reliability between Rotax 2 and 4 stroke engines


Don't tell Leia that, after they had three engine failures with the two stroke and have now decided to get a 4 stroke aeroplane!

I thought the 912 was more reliable than that!


It depends...
"Looked after properly" doesn't just mean regularly serviced. It means operated within the manufacturer's recommendations, particularly things like temperatures. Anything second hand is a bit of a gamble because you really don't know how well it's been looked after whatever the log book says. Having an opinion on the reliability of previous owners is a good thing.
Trouble now in a two stroke could be the result of something someone two or three owners ago did or didn't do.
There are some really bad 912s out there too by now I bet.
The same is true of the Australian 4-stroke that Genghis mentions - mostly they are great, but there have been a few issues that have now been dealt with and folk have learned how to treat them - certainly that means being a bit more careful with their operation than you would need with a 912.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856875
Offhand, I've about 600hrs in front of, or behind, Rotax 2-strokes. One engine failure.

250ish on their 4-strokes, no engine failures.

100ish on Australian 4-strokes, about half a dozen engine failures - most restarted in the air or landed on a runway without incident. One otherwise.

G
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1856877
One person's experience isn't statistically significant of course. My experience is somewhat different from that of @Genghis the Engineer
Two engine failures in four strokes - neither of the types of engine we've previously mentioned. Both real engine failures in the sense that something broke inside the engine.
Many hundreds of hours behind Jabiru engines without a failure.
Less time behind Rotax 912s, but also without failure, although one flight abandoned during take off roll due lack of power (I don't know what the outcome was, it wasn't my aircraft).
One engine stoppage in flight with a Rotax two-stroke. But the cause was not a failure of the engine. Several hundred hours on these.
Again not statistically significant and as I fly all these regularly things might be different in a few days. You never know...
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856879
The 912 is not more reliable than a two stroke, it just requires less maintenance.

I have owned aircraft powered by Cuyuna 430R, Rotax 377, 503, 582, 912UL and 912S.

Only the Cuyuna failed (regularly) and that was due to the inverted engine being susceptible to plug fouling, if allowed to idle too long. Not a problem when flying over a whopping great desert.
By Aerials
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856880
On first seeing the thread title, I thought it was going to be about Mike Patey's new wings for Scrappy but I was delighted for Leia to read of her new aircraft. Good news and like many others have said, the Skyranger is a good machine and Leia will be able to get further on the same quantity of fuel as the X'air would've.
Congratulations Leia!
leiafee liked this
User avatar
By ChampChump
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856940
WKW flew behind a 80hp Rotax for most of his 6000+ hours (after 'upgrading' from the smaller one); he reckoned they were fairly bullet proof, with appropriate routine maintenance. He certainly didn't hanker for anything else from the same stable.

:D
Rob P, Sooty25, G-BLEW and 1 others liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1856946
Nigel Beale knows a thing or two about Rotax engines. When I asked him which 912 to fit in my Eurostar, he recommended the 80hp. If the Rotax rep recommends the cheaper engine, there must be a good reason.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this