Talk:Rotax 912

Applications

I think too much effort is going into the list of applications. There's a zillion designs of SEP two-seaters, and almost all have the 912 as an option, or even as first choice. Quite irrelevant, I think, to try and name them all - and it's never going to be complete, let alone it could ever remain up to date. Better IMHO to name a handful of typical applications in each category: trike, (E)LSA, perhaps a blimp? Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have been over this ground before as part of WikiProject Aircraft, Engines Taskforce, with other engines and the general consensus has been to make these applications list as complete as possible and if they get too long to split them off into separate lists. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No use to repeat the discussion, indeed. I rest my point. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt, sorry but I can't help feeling a bit disgruntled at your recent removal of many more applications. I felt inclined to undo your last removal, but I think yourself AND myself are past the level of revert wars. Still you should make a choice, and stand by it: either we want as many applications mentioned as possible, whether their articles have already been created or not yet, or we only want a mention of relevant articles. For myself I should still prefer much less applications to be mentioned, so as to be only illustrative. But the only alternative is to leave ALL applications mentioned, or as many as we can, and support the creation of the relevant articles. Or perhaps remove the double square brackets where the article is yet missing? For myself, there's nothing wrong with what you call redlinks, they're a good reminder of work remaining to be done. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. It wasn't so much the presence of redlinks, but that User:AndreasBRP2011 had flooded the article with aircraft types, most of which were bad designations or have no articles or both. I decided to see if I could fix it, and some of his additions were actually articles that we have. I fixed all that up in several moves, so if you don't like the removal of the red links it is a simple matter of reverting the last edit I made in the sequence, which you are welcome to do. If you do so then can then re-balance the columns quite easily. As far as the applications go, I would suggest that if you think the list if getting too long that we split it off into List of Rotax 912 applications, rather than cut it down. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bwah, as I said before, the whole matter isn't worth going to war. First and most, I still don't see the encyclopedic value of listing the myriad applications of a universal engine like this Rotax. Be it here or in a separate list, who cares? I can't imagine anyone searching after that kind of information. Still I must allow it doesn't hurt either, so I won't counter any well-meant initiative, especially if it involves work, and meticulous work, and a good deal of it. I quite accept your explanation of what you did and why you did it, and will not revert anything. There's better things to be done. Cheers! Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for edit-warring at all, just consensus building between two reasonable editors here! Okay, based on your thoughts here I'll leave it the way it is, but let me know if you'd like to revisit this issue at some point. Since it affects all the aircraft engine articles it should probably be debated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines to gain a larger consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Moyes Dragonfly

The article Moyes Dragonfly mentions a 582 is used, not a 912. Perhaps it is available as an option? Seems a heavy engine, though, for such a light craft. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Check under variants in the Moyes Dragonfly article. The Kitplanes ref cited shows the Dragonfly C as being powered by a 912. It actually shows the hp range as 80-115 hp, implying that the Rotax 914 can be used. This actually makes sense as the aircraft's role is glider towing and more hp gives a higher rate of climb and therefore more tows per hour. Also the 912's liquid-cooled heads reduce the risk of shock-cooling in rapid descents. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Had overlooked the C-model, apologies! Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

certified and non-certified

what are the differences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.144.117 (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

see Type certificate - a certified plane requires a certified engine. Technically, there are no (or minimal) differences between a certified and a non-certified 912. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What type of fuel?

There is no mention in the article about what fuel the engine is certified to use. 100LL AVGAS? 98? Etc. The specs @ Iconmention: Fuel: 91 Octane Auto Gas or 100LL Aviation Gas Yveys (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It is detailed in the Specifications under "Fuel type". - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Only a certified engine can be certified for certain types of fuel - most Rotaxen are not certified and can only bring a recommendation. On top of that, before a certain fuel can be used in a given aeroplane, not only the engine must support it, but the complete fuel system, which includes tanks and fuel lines and probably pumps and valves and what not. Many a plane can not use Mogas, though its engine can handle the stuff, because there are tubes, joints, sealants, o-rings, what not, that cannot stand the ethanol. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Direct Injection" 8/9/2016

I'm an aircraft mechanic with rotax certifications. Just wanted to make a point that the rotax 912iS is NOT direct injected, this is a misnomer. It's multi-port injected. The article source is wrong. However, I have no article or source to refute as it's difficult to prove a negative; I can only point to the official rotax documentation where you cannot find a reference to "direct injection" and to their illustrated parts catalog in which a technically inclined person could easily infer the operation. How would we handle this error?

See chapter 73-10-00 page 6: Illustrated Parts Catalog

Anticept (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The ref cited for this is EAA's Sport Aviation, so we really need a proper ref that explains the fuel injection to refute this. The Rotax page on the engine is certainly no help at all.- Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the evidence, I have just removed the word "direct". I think this might suffice until a ref can be found that allows the addition of "multi-port". How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately you won't find a reference. The EAA article was written by a columnist, not an engineer. You'll never find any rotax document claiming direct fuel injection because it's not direct injection :-). In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find many aircraft engine with direct injection period. Maybe military, but even that's rare. The kind of pressures direct injectors deal with are usually on diesel engines, which only a couple exist in aviation. Even in cars, direct injection for gasoline engines isn't common. Since pretty much everything is multi-port, marketing often drops that part and just focuses on the "fuel injection" part. Anyways, that's actually what I was going to suggest. Perhaps we should change the ref to rotax's own official documentation instead of relying on a magazine? Anticept (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The ref cited certainly supports "fuel injected", so that is okay. Perhaps we can just add the Rotax ref as well? - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anticept: thanks for your involvement. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics? As I read you, you seem to interpret "direct injection" as "injection into the cylinder head" like diesels normally do; whereas fuel injection on petrol engines is usually done by atomising the fuel in the intake manifold, generally close to the intake valves. I couldn't bother to look it up right now, do we have an article supporting this? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiport injection and direct injection are different. Even the wikipedia article on fuel injection clarifies this. See Fuel_injection#Multipoint_fuel_injection and Fuel_injection#Direct injection. It is atypical to see gasoline engines use direct injection. Some of the newest car engines coming out are moving to it, but it's primarily performance engines. It's very expensive to use direct injection. I bring this up because I've had customers of mine ask about the direct fuel injection because they've seen it in that magazine and here on wikipedia. Just trying to set the record straight. Anticept (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it is fixed here now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Limitations"?

This whole section looks to me like someone, perhaps a competitor to Rotax, decided to take an publish an entirely normal declaration of limited liability as "evidence" of the "limitations" of the Rotax 912. Most of that is pretty standard stuff; you should always be prepared for your engine to fail, and a manufacturer is always required to say so. This is not to be taken as evidence that it's LIKELY to fail. According to the warning stickers on my lawnmower I am risking life and limb ever time I use the thing, but if they didn't warn me that it was POSSIBLE, then I could sue them if anything did happen. Rotax acknowledges that the engine is not designed to run upside down, they take no responsibility if you choose to do so, and they warn you that being like any piuston engine, it is prone to possible failure, and a pilot should always be prepared for this; if the worst happens and you are flying in such manner as you cannot land safely after the engine fails, you can't sue THEM, because they warned you not to. However, the way the article phrases it, it seems like some kind of admission on the part of Rotax that their engine is a piece of junk that may fail at any given moment; "however, Rotax admits the limitations of the 912 engine; observe how they warn you to always fly like it might fail at any time, and give such limitations on how it might be used! Would they do that if it was a safe engine? I think not!" It sounds like it was added by someone working for Continental. I don't see as it adds anything of value to the article; it's not reinforcing any claims made in the text, it's just an en masse copy and paste of their standard legal disclaimer, with ominous sounding phrasing. I'm tempted to remove it. If the Rotax has any "limitations" they should be mentioned in the text and cited, not ominously hinted at. The only "limitation" mentioned in the text is the relatively short TBO. One could add that it is not designed for inverted flight and the manufacturer doesn't encourage users to engage in inverted flight or aerobatics, and makes no guarantee that the engine will not fail - both of which are standard for a engine in this class.

64.223.165.28 (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from the manufacturer, what is inaccurate about it? Most other engines produced do not have these sorts of statements made by their manufacturers, which makes this notable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the text. You can't start a discussion about whether this should be here or not and then remove it a few minutes later. You have proposed removing it, now let's see what the consensus of other editors is. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not share the misgivings that opened this dispute, but I do find the complete citation much too long. Couldn't it be summed up in two or three phrases? Also, it might be interesting whether these limitations apply to bothe certified and the non-certified versions of the engine. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And yes, one should leave time for discussion before taking action, yes. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit long. Let me see if I can turn it into a summary instead. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In answer to your question, the cited ref on page 1-11 indicates that the manual applies to both certified and non-certified versions of the engine. The safety notice on page 1-4 seems to applies to all models, including the certified ones. This is quite unique. You certainly don't find the same sort of warnings on Continental, Lycoming, Pratt & Whitney, or any other certified engines that I have seen, which is why this was included in the article in the first place.- Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In checking the most up-to-date version of the manual the information above has not changed, still has the extensive warnings and still applies to all models, certified and non. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have shortened it up into a summary. Please see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Chinese clone

This article writes about a chinese clones, is this notable? https://flyer.co.uk/zongshen-aero-engines-available-in-europe/ FSbiran (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)