EASA certification of Rotax 915 (Now 141 HP)

[Downunder]

http://www.flyrotax.com/files/Bilder/News Rotax/Downloads/press Release _Rotax915iS Certification_20171219.pdf

 

Gunskirchen, Austria, December 19, 2017 – BRP receives the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Type Certificate (TC) for its new Rotax 915 iSc3 A aircraft engine. “The EASA Type Certificate (TC) allows BRP-Rotax to now produce the certified 915 iSc3 A engine for the European market thus allowing us to fulfill the request of our customers for a more powerful Rotax aircraft engine with proven reliability,” said Thomas Uhr, general manager BRPRotax, vice president Powertrain BRP and R&D / Operations Lynx. “Not only has the certification been achieved within the promised time schedule but the engine has been certified to even higher power than originally announced. Instead of 100kW (136hp) maximum power the engine will offer 104kW (141hp) maximum power instead and 99kW (135hp) maximum continuous power. Once more we will provide the ultimate flight experience to pilots.”

 

 

 

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) promotes the highest standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation in Europe and worldwide. After the EASA Type Certification, BRP's Rotax aircraft engines team will concentrate on getting the American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification. Other countries will follow as each has its own validation process.

 

 

 

The increased power of 104kW is available up to at least 15,000 ft (4,572m) making the Rotax 915 iSc3 A engine the perfect package for all fixed wings, gyrocopter and further applications; it will also offer the possibility to carry up to 4 persons already in single engine application. Based on the proven concept of the Rotax 912 / 914 engine series, Rotax is again offering the best power to weight ratio of its class combined with the best economy while allowing for a high flexibility on the usable fuels. It delivers the most advanced aircraft engine technology resulting in low operating cost and ease of use.

 

 

 

Up to this date already 12 OEMs (amongst them Tecnam, BRM Aero, NIKI Rotor Aviation, BlackWing, Zlin Aviation) have integrated the engine and will make their aircraft available very soon. Additional 47 OEMs are also already in the final stages of the integration of this engine.

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Somehow this engine seems all wrong. There are basic weaknesses in the 912 series. The 80 HP engine was probably the most reliable of any they will ever make It's not over developed. This version is pushing it perhaps too far.. It's too complex,. The ordinary person can't work on it, or easily fault find. Perhaps in Europe where there's lots of people and you can get them attended to. Of course the COST is out of this world. Rotax equals COSTS. Every part costs.. Not for me. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

its how engines are built these days, they are not designed to be screwed up by mechanics

 

 

[BlurE]

I suspect this engine will wind up in a few military applications. There are already quite a few 914 powered drones about and I presume something like this would extend their ceiling to some pretty decent altitudes. The military don't mind spending $60k or whatever on an engine where that is a bit beyond the target market for most Rotax product.

 

All that said I want one!

 

 

[facthunter]

Not really suited for people who fly little planes for fun at lowest cost. If you aren't a fair bit engine sensitive you shouldn't be building or flying them on a low budget.. OK for the "very" expensive carbon fibre play things of the very rich, which are of a nature you get everything done by the experts. Australia isn't Europe, where you can find someone to fix it relatively easily. It's a big sparsely settled desert with few good roads. How would you possibly repair an engine in a plane down in a remote area in the real sense? Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

I suspect this engine will wind up in a few military applications. There are already quite a few 914 powered drones about and I presume something like this would extend their ceiling to some pretty decent altitudes. The military don't mind spending $60k or whatever on an engine where that is a bit beyond the target market for most Rotax product.All that said I want one!

More than likely they have already been used extensively in drones to sort out the bugs....

 

And I'll be in the queue right behind you (after my numbers come in:oh yeah:)

 

 

[Brett]

141 hp and prob about $141k to buy.

 

 

[phonetic]

$5k redrive kit & $5k auto engine conversion looks very attractive for owner built sports aircraft

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Someone told me about 55K for one

 

 

[Downunder]

Someone told me about 55K for one

About $38 000 usd at CPS, so yeah, a bit over $49 000 aud in a direct conversion.

 

Floods markup could well make it well over 50.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

dont forget to add the grab and steal tax that brings it to abt 55k

 

 

[Charlie Tango]

It sounds like a wonderful (expensive and complex) engine but is clearly intended for larger more complex aircraft than some of us fly. So for a lot of us it's out of the question anyway.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Rotax own the OEM market, so they have to keep producing products that the OEMs want to build with. Expect a new wave of 3 and 4 seat GA aircraft using this engine

 

 

[KRviator]

It would be the perfect engine for the RV-9, but at over $10,000USD More than a typical brand-new Lycoming clone it doesn't make a lot of financial sense...

 

 

[Downunder]

It would be the perfect engine for the RV-9, but at over $10,000USD More than a typical brand-new Lycoming clone it doesn't make a lot of financial sense...

Yes, the price is a bit rich.... Two main advantages of the Rotax are weight and the benefits of a turbo (pressure normalising)

 

http://www.continentalmotors.aero/titan/experimental-kit-engines.aspx

 

Titan X-340 118 KG at best. 915 84 KG.

 

I guess the 340/180 hp having more than 40 hp (high comp on avgas) over the Rotax negates the advantages of the turbo somewhat....

 

Running unleaded, the low comp 340 makes 166 hp, so it starts to level the field a bit.

 

At a guess, the Rotax would be better fuel economy...per HP.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

A lot less jiggery and pokery in the Titan as well. The rotax is a electronic beast. Same as the 912I and there has been lots of issues with the connectors and electronics so far with the "I" versions

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Someone told me about 55K for one

Obscene, just ridiculous.

 

 

[Downunder]

Flying the New Rotax 915 Searey

 

 

 

 

[alf jessup]

Gosh with the amount of SB’s and AD’ out on the 912iS it will be 20 years before I looked at one, and by that time it will cost 80K probably and we’ll out of my realms of reality. I’ll just stick with the carburettor model I currently run

 

Electronics are great when they are all working in conjunction with each other but when one decides not to play it can play havoc like I have seen on a number of iS engines so far

 

 

[kasper]

And if it’s 45lb or around 10.5kg heavier then the 912is you are looking at around 85kg installed. This is not looking like an engine for ultralights either on weight or cost.

 

If the top end of RAAus want to go this way good luck to them. The cost of their retirement toys is already more than the materials it cost to build a 5 bed house!

 

My 5-30yo two stroke bimble machines will see me out.

 

 

[dlegg]

Dont forget to add in the cost of a FWF setup, also exhaust is not included so install costs can rise a further 10k plus. So at least 65k on a new install or retrofit.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Installed weight?...installed weight is around 75kg that included all liquids and exhausts etc for 912 IS so another 20kg??????that is 95KG...crap now we are getting up into the Viking weight territory

 

 

[facthunter]

The basic engine doesn't justify being developed to this extent .They (Rotax) should have designed a new motor from scratch. This is gilding the lily too much. Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

The basic engine doesn't justify being developed to this extent .They (Rotax) should have designed a new motor from scratch. This is gilding the lily too much. Nev

Yes, I agree, but you wouldn't be leveraging on the marketability of the most successful light aviation engine ever.

 

And the parts compatability from the ULS means more profit.

 

I can only hope this engine gives someone like Honda some interest in manufacturing an engine.

 

With Honda's engine data, engineering history and manufacturing capability, a junior engineer should be able to knock one up in a couple of months and beat the 915 in every way, including price.... (only half joking)

 

915 is still a pushrod engine FFS...

 

 

[facthunter]

Porsche, Builder of the world's best and highest quality, aircooled race car engines wasn't successful with their aero engine project

 

. Demanding more from a design that originally was built as light as possible. (ALL aero engines must be). is not a good move. The 80 hp was the best. The 100 HP a little more fussy and this variant will have to prove itself, in it's own right. We will see.. Pushrod engines are less TALL.. OHC and attendant drives wouldn't suit a radial (particularly) and a Horizontal engine would be more bulky. Drone use is probably what this engine is directed at. Turbines are many times more reliable than Pistons. Not just % but multiples, better. Making an U/L Motor will never be a profit making venture to any great extent. It will always be a small market, probably more trouble than it's worth, for most firms so be thankful that anyone has the enthusiasm to try. (like Jabiru).. Their motor was very light in weight simple in concept and cheap. These are worthy and appropriate aims. Nev