Two stroke engine rebuilds on 19 rego aircraft

[Blueadventures]

Does an engine rebuild have to be performed by Rotax for their 582 two stroke engines fitted in owner builder 19 category aircraft or is it ok to use factory supplied and a suitably experienced person do the work?  I’ll read up tech manual for my friend and send an email to tech.

[facthunter]

Unless a lot has changed NO . I did quite a  few 2 stokes for people who had those motors fitted. At some places the compression on them would be below what you'd expect from a good lawnmower. I  did plenty  of top MX bikes in the 70's and they were often better than the Rotax's for quality. The circlips were particularly lacking in quality. Sometimes the supplied ones were too soft and wouldn't sit snugly enough in the groove in the pistons.   You just wrote into the log book what had been  done. Nev

[Thruster88]

29 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Does an engine rebuild have to be performed by Rotax for their 582 two stroke engines fitted in owner builder 19 category aircraft or is it ok to use factory supplied and a suitably experienced person do the work?  I’ll read up tech manual for my friend and send an email to tech.

Reading the rotax manuals it is pretty clear, the engines cannot be operated over TBO hours or calendar. Rotax also say only rotax authorized service centres can overhaul the engines. This applies to 582 and the 9 series.  Rotax also say individual regulators can apply more stringent requirements.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Thruster88

[facthunter]

 For 19 registered planes you (the builder) could put any motor in it. The owner can get help from any person they choose who would be considered competent.  OR do it themselves. Not saying that's a good thing  but it's part of the concept of 19 reg.  I think the limit for those engines is 300 hours and I only Know of one person who replaced his engine with a new one at those hours and easily sold that engine on afterwards to go straight into another plane Nev

[BrendAn]

On 20/04/2023 at 6:12 PM, facthunter said:

 For 19 registered planes you (the builder) could put any motor in it. The owner can get help from any person they choose who would be considered competent.  OR do it themselves. Not saying that's a good thing  but it's part of the concept of 19 reg.  I think the limit for those engines is 300 hours and I only Know of one person who replaced his engine with a new one at those hours and easily sold that engine on afterwards to go straight into another plane Nev

i have a  582 grey head that has 700 hrs on it. still runs well. i watched a youtube of a 582 that has done 1400 hrs still on original crank and pistons.  300 tbo is very conservative.

Edited April 25, 2023 by BrendAn

[facthunter]

Probably, but that's the makers figure and it IS in an aeroplane. Road two strokes do around 30,000ms before the Big ends ned checking but the beefier ones can do a lot more. Some 582s need to be kept at fairly high power settings and roller bearings don't fail the way conventional plain bearings do. Hard metal flakes off the loaded parts of a roller bearing and cage failures can happen also.  Then there's hard carbon in the top ring groove etc.   Nev

[kasper]

19 reg means you do not have to follow overhaul from component manufacturers if you are the builder. 
 

RAAus and the department went and knobled second and subsequent owners inthe latest tech manual because they made a distinction between builder and subsequent owners.  Check with tech office on what they currently feel they have the authority to do with 19 reg second and subsequent owners. 
 

19 reg was the grown up big brother of 10 reg when it first arrived but has over the years been - In my opinion - drifting towards a mix of the old 28 reg and full GA experimental.  

Edited April 26, 2023 by kasper

[facthunter]

Yes it's a bit hard that one and it goes to the 51% rule. This was about builders being educated and developing skills from building. Who could/should be able to repair a 19-XXXX or modify it?  (for their OWN use?) Surely someone who is capable you'd think but did the original builder have to establish THAT? I don't think so.. Someone SENSIBLE HAS to establish a way or Path for these things to be covered without any more liability than was required in the first instance.  Nev

[Blueadventures]

42 minutes ago, kasper said:

19 reg means you do not have to follow overhaul from component manufacturers if you are the builder. 
 

RAAus and the department went and knobled second and subsequent owners inthe latest tech manual because they made a distinction between builder and subsequent owners.  Check with tech office on what they currently feel they have the authority to do with 19 reg second and subsequent owners. 
 

19 reg was the grown up big brother of 10 reg when it first arrived but has over the years been - In my opinion - drifting towards a mix of the old 28 reg and full GA experimental.  

I sent my question to RAA Tech last Friday and will post the reply info.  Also suggested a topic about this for the Sport Pilot Mag.  In the matter of my question it is regarding a mate 582 rebuild.  The person doing it is very experienced but not an authorised rotax service provider.  He has in past years rebuilt rotax engines for flying school aircraft.  

[kasper]

4 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

I sent my question to RAA Tech last Friday and will post the reply info.  Also suggested a topic about this for the Sport Pilot Mag.  In the matter of my question it is regarding a mate 582 rebuild.  The person doing it is very experienced but not an authorised rotax service provider.  He has in past years rebuilt rotax engines for flying school aircraft.  

Well way back when I was an active L2  I maintained and overhauled rotax two strokes in both type approved and non-type approved aircraft.  
 

The only bit I didn’t do was splitting the crank and that I left to either replace or Bert Flood.

 

since then the ultralight / sports rec aircraft world has become unattractive to me to either teach or repair/rebuild in. 
 

hopefully RAAus tech come back with a reasonable answer that allows the owner to choose who and when the engine is worked on.  

[facthunter]

De haviland engines weren't required to be exclusively worked on by  Dehavilland People. I doubt Rotax would be able to enforce that either and if they tried it would probably be illegal and they would lose sales anyhow. Boeing do have approval for certain workshops to be licenced though. Qantas had their undercarriage approval removed at one stage but we are talking airliners here on a world wide stage. Not 19 xxxx U/Ls where you could have designed and built it your self. (including the motor)  Nev

[Blueadventures]

On 26/04/2023 at 7:42 PM, kasper said:

Well way back when I was an active L2  I maintained and overhauled rotax two strokes in both type approved and non-type approved aircraft.  
 

The only bit I didn’t do was splitting the crank and that I left to either replace or Bert Flood.

 

since then the ultralight / sports rec aircraft world has become unattractive to me to either teach or repair/rebuild in. 
 

hopefully RAAus tech come back with a reasonable answer that allows the owner to choose who and when the engine is worked on.  

Yes; got a phone call today from RAAus Tech, Jarrod, great answer that cleared things up.  Owner built, owner may do rebuild and follow-up with annual checks as per manufacture instructions etc.   Also W&B should be sorted  / online training back and available in about 8 weeks.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Blueadventures

[facthunter]

Owners are advised to get informed about repairs and alterations also so that's where I came in. The owner has to record what things were done in the appropriate log book(s).. In the event of something happening where the job as done badly no doubt a follow up would be required same as if the motor was new and had faults (IF.anyone cares to follow up). RAAus wouldn't allow me to hold an L2 unless I fixed stuff for all and sundry so "stuff" that. There's some people I wouldn't put my name on anything associated with THEM

  Same with the low level endorsement. I've taught it in GA and was endorsed on low level jet circuits ( a very costly exercise renewed every six months) But NO... Only if the student is going to be doing mustering.. EVERY RAAus pilot should do low level because they do it when approaching taking off and when going around, a forced landing or an outlanding.. It's near criminal to deny students skills that they are likely to need..   Nev