Actually, Rotax makes engines for snowmobiles and other vehicles. They do make engines specificaly for aircraft but I imagine that they share a lot of the same parts as their other engines.
Their website is at http://www.rotax.bombardier.com/index_e.htm Robert Stone wrote: >Jim, > I don't understand how your response relates to my comment about >aircraft engines being safer than auto engines in aircraft since all Rotax >designs that I am aware of are designed specifically for aircraft. As a >mater of fact one of them, the 912 is now a certified aircraft engine in the >United States. > >Bob Stone, Harker Heights, TX >rsto...@hot.rr.com > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <jehayw...@aol.com> >To: <kr...@mylist.net> >Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:14 AM >Subject: Re: KR>RE: 2 strokes > > >>In a message dated 7/4/03 8:00:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time, >>rsto...@hot.rr.com writes: >> >><< I have never agreed that any engine designed for surface vehicles is >> >all > >>that safe in an aircraft but for those who just cannot afford to use an >>aircraft engine like continental, or Lycoming an out board motor would be >> >the best > >>alternative. >> >> >> FWIW... Rotax makes a very good line of 2-stroke >> engines designed for aircraft use. Most of the ultralights >> use their engines. My wife and I flew our Challenger II >> from western SD to OSH last year... nary a burp out of >> the Rotax 503. That being said, most of us would prefer >> to use a 4-stroke but with weight being a big consideration, >> we go with the 2-strokes. I have also surprised myself at >> how comfortable I've become flying ahead of my Rotax >> (it's a pusher) over the past 3 years and 362 hours. :-) >> >> Jim Hayward >> Rapid City, SD >> >>_______________________________________________ >>see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html >> > > >_______________________________________________ >see KRnet list details at http://www.krnet.org/instructions.html >
