I was wondering if anyone has evaluated the Rotax 800 E-Tec as a potential experimental aircraft engine?

I’m ignorant, and I don’t see a critical down side. Do you know if the 800 E-Tec should not be used?

I like the “concepts” of having pressurized lubrication (potential for pre-lube and pre-heating before engine start), fuel injection, exceptionally easy starting, no plug fouling, wider range of temp tolerance, higher hp and torque, greater fuel efficiency, an 80 lb engine, much quieter (kind of sounds like a tractor), less oil used and no smell, potentially less fragile operation requirements, lots of engines available, a significant aftermarket parts following, current manufacturer commitments to support related spare parts for the future, proven company, internal fogging storage spray, potential for oil pressure boost at higher loading (sustained climb), potential for higher TBO (pre-lube, pre-heat, stressed for 164+ hp on dyno), and capable of atmospheric neutral turbo-charging (just maintaining 15 psia regardless of altitude, not increasing operating pressure).

“BUT” it has more active parts; though they might be extremely reliable (I don’t know).



800 E-Tec Hp to RPM(7100 to 7300 is 130-135 hp and stressed for 164+ hp) (lower RPM figures not found)

http://bikemanperformance.com/media/...build_up_1.jpg



800 E-Tec Torque vs RPM(7100 to 7300 RPM is 98 ft lb; flat/stable with change in aircraft pitch)

Mentioned for use with an in-flight adjustable pitch prop

http://www.dootalk.com/forums/upload...1460031238.jpg



1800 RPM+ at the propeller if Rotax gearbox is compatible