2 place gyroplane options

bencadenbach

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
17
Location
Lubbock
Total Flight Time
2400
I'm currently looking for a 2 place tandem gyroplane. I am thinking the Tango 2 is the way I want to go.
I don't want to pay the premium price for the Rotax because I'm not sure it worth the increased costs so I've mostly dismissed the machines with that power plant. I am looking to eventually conduct flight training in it so I believe it must be factory built.
Are there any other manufactures of 2 place gyroplanes that use noncertificed powerplants like the Yamaha?
 
It doesn't have to be factory built to do instruction...it just needs a LODA from the FAA that allows limited commercial operations (specifically training.)

Re: is it worth the cost. Absolutely. Compare any engine out there to the hours flown on a 912/914 engine. If you're thinking about training, I'd definitely recommend you consider going with a 914.
 
Agree!!! Can't beat a proven powerplant.
 
If you want to fly as trouble free as possible, go with a Rotax. -- Chris.
 
Your thinking is exactly opposite to what I'd recommend. Your interest in training would be one case where you absolutely should consider having a proven engine like Rotax or Lyconing etc on your machine. Best of luck with the search.
 
Rotax makes a great 4 stroke engine and I have owned one trouble free. I also had to take it to a Rotax certified mechanic to change out the fuel pump before I even installed it in my air-frame due to a Service bulletin (non-certified engine version of an AD) they came out with during my build. I've heard many 2 stroke owners say (including Rotax owners) that engine failures are a matter of "when" and not "if" so saying "Rotax" is a proven engine isn't accurate in my personal opinion. We all need to recognize that any engine manufacturer may quit no matter how reliable we hear them being. On the 4 stroke Rotax engines, I rarely hear engine failures discussed much but I also continue to see Rotax dealing with Service bulletins for all sorts of issues from fuel pumps to push rods and there are pages of them. I like that Rotax has the funds and or wit to continue to not only detect problems with their engines but to also publish them so everyone can be safe. All that being said I witnessed at Wrens this year an MTO that kept trying to take off at the end of the day and his engine wouldn't produce 100% power. He kept going out, racing down the runway, and then returning. I asked him if he was alright as he was parked near my van as I was leaving for dinner. They asked about the hanger next to us and I pointed them to someone they could speak with. His engine was a Rotax. I also saw a set of points broken on an "alternative" engine (meaning non-Rotax engine). Fortunately the points were able to be fixed in minutes where I think the Rotax guy had to park it overnight because he didn't know how to work on his engine. It reminds me of my first car, a VW bug. I paid $2,000 for it and I had to pour about $100 into it every month but I could work on it myself. I then bought a Honda for about $4,000 that was full of computers and my hands didn't even fit under the hood but it only broke once a year costing me about $1,200 through the certified mechanic. They both had issues and both cost about the same amount of money. I preferred fixing things once a year vs monthly. I don't know that this is an accurate analogy as today's alternative engines like the Yamaha for example seem to be much more reliable and I think in a good way Rotax is going to see some healthy competition.
 
Last edited:
I don't put a lot of stock into the certified engine. Being certified does mean it is a superior product it means that company has jumped through all the hoops to get it certified. I have a fair amount of time behind a radial 1340 its a certified engine and those damn things aren't reliable in the slightest. Also have several thousand hours behind at PT6 -34A an extremely reliable and proven engine and I had an engine failure in that aircraft this year and have personally seen two other failures in the last 5 years (one of those was last Monday with a pilot at my company, a 23yr old guy who is in very bad shape after the accident, he's still alive but in desperate need of prayers if any of you guys are inclined to send one up for him) that I've been around them. My point is any engine can and likely will at some point quite you. The most reliable engine is the best-maintained engine, and the fact that one is certified and the other is not hold little value to me.
Just because I disagree with most of the replies I've gotten I do appreciate the feedback. I sure as hell do not know it all and I appreciate the opinions of those who are more experienced than myself in the gyroplane world.
Back to my original question are there any other manufactures other than the Tango2 that are producing news gyros with a powerplant other than the Rotax?
 
Another thought, with what I understand about the landing capability of the gyro, I feel a much grater focus should be on the quality of the machines components over just the engine, there are a lot of other parts on that machine that could fail catastrophically that would be a lot more critical than a engine failure.
 
Spank;n1126228 said:
Rotax makes a great 4 stroke engine and I have owned one trouble free. I also had to take it to a Rotax certified mechanic to change out the fuel pump before I even installed it in my air-frame due to a Service bulletin (non-certified engine version of an AD) they came out with during my build. I've heard many 2 stroke owners say (including Rotax owners) that engine failures are a matter of "when" and not "if" so saying "Rotax" is a proven engine isn't accurate in my personal opinion. We all need to recognize that any engine manufacturer may quit no matter how reliable we hear them being. On the 4 stroke Rotax engines, I rarely hear engine failures discussed much but I also continue to see Rotax dealing with Service bulletins for all sorts of issues from fuel pumps to push rods and there are pages of them. I like that Rotax has the funds and or wit to continue to not only detect problems with their engines but to also publish them so everyone can be safe. All that being said I witnessed at Wrens this year an MTO that kept trying to take off at the end of the day and his engine wouldn't produce 100% power. He kept going out, racing down the runway, and then returning. I asked him if he was alright as he was parked near my van as I was leaving for dinner. They asked about the hanger next to us and I pointed them to someone they could speak with. His engine was a Rotax. I also saw a set of points broken on an "alternative" engine (meaning non-Rotax engine). Fortunately the points were able to be fixed in minutes where I think the Rotax guy had to park it overnight because he didn't know how to work on his engine. It reminds me of my first car, a VW bug. I paid $2,000 for it and I had to pour about $100 into it every month but I could work on it myself. I then bought a Honda for about $4,000 that was full of computers and my hands didn't even fit under the hood but it only broke once a year costing me about $1,200 through the certified mechanic. They both had issues and both cost about the same amount of money. I preferred fixing things once a year vs monthly. I don't know that this is an accurate analogy as today's alternative engines like the Yamaha for example seem to be much more reliable and I think in a good way Rotax is going to see some healthy competition.

And many people have bought brand new Lycomings which come with ADs right in the crate to replace out the cylinder in 400 hours. So what. At least you get service bulletins and AD's from an aviation company. That is a standard way of aviation Continued Airworthiness System. You want to not get AD's when something is found to not work right in aviation application? I usually do not talk much about Yamaha engine conversions but I know of at least 3 engine outs in Yamaha conversions in trikes and gyroplanes and that is significant given the small number of them flying. You get a used non-aviation application Yamaha engine and that to you is more reliable? Makes no sense to me. Lets not even talk about the Honda conversions that are popular. problems after problems after problems. You already have your mind made up so I don't want to argue with you but stats are stats and the alternative engines do not have a proven record in flight compared to application specific engines. When you talk about training, the responsible thing to do would be to reduce engine out possibility through selection and maintenance and reduce that risk for the paying student.
 
For personal flying, pick any thing you like and just don't fly over innocent bystanders. If you're planning to offer training to the public, you will have ethical and legal obligations for the safety of your students. Think about the post-accident argument that the lawyer for the student's family might make about your judgment and the choices you had available ("Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he didn't think his student's life was worth the few extra dollars for a certified engine..."), and then pick your equipment accordingly.
 
Abid, I actually was trying to imply that AD's or service bulletins were a good thing and at the same time I pointed out that all engines have their faults, including Rotax. "I like that Rotax has the funds and or wit to continue to not only detect problems with their engines but to also publish them so everyone can be safe. All that being said I witnessed at Wrens this year an MTO that kept trying to take off at the end of the day and his engine wouldn't produce 100% power."

I also happen to think Lycoming and Continental engines have more proven time than a Rotax so weight aside I wonder why more gyroplanes don't use those engines? I am still intrigued at "alternative" engine choices like Honda, Yamaha, etc. and I'd like to understand more about what Rotax does different that makes them more specifically reliable in the air.

The term certified is also interesting and it makes me wonder how many engines on Gyroplanes sold today are truly certified.
 
Last edited:
One issue that Rotax does differently is the cooling. Rotax engines use a combination of water and air cooling. Traditional aircraft engines use air cooling alone. This poses some challenges with gyros, because they fly slowly and in pusher configuration, which makes air cooling ineffective. I won't say it can't be done, because it can. But it is by no means cut and dried.

-- Chris.
 
Spank;n1126343 said:
Abid, I actually was trying to imply that AD's or service bulletins were a good thing and at the same time I pointed out that all engines have their faults, including Rotax. "I like that Rotax has the funds and or wit to continue to not only detect problems with their engines but to also publish them so everyone can be safe. All that being said I witnessed at Wrens this year an MTO that kept trying to take off at the end of the day and his engine wouldn't produce 100% power."

I also happen to think Lycoming and Continental engines have more proven time than a Rotax so weight aside I wonder why more gyroplanes don't use those engines? I am still intrigued at "alternative" engine choices like Honda, Yamaha, etc. and I'd like to understand more about what Rotax does different that makes them more specifically reliable in the air.

The term certified is also interesting and it makes me wonder how many engines on Gyroplanes sold today are truly certified.

Because Lycoming and Continental engines are heavier and have air cooling which requires significant engineering to design cooling circuit but it can be done. I plan to use a Lycoming based engine in our side by side enclosed model.
Alternative engines are a choice for some but they are in low numbers and alternative because they are less proven and they are mainly used or selected because they are cheaper. I would rather have someone find a used proper engine and save money than go this route. There are no two ways about it. Just because some anecdote of someone at Wrens was having problem producing 100% power does not really mean anything. Rotax has over 50,000 91x series engines flying in recreational aircraft today. Most likely your anecdote suggests that the problem was with the particular install. When there are problems usually there are people to get advice from to solve that problem.
I had a Canadian customer who had bought an Apollo gyro with 912ULS. We had flown it here with him for a few hours before it went to Canada but last summer I got a complain that gyro was olny climbing barely at 300 foot per minute at near gross weight. Even at gross weight in summer we had seen climb rates of 500 to 600 feet per minute so I knew something was not right. The poor guy ended up bringing the gyroplane down to Florida and leaving it here. Within a day we noticed simply by pushing is throttle all the way to FULL position that it was not going t full power at the stop on the carb. So he was never actually getting full power at all. This was an easy check and when his certified mechanics in Canada had installed a carb heat on the carbs and re-installed them, they never checked to make sure the cable was installed properly and engine got full power and then left him with $$$ in bills. We simply corrected the cable stop at the carb and it got full power and then synced the carb. to solve that issue. So would you have looked at this example and blamed Rotax or the A&P in Canada. Same thing with your example. Its an anecdote but the vast majority of properly installed and maintained engines are fine and reliable at the same level as Lycoming.

I wouldn't touch an upcoming 915iS with a 10 foot pole for a year or more but that is a different and new engine.

With some of the alternative power plants you mention, the anecdotes amount to a significant percentage of total hours flown on the fleet so they can't really be dismissed. I have gotten a lot of requests of people wanting t put Honda conversions or Yamaha conversions and then when I do some serious digging on them, I always end up refusing to cheapen our brand and support that installation which looses me a potential sale but I am ok with that. I must have lost 4 sales that way so far in my estimation.
 
Last edited:
Good information Abid, just like when you had the Rotax issue being a cable not properly connected, are you finding the same type of issues with Honda and Yamaha, etc or are those engines completely failing, loosing power, and coming down type of issues in your research? I just don't hear the stories of their failures but it doesn't mean they don't exist or I'm sure you would have installed them. You are more connected to the industry so that certainly helps. Usually things get posted online but I haven't heard of "any" engine failures all year that brought any Gyroplane down but what does it matter, as Phil Harwood (sp?) would say in his video "we don't care!".
 
Spank;n1126361 said:
Good information Abid, just like when you had the Rotax issue being a cable not properly connected, are you finding the same type of issues with Honda and Yamaha, etc or are those engines completely failing, loosing power, and coming down type of issues in your research? I just don't hear the stories of their failures but it doesn't mean they don't exist or I'm sure you would have installed them. You are more connected to the industry so that certainly helps. Usually things get posted online but I haven't heard of "any" engine failures all year that brought any Gyroplane down but what does it matter, as Phil Harwood (sp?) would say in his video "we don't care!".

Well I think Phil Hardwood was promoting the safety of gyroplanes and he is right. As long as there is a landing spot in front or below, you are better off in a gyroplane than even a trike. However, we all know that is not always the case or you'd just be stuck close to an airport. Any engine out could produce a bad result if it happens at the wrong time. We should definitely try and avoid having one if possible.
I have seen problems where on a Honda conversion the engine burned good amount of il constantly. It finally got resolved by putting a different Honda engine in. I know of Honda conversions where the gearbox basically gave out twice on a gyroplane. the thread is right on this forum somewhere.
I know of Yamaha conversion with C-gearbox that went out because the gearbox gave up. I know of a Yamaha engine that itself seized. I know of 4 Suzuki engine conversions that had engine outs (two with me in them). Exhaust valve broke on one and oil pickup tube cracked in another and electronics (ECM) failed in one.
 
fara;n1126351 said:
...
Alternative engines are a choice for some but they are in low numbers and alternative because they are less proven and they are mainly used or selected because they are cheaper.

I got into gyros about 12 years ago and have been attending the major fly-ins at Mentone, Bensen Days and Wrens every year since then. I have never seen more 912 certificated engines than non-certificated. Any engine that is non-certificated is an alternative engine, be that what it may - Rotax included.

But let's lump those non-cert Rotax engines in with certified. Are we going to claim the Rotax 2-strokes are just as reliable and maintenance-free as the 4 strokes? I don't think so, the discussion is aiming at the 912 series and you draw the line with all Rotax 912/914 engines as being the premier choice and that there are far more of them than the other so-called alternatives.

Looking at all of the gyros at any major fly-in we do not count more Rotax 912/914 than alternative engines. The ratio is usually 8-to-1, if that.


fara;n1126351 said:
... Same thing with your example. Its an anecdote but the vast majority of properly installed and maintained engines are fine and reliable at the same level as Lycoming....

With some of the alternative power plants you mention, the anecdotes amount to a significant percentage of total hours flown on the fleet so they can't really be dismissed. I have gotten a lot of requests of people wanting t put Honda conversions or Yamaha conversions and then when I do some serious digging on them, I always end up refusing to cheapen our brand and support that installation which looses me a potential sale but I am ok with that. I must have lost 4 sales that way so far in my estimation.

You mentioned elsewhere you personally know of the an engine seizing and a Rotax C gearbox failure.

First, I am not aware of the seized motor you refer to, please elaborate as we would all like to understand this incident better. I have a question - or several - for you:

Did he have enough oil in the tank? Did he have the proper type of oil in the tank? Did he run the engine on pump gas - like it's supposed to run with synthetic oil - or did he run a lot of 100LL in it? How long did he go between oil changes? Who owned the engine before him? What kind of oil filter did he use? Did the oil filter fail get plugged up and stop oil flow? How many miles were on it in the sled before the engine was removed? Did the sled ever turn over, or get crashed? What kind of oil tank was he using, an after-market type or the stock one? Did he have the crankcase properly vented? Let's move on to cooling: What kind of radiator? What configuration was the cooling lines? Did he have the thermostat routed properly and did he use a suitable "T" fitting downline of it? Did the radiator have proper airflow? Pusher or tractor? Did he run it low on coolant?

Don't sell assumptions, sell facts - and have them all on the table before making claims such as that the "known" Yamaha failures you are aware of are a significant account of the percentage of flying examples.

fara;n1126351 said:
...Most likely your anecdote suggests that the problem was with the particular install.


Let's consider a REALLY HUGE difference in comparing any Rotax 912 series engines to the Yamaha alternatives. In your own opinion people buy them because they are cheaper. And not by a little, but by a whopping huge difference - as in you can buy two brand new 150HP Yamaha sleds and gut the engines from them for the price of a single new 115HP Rotax 914. But (again in your own words) people don't spend the money to buy new Yamahas. They have always - to date - bought used engines, most out of salvage shops with no license, no aircraft reputation whatsoever (except Mohawk and Skytrax engine sales).

Abid: how do you, or anyone else for that matter, quantify the reliability of an engine if you/we know absolutely nothing about its previous life in the snowmobile? Hey, guys crash those things, and hard - like into trees and other vehicles on the roads, and die. Those sleds get salvaged after being bought from insurance companies, etc. Impact damage can severely affect an engine. How about something much more mundane - like a guy turns over his sled on a steep sideways slope, rolls the thing over, and it sits there running inverted starving the top end of oil for several minutes. Suppose he quickly sells it to some unsuspecting shmuck, who guts it and sells the engine to a guy who puts it on an aircraft.

With a 912, its pretty easy to determine that the thing was used in an aircraft, and maintained as such. But no matter, in the used engine world it is always, "Buyer beware."

What I'm getting at here is that if you are going to compare a new Rotax to a used Rotax, which one are you going to consider more reliable?

If you are going to compare a used Rotax 914 to a brand new YG4i, are you still going to think the Rotax is the better choice?

Second, if you are going to cite gearbox problems, shouldn't we be quantifying that as a separate issue since there are MANY alternatives to the choice of what I, myself, consider to be a inferior gearbox for use on a 150HP Yamaha power plant - one which I have never used on one of my own Yamaha conversions? I sell adapters for them, and one customer has installed it with a Rotax C box simply because it fits under his cowl w/o modification. He did not do so on my recommendation.

Did this gearbox failure you refer to result in a forced landing? What other circumstances were involved in the failed gearbox - could it be that the gearbox was assembled incorrectly and that thrust washers were in the wrong place on the shaft? In other words, isn't it possible that this - again - was an installation issue, and not a problem with the mechanical reliability of the power plant?

Moving on, in my mind, there is more than one thing to consider when looking for an engine for whatever it is I am going to use it in: 1.) POWER. 2.) RELIABILITY. 3.) COST.

In that order. I am all about hotrodding whatever it is I am flying or driving. That's what I do, it has always been in my blood. Rotax doesn't fit my life-long agenda because it is too low on power, and once you do anything to it to make it produce more power it blows up too easily. Return on investment isn't there.

There isn't a single Silverlight, MTO, Cavalon, Magni, etc. that can come anywhere even close to the performance that comes with any Yamaha-powered gyrocopter, bar none. And if you think for one minute that simple engine, or even gearbox, failure is the only cause of gyroplane accidents, you can rethink your argument. We've all seen the video of the MTO trying desperately to take off with a passenger, only to crash shortly after takeoff obviously due to insufficient power. There are others. Somewhere on here there is posted a list of Rotax engine failures documented as engine failures, not installation mistakes. There are plenty enough to prove that Rotax is not any different than any other engine when it comes to failure.

If you really think think that the only reason people look to a Yamaha "alternative" because of cost, you are mistaken. This is obliviating the fact that STOL FW fliers are selling their ROTAX 912/914 engines left and right in favor of YAMAHA power. No Rotax can come close to the power advantage of any Yamaha, be it a YG3, YG4, or YG4i - and we are only just getting started. Pretty soon we are going to have blown Yammies flying the pants off of these aircraft at 200+ HP. We already have NOS tweaking the power 15% for STOL competitions - and these aircraft are regularly flown in the mountains, and from Idaho all the way to Oshkosh and back every year.

Where do any of you come off telling people on this forum that Yamaha power plants are unreliable, untested, unproven? Get your heads out of the sand, they have been flying for ten years and this is all you have to back up your claims that Rotax is more reliable than Yamaha - a gearbox that was found on ground inspection to have a burned bearing and some guy seized an engine in an otherwise undocumented incident that no one else in the world seems to know anything about?

Tell me you know of even one Rotax that makes 150HP reliably - all day long. Ain't gonna happen, dude.

People are turning away from low-powered Rotax engines, plain and simple. Not all, just the ones who don't agree that Rotax is the end-all to the conversation regarding choice.

Yamaha has proven to be every bit as reliable as Rotax while delivering incredibly more power, +50HP, at comparable weights and 1/2 the cost. You write of one engine seizure and then claim this is proof to substantiate some biased proclamation that Yamaha less reliable - even dangerous - as compared to Rotax?

Give me break, everything I've read here is far from any well-backed, expert opinion in any circle, at any time, regarding any choice.

You admit losing customers who don't want under-powered aircraft, Abid. Sounds just plain stubborn, perhaps you could re-think your strategy: Instead of considering a used Yamaha on one of your air sleds, why not consider a brand new one? You actually think this would cheapen your product line? I can't see how, and there are a LOT of people who will agree with that.

You would rather use a 300# Lycoming 150HP engine instead of a 165# 150HP engine on your new SBS because you're stuck in a mind set that refuses to let go of convention that is now outdated, and becoming more so every month Mohawk and Skytrax are in business.

This all boils down to opinion, as there are NO SUBSTANTIAL FACTS to back up any claims that Yamaha is less reliable than Rotax 912/14. Yamaha is without a doubt by now proven, by any standard. People here all opine, all go with what they think they know, and understand, and hearsay, from other folks. It is like any lie - tell it long enough and pretty soon it becomes the "truth".

OK, so no problem - leave the Yamaha market to the rest of us, we really don't mind. For every customer you turn away, Abid, who comes to you and wants to power the gyro to 150+HP at same weights as an anemic 100-115HP Rotax which is absolutely no more reliable and costs twice as much, we Yamaha guys get one more customer.

The future will tell the story, not the past and all of the Rotax engines ever sold combined since many decades ago. I look at it this way: OK, so yeah, Ford has outsold Porsche over the years. It's been in production far longer, too. But Porsche don't give a rat's ass. They still build and sell cars to the people with an eye to what they offer, still win races, and are every bit - if not MORE so - reliable. They don't sell as many cars, but ask them - and their customers - if that is what matters most.
 
Last edited:
bencadenbach;n1126108 said:
I'm currently looking for a 2 place tandem gyroplane. I am thinking the Tango 2 is the way I want to go.
I don't want to pay the premium price for the Rotax because I'm not sure it worth the increased costs so I've mostly dismissed the machines with that power plant. I am looking to eventually conduct flight training in it so I believe it must be factory built.
Are there any other manufactures of 2 place gyroplanes that use noncertificed powerplants like the Yamaha?

Check out Tangogyro.com
 
Abid: Was the seized Yamaha engine you heard about happen in LA. (the state, not the city)?

If so, it may have been under water when it was powering a snowmobile. I've spoken w/ the gyro pilot it happened to, and have more info regarding it.

I fly a Yamaha on my gyro, but can see both sides of the issue WRT cost, reliability, and performance of Rotax 900 series engines vs. Yamaha.

I believe it is eerily similar to the debates that occurred when people first started converting snowmobile two strokes engines (including Rotax ones) for aviation purposes!
 
NoWingsAttached;n1126413 said:
We've all seen the video of the MTO trying desperately to take off with a passenger, only to crash shortly after takeoff obviously due to insufficient power.

It appears to me that the pilot tried to climb out using the cyclic and got further and further behind the power curve as he reduced airspeed until he descended into the trees.

It appears to me he had sufficient power but not sufficient piloting skills for the takeoff.

Recognition and recover from slow airspeed and high rate of descent is a part of the practical test and can be done at cruise power or at full power.

In my experience any gyroplane will descend at some indicated air speed at wide open throttle
 
Top