Smartcarb

Historically, we've observed individuals experimenting with various fuel systems, including the one you've shared. Nevertheless, it's essential to emphasize that Rotax carburetors have undergone rigorous testing and obtained certification.

The critical consideration here is your level of confidence in assuming the role of a test pilot. Moreover, it's prudent to inquire whether your life insurance policy includes adequate coverage in the event that you undertake such a role.

On a motorcycle (in video) you can pull over and stop. Flying you most likely won't be so lucky. Plus even if you don't crash you may be paying $23K+ for a new engine.

I'd leave well enough alone and the Bing carbs have proven themselves for more than 33+ years.

Remember the worst thing that happens to a Rotax engine is...................... It's owner.

Do the prescribed maintenance and you shouldn't have any issues. I have friends that have 3K - 4K hours on their engine's and haven't done anything other than the normal maint. 

p.s.

They haven't crashed either form deviating from Rotax standard practices.

I think it would be fair to say that Rotax, along with any other manufacturer that has a very high investment in a particular technology, would be reluctant to adopt or endorse an alternative one, particularly when the current technology is a proven performer.

Such an adoption/endorsement may come at significant cost both in terms of research and potential litigation should there be associated failures causing injury/death.

I am sure this observation holds good for almost all manufacturing but has particular resonance for the aviation industry.

The posative side of this is that we have reliable engine .

The down side, potentially worthwhile innovations have difficulty being considered in the first instance.

Well hi all. 

Always nice to see an old thread get some new traction. I looked at the Smartcarb as suggested and can tell you why it is not ever going to be used.

To start with we have to understand that within the Rotax world all the aircraft engines have to pass the same testing and evaluation as a certified aircraft TC engine.  That said, let's look at the main reason this one would get a fail and not be used.  Primarily this is only suitable for a 2 stroke engine.  Rotax no longer makes 2 strokes for flight.  The 2 stroke can't use constant compression designs like we have on the 4 stroke as there is no sustained manifold depression.  (2 strokes pulse + and - on each intake cycle) 

the biggest problem with this carb is the fact that it cannot fail to a run mode, it can only be loaded to a closed position if you fail linkage.  Within the engine requirement are some verbiage that says in essence it must fail to run and not off.  This explains why all the 4 stroke engines are all spring loaded to fail to run mode.  This is a game stopper and in looking at this design there is no fix for that issue.  

Cheers

There is a similar carburetor made in the USA called a Lectron.  I put one on my 2017 KTM EXC 300 (2-stroke).  It worked OK but I would not do it again.  These small companies simply don’t have the R&D budget to make a better overall product than the major manufacturers - in my opinion. That bike is sold, and my 2023 KTM 300 has fuel injection which (like my injected 912iS) runs so good there is no comparison.  Oh wait, this is the Rotax site…never mind.