I know the Rotax engine is considered a lawnmower engine by some, and that it's not a Lycoming or Continental, which are based on as many have said, 1950s technology, but really, why is it that there is so much hate toward the rotax? Have there been more failures in flight proportionally than the Lycoming or Continental, more problems?
Just curious - I haven't searched all over and read articles, so I'm looking for honest opinions, but with a caveat that if it is an opinion, please mark it as so, vs fact, which I'd also love to have "marked."
Separately, from a technical sense, why do some say that a two stroke engine is a death trap vs a four stroke? If a cylinder blows, a cylinder blows and usually the engine is useless after that (opinion) in most cases. I know the P-47 could fly with a Jug missing and I personally had a cylinder dying on me once and as long as I kept the power down, the cylinder stayed cool enough to get to an airport - had the cylinder lost completely, I would have had to put the plan down right there.
Thanks,
-Seth