What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Which Engine?

T

the_other_dougreeves

Well Known Member
There's been lots of discussion on this on other threads, but I thought I'd start a new thread for this. My pro-con list:

Rotax 912S
Pro:
Lightweight - allows for high usable load
Quiet (depening on mufler choice)
Low gas consumption
Likes 91 octane MoGas
Supported by Van
Growing installed base

Con:
Higher initial cost
Doesn't like 100LL
Needs non-aviation oil

Unknowns:
Combination water/oil cooling
Overhaul cost

Jabiru 3300
Pro:
More power (120 take-off, 105 continuous)
More like a traditional engine (Lyc, TCM)

Con:
Higher fuel consumption
Not supported by Van

Unknowns:
Factory support

TCM O-200 and Lyc O-235
Pro:
Traditional engines - easy to service
Lower cost - available used

Con:
Higher weight - reduces usable load

Others?
 
It's great to think that an economical -12 kit may cost only $12,000, but a bummer that the only engine Vans recommends for it, the Rotax 912, 'begins' at $17,000, $5,000 more than than what the kit costs! It really puts a damper on the whole 'low-cost' affordable LSA thing. But, I'm not an engineer and I'm sure they have good reasons for it.
 
What about a Subaru or VW

What about a VW or one of those older early 80's Subaru over head valves (not overhead cam) engines. I seems this class of aircraft is well suited for this kind of engine. There is also the little Suzuki car engine.

The VW is air cooled and has been supported for years by Revmaster and Great Plains. Don't know much about them, but the KR-2 has used them for decades. When your power required is down at or below 100 hp it opens up a new engines. The 2100 cc revmaster complete engine is only $6,000 and $8,500 for a turbo version. If you build it up yourself it is even cheaper. Dry Wt is 165 lbs., which is about 20 lbs more than the Rotax? It's at least way cheaper than a Rotax and does not need a radiator.

I always thought a motorcycle engine might work?
 
Last edited:
Jabiru Performance Advantage

The biggest advantage that the Jabiru 3300 enjoys with regard to fitting it into an LSA Compliant airframe is that the company cleverly set the "Max Continuous Power" value at a relatively low 2750 RPM (Nominally 100HP), with an engine red-line of 3300. This number represents the power setting used to test compliance with the 120 KIAS LSA upper speed limit.

The O-200 suffers by having its Max Continuous Power defined as 100 HP @ 2750 RPM, essentially full throttle. The Max Continuous Power specified by Rotax is also quite high for their 912ULS series, and is quoted by Zenith as 95HP (at 5500 RPM), with a 5-minute limit of 100HP at 5800RPM.

This is why the Jabiru-powered Sonex can comply with the LSA performance rules, and still have a top speed in level flight of perhaps 145 KIAS.

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote, RV-3's
 
Responding to the idea of using a VW for the RV-12, it doesn't seem to be a good fit. First, you have to work the engine awfully hard to net the HP needed for something like an RV-12. Lots of people who have been there/done that will tell you that a VW, even a bored/stroked/cammed/ported/etc. version is probably an 80 hp engine, and you won't make a 500 hr TBO with that engine.

Beyond that, they will tell you that if you want to get more than a 500 hr TBO, plan on a 60 hp engine. And by the way, that engine (or even the 80 hp/ <500 hr one) is going to be spinning a small diameter prop at 3200 rpm or more, which is far better suited to a smaller, faster airplane (say a KR-1) than an RV-12.

Beyond the power/TBO issues, there is the reliability issue. VW's in their various forms have not proven particularly reliable, especially in the higher hp versions. Locally (in my EAA chapter), I am aware of one KR-2 which suffered an engine failure on takeoff with fatal consequences. The single mag failed. Another KR-2 suffered the same problem on several occasions but the owner dead sticked it to a safe landing each time. Two other owners of VW powered aircraft suffered crank failures.

I'm not sure what the overall experience in the Sonex crowd is with their VW conversion, but one of our chapter members purchased the "kit" VW engine for his Sonex and found internal clearance issues between the crank (or was it the connecting rods?) and the crankcase which wouldn't allow the engine to rotate. That's scary to me. The factory solution was to grind off the offending bits. Another data point on the Sonex/VW experience was when Sport Aviation flew the factory Sonex with a VW powerplant and the airplane performed well below the factory performance numbers. Sonex eventually came out and said that the engine on the airplane wasn't healthy. One data point, but if they can't keep a healthy engine in the factory airplane, I'm worried. I'm even more worried that they let the pilot from Sport Aviation fly their airplane with a sick engine...

Bottom line for me is that the VW probably doesn't have the power (or the ability to swing the appropriate prop) for the RV-12. Add to that the reliability/durability issues and the VW doesn't seem like a good fit.
 
It seems to be a fact of life when choosing the Van's recommended engine that it costs more than the basic airframe kit, RV-4 (18K) to RV10 (40K).

The Rotax is just an ok engine. Most certified airframers have now dropped these in favor of Contis.

The old EA81 Subies are quite reliable with many drives available and put out a realistic 80-90hp. The Suzuki G13 and G16 engines are in the 90-100 hp range and also have a couple of proven drives available. These engines are very tough and proven reliable. Hopefully someone will produce mounts and/or FF packages for these and the RV12. Could probably come in about about half of the Rotax.
 
Rotax prices

Rotax prices are a deal-killer for guys like me.

In the "engines" issue of Kitplanes Magazine (I think it was the December issue, but I could go look for sure if anyone's interested) listed the price of a new 912S as $24,000. In an editorial in the same issue they said "what was Rotax thinking?" regarding their pricing.

Might just as well by a Lyc for that kind of $$$$$...

My question to you guys - and to Van's - is, "What about the Corvair engine??

Check out what the guys at http://www.flycorvair.com are doing. What do you guys think???

- Patrick
 
I built many Covair engines in years past. In direct drive form, not turning over 2800 rpm, a properly built 2.7 liter one might make 100hp. If I remember correctly, dry weight of the engine with no accessories was about 195 lbs so by the time you add, induction, flywheel, starter, alternator, exhaust and some way to reliably shoulder propeller loads, you are closing in on 250 lbs. realistically. Not a bad engine if a few important points are addressed. Very robust at these power and rpm levels.

A Suzuki G16 with all above accessories, rad, coolant, oil was 228lbs. including redrive.

I think Eggenfellner is contemplating a LSA FF package using a modern Honda four. It's gotta be cheaper than a Rotax.

I think you'll see many RV12 fitted with alternate engines due to the cost profile of the aircraft.
 
I'm not an engine expert by any means but a friend has a Sonex with the Jab in it. It runs well and FWIW they took good care of him when he had a couple of issues.
 
Last edited:
I am planning on using the BMW 1200 engine as stated on a thread I started a while back. As soon as I find time to "delve" into this deeper, I'll keep you folks updated.
Ron Drake
 
ROTAX 912 ULS Pricing

I really don't have a dog in this fight but it seems that the quoted Rotax pricing is on the high side. Check my quick, cursory search below. It would appear to be in the $14-16K range for a brand new Rotax 912 ULS engine (not including firewall forward kits).

http://www.rans.com/Rengines.htm

http://www.ultralightnews.ca/ultralightstore/rotaxenginepricing.htm (CDN prices)

http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-price.html

However, a new O-320 or O-235 is in the $21-23K range. Not sure what the Cont O-200 price would be but I suspect a new engine would be around $19-20K (all prices do not include firewall forward kits).

I think the issue is really what engine gives you the flexibility to be viable over the next 20 years given the 100LL environmental issues, alternate fuels (i.e. Ethanol), continuing gas price concerns and future handling costs/viability of a marginal profit product (Avgas).

JMHO :D
 
Last edited:
M-Power for the RV-12?

rv9flyer said:
I am planning on using the BMW 1200 engine as stated on a thread I started a while back. As soon as I find time to "delve" into this deeper, I'll keep you folks updated.
Ron Drake
Click to expand...
Interesting! Variants of the BMW 1200 engine get plenty of torture in other applications. However, I doubt that the Formula BMW folks are worrying about TBO beyond 10 hours or so. :D
 
Hi Guys,

Some input from my side, some early observations:
As I said above pricing quoted for Rotax is inflated:
I'm sure Vans will get a 'good' packaged deal from Rotax if they negotiate.

I went to both websites JAb and Rotax and downloaded their engine specs PDF's.

Look at the engine dimensions:
The jab 3300 will be difficult to fit in current cowl it is longer than rotax 912S. In addition the current pics of rv12 shows a f/w recess on top for the 912s the Jab 3300 needs it on the bottom.

This means you'll need a different cowl, and what will happen to the CG with a heavier engine further forward??

Lets look at power:
The 912S is rated at: (2.43 reduction gearbox)
95HP continues @ 5500 engine RPM / 2.43 = +/- 2260 prop rpm
100HP max @ 5800 engine RPM / 2.43 = +/- 2400 prop rpm

the Jab 3300 is rated at: (Direct drive)
105HP @ 2750 engine/prop RPM continues
120HP @ 3300 engine/prop RPM intermittent.

There is only a 10HP difference in continues power, but look at what the Prop RPM is doing at that power setting. The Rotax is below the magical 2500rpm range the whole time, which means it will swing bigger more efficient props without the tips going supersonic.

Gas:
Rotax: Mogas & Avgas (but likes mogas better)
Jab 3300: website only mentions Avgas...?

Proven reliability:
The Rotax 912S has been around a long time, well known, lot of good stories of great adventure flights over bad terrain, and 10,000s of aviation hours. The Jab 3300 is relative new comer on the market, not that well known, needs to prove itself

These are my thoughts,
Regards
Rudi
 
Last edited:
greylingr said:
There is only a 10HP difference in continues power, but look at what the Prop RPM is doing at that power setting. The Rotax is below the magical 2500rpm range the whole time, which means it will swing bigger more efficient props without the tips going supersonic.
....
Rudi
Click to expand...
This echoes what I've found on european designed 912S installs - they are very quiet. Evektor and FlightDesign are two of the "biggies" in S-LSA, and the European focus on noise can be seen, but not heard.

I've only flown the J3300 in the IndUS T-211 / Thorpedo (ATC somehow always calls it "Torpedo"), and it's Ok. It isn't as quiet as the best 912S designs, but it's sure better than something like a 206 at full RPM.

I think prop choice will play a major role in keeping noise low for J3300 installs. The new
Sensenich composite ground-adjust prop looks to be pretty cool and may be able to help keep noise down.
 
PatrickW said:
Rotax prices are a deal-killer for guys like me.

In the "engines" issue of Kitplanes Magazine (I think it was the December issue, but I could go look for sure if anyone's interested) listed the price of a new 912S as $24,000.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you read it wrong or Kitplanes had it wrong but try about $10,000.00 less.

A new 912S is around 14K, the 912 Turbo is around 24K.

Maybe not such a deal breaker now?

Rotax prices
 
No mixture control

Add to the Rotax "pros":

No mixture control
Dual, engine-powered electronic ignition (CDI)


Add to Jaibru "pros":

No mixture control
Electronic ignition (CDI)
 
Jabiru Fuel Requirements

greylingr said:
Hi Guys,

Gas:
Rotax: Mogas & Avgas (but likes mogas better)
Jab 3300: website only mentions Avgas...?

Rudi
Click to expand...

Many of the currently flying Jabiru engines do so while burning Automotive Gas, happily and cleanly. The Jabiru 3300 Operations and Maintenance Manual calls out, in addition to Avgas 100LL,:

"Leaded or unleaded automotive gasoline above 95 octane RON"

Several of the Aircraft companies using Jabiru installations also specify grades of MoGas to use with their products. The British Europa site, for example calls out 95 RON "with approval of the Inspector".

The conversion of the British/ European RON octane scale to the American values will equate that 95 RON to approximately 89 Octane at the American gas station pump.

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote, RV-3's
 
RatMan said:
Not sure if you read it wrong or Kitplanes had it wrong but try about $10,000.00 less.

A new 912S is around 14K, the 912 Turbo is around 24K.

Maybe not such a deal breaker now?

Rotax prices
Click to expand...
I can't dispute what the prices say in that weblink, but I couldn't see anyplace that said how old those prices were either.

I have the April 2006 issue of KitPlanes in front of me as I type this. On page 38 it lists the following:

Rotax 912 ULS, 100 HP: $14,354.
Rotax 912 S, 100 HP: $24,000.
Rotax 914 UL, 115 HP: $23,950.
I don't know what the difference is between the ULS and the S, other than $10,000. That's quite a chunk of change. They don't mention anything about a turbo.

On page 2 of that same issue of KitPlanes, it says the following:

"Speaking of money, here's an entry from the What Are They Thinking? Department: Rotax suffers from the old exchange-rate blues there's no doubt, but to price the 912 S at $24,000 seems just a little bit insane. On a horsepower-per-dollar basis, that's a tough one to swallow."

Has anyone on the board here recently bought a Rotax 912 engine and can set us straight?

Thanks,

- Patrick
 
PatrickW said:
I can't dispute what the prices say in that weblink, but I couldn't see anyplace that said how old those prices were either.

Has anyone on the board here recently bought a Rotax 912 engine and can set us straight?

Thanks,

- Patrick
Click to expand...

I haven't bought any recently, but my Dad bought two about 5 years ago for an AirCam. IIRC at the time, the 912 ULS was about $12K.

I'm reasonably sure that the primary difference between the engines is merely that the 912 S is certified and the ULS is not. They used the same installation and maintenence manuals and have identical specs.

I've probably flown these engines 120 hours, and FWIW I really like them. They are smooth, quiet, lightweight, and reliable. Working on them is a little different from Lycomings, but they don't need much.

James Freeman
 
while pricing these engines for comparrison can anyone find out the TBO recommendations? then we can break the cost down per hour of use before having to reinvest in the engine (overhaul cost) ....
 
Rotax 912 Alternatives for RV12

The Sube Grumbling thread has drifted off into the territory of this thread. Van's has picked the most reliable, available engine in this hp range as the standard engine for the RV12. While the Jab, Suzuki G10 turbo and others could work, they are considerably heavier and are nowhere near as well proven as the 912. It's hard to beat the installed weight of under 150 lbs with accessories, redrive and rads. The cost is the biggest turnoff.

Van's tries to stress safety and reliability. He has no serious choice but to recommend the 912 for his design. This of course will not discourage some people from experimenting with alternatives. Power to you if you are a lighter build and don't mind moving some components around to correct W&B. :)
 
PatrickW said:
I can't dispute what the prices say in that weblink, but I couldn't see anyplace that said how old those prices were either.

I have the April 2006 issue of KitPlanes in front of me as I type this. On page 38 it lists the following:

Rotax 912 ULS, 100 HP: $14,354.
Rotax 912 S, 100 HP: $24,000.
Rotax 914 UL, 115 HP: $23,950.
I don't know what the difference is between the ULS and the S, other than $10,000. That's quite a chunk of change. They don't mention anything about a turbo.

On page 2 of that same issue of KitPlanes, it says the following:

"Speaking of money, here's an entry from the What Are They Thinking? Department: Rotax suffers from the old exchange-rate blues there's no doubt, but to price the 912 S at $24,000 seems just a little bit insane. On a horsepower-per-dollar basis, that's a tough one to swallow."

Has anyone on the board here recently bought a Rotax 912 engine and can set us straight?

Thanks,

- Patrick
Click to expand...

Patrick,

I suspect the prices in the mag are a misprint. There are 5 Rotax service centers in the US. Arctic Sparrow Aircraft Inc, California Power Systems Inc, Lockwood Aviation Supply Inc, South Mississippi Light Aircraft Inc and Leading Edge Air Foils, LLC. You can check any of them and I think you will be pleased with what you find. The 912S is listed at just over 14K at the 3 I checked. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong engine but it's the 100hp 912S that I checked on.

If Vans is like some of the ultralight manufactures, you will be able to buy directly from them and get a bit more discount than that price but time will tell.

Those of you wanting more info on Rotax will probably find what you are looking for at KODIAK RESEARCH. Things like the difference in the 912S and the ULS, TBO times and the like. Check in "Tech Info" and choose the options under 912 series. TBO appears to be 1500 hours or 12 years, whichever comes first. Just the simple math of engine cost alone, 14,500/1500=$9.66 an hour.
 
Last edited:
Rotax "ULS" vs Rotax "S"

My understanding is that the 912ULS is not certified under Part 23. The 912S (without the UL prefix) is a certified engine, such as used in the Diamond Katana. However, Rotax has issued a statement of compliance with the ASTM consensus standards for the ULS version. Many Light Sport Aircraft will be using the less expensive version of the engine.

Is there a significant difference in the parts? I don't know - doubtful. But functionally, in the case of Light Sport Aircraft, the ULS version cannot be used (legally) for night flight or flight in instrument meteorlogical conditions. This could be a strong consideration for Private and above pilots who wish to purchase a Special LSA, or for flight schools who intend to use the aircraft for commercial operations.
 
LSA Engine Article in AOPA Pilot

This month's AOPA Pilot has a decent article on the O-200, J3300 and Rotax 912 for use as LSA engines. It's pretty much bang on, but it doesn't note the differences between the 912S and 912 ULS.
 
Night Flying

One issue to consider is night flying. Yes, Sport Pilots are restricted from flying at night, but LSA are not, provided that the builder allows night flight in the operating limitations and the engine is "certified" for night flight.

Currently, the J3300 and 912 ULS are not "certified" for night flight, i.e., their operating limitations are for Day VFR. However, part of the puzzle is missing. ATSM develops the concensus standards for LSA "certification". The Day-LSA standard has been issued, but the Night-LSA standard is in progress. So, as far as I understand it, Night LSA operations are in a fuzzy area.

Supposedly (Third-hand info) Rotax has indicated that they will state that the 912ULS conforms to the LSA-Night standard. The 912S is certified for Day/Night and VFR/IFR. It certainly would be nice if Rotax agrees that the ULS "conforms" with the Night-LSA standard.

Jabiru has "certification" for day VFR only. I have no info as to whether they will "certify" to the Night-LSA standard.

The easiest way to avoid this whole mess is to go with the O-200 or 912S. However, the 912S is about $5k more than the ULS - this is based on the last time I priced it - Tecnam offers the 912S as an option and is required as part of the IFR package on the Super Echo.
 
Okay, now I'm confused. Are you saying that you will not be able to fly a Rotax 912 ULS engine at night or IFR even if the pilot is a non-sport pilot who is IFR cert? I wonder if a kit built O-200/235/320 is certified but these engines do fly night VFR/IFR. What am I missing?

Confused, :confused:
 
Okay, for my own clarification I did a quick google search and I think I have some answers but questions do remain.

First the certified versus non-certified engine use for night VFR/IFR ops will depend on how VAN's will qualify/certify the RV-12 kit. If it is a "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft" then the Manufacture will establish the operating limitations of the S-LSA airworthiness certification. This will apply to those kits which derive from this S-LSA certification.

If VAN's markets the kits as "Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft" then the rules that currently apply to all of the VAN's line will apply to the RV-12. It can be flown by Sport Pilots but will be maintained and operated as all current VAN's amatuer built aircraft.

Now the engine question is how will it be certified. If it is "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft" then VAN's will establish the engine and it's operating limitations. Given that ROTAX has stated that the 912 ULS is not certified for Night or IFR operations then VAN's will have no choice but to restrict the ops of the RV-12. If it is "Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft" then the operating limitations will be established between the FAA/DAR and builder.(as is currently the case).

So if VAN's goes for the new "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft" designation then they will be in control of configuration management and operational limitations.

I personally do not see VAN's taking on the nightmare task of getting into operational limitations. Therefore, if the RV-12 is designated as a "Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft" then the ROTAX 912 ULS could be used as a night VFR/ IFR powerplant provided the aircraft meets all FAR 91.205 requirements.

Did I get it wrong??

JMHO :D

http://www.digitalaircraftlog.com/Docs/LSA for Aerial Photography - Seibring 1-06.pdf

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/likely_lsa.html

http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html
 
Last edited:
I sure am glad the FAA has simplified the process of getting into aviation by creating the Sport Pilot/LSA rules. :rolleyes:
 
westexflyboy said:
Is there a significant difference in the parts? I don't know - doubtful. But functionally, in the case of Light Sport Aircraft, the ULS version cannot be used (legally) for night flight or flight in instrument meteorlogical conditions. This could be a strong consideration for Private and above pilots who wish to purchase a Special LSA, or for flight schools who intend to use the aircraft for commercial operations.
Click to expand...

A quote from Kodiak Research "The Rotax 912 ULS is not simply an 81 HP 912 UL with different pistons. Through careful research and development, Rotax has made many design changes and improvements to obtain performance increases while maintaining the same external dimensions. Click here for a detailed list of component differences between the 912 ULS and the 81 HP 912 engines."

You say that the ULS version can't be used for night flight or IFR in an aircraft that qualifies as an LSA. Why? What gave you this impression?
 
RatMan said:
A quote from Kodiak Research "The Rotax 912 ULS is not simply an 81 HP 912 UL with different pistons. Through careful research and development, Rotax has made many design changes and improvements to obtain performance increases while maintaining the same external dimensions. Click here for a detailed list of component differences between the 912 ULS and the 81 HP 912 engines."

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

Hi Ratman,

I think that link refers to the differences in the 80HP 912 and the 100HP 912, it does not refer to the differences in the 100HP uncertified and 100HP certified engines.

Regards
Rudi
 
Last edited:
Engines

Hate to throw a wrench in peolpe ideas but the real life situation when choosing alternative engines is that it can be a major headache, even from a well known so called "engineered" solution. I have 400 hours behind a soob EA 81 conversion an I wrote up an article that appeared in the August issue of Kitplanes magazine. The basic EA 81 is an awesome engine but it is easily buggered up unless the builder knows what he is doing. If anyone was considering an EA 81 (OHV 1.8 motor) the only place I would go is to Ram Performance. Ram eventually fixed my engine but in the end it cost me more than the Rotax would have at the time.

Ram makes very well engineered conversions from 80to 150hp...I would not go anywhere else. Actually Ram may well be interested in making up an engine mount for the RV 12...The owner (Ron CArr) is a very talented guy

Frank
 
Only an issue for S-LSA

RatMan said:
You say that the ULS version can't be used for night flight or IFR in an aircraft that qualifies as an LSA. Why? What gave you this impression?
Click to expand...
I don't think that I was the one that mentioned it, but the operating limitations for Rotax 912ULS prohibit IFR. Thus, S-LSA (i.e., factory built) aircraft using the 912 ULS are prohibited from night VFR or IFR. EAA has a good discussion. Some LSA have the 912S as an option, e.g., IFR certified Tecnam Echo Super.

However, as far as I understand it, experimental aircraft do not need to comply with the operating limitations established by the manufacturer. So, if you're going to certify your 912ULS powered "LSA" as an experimental, you can use it at night and IFR. However, the pilot must have the proper rating.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
I don't think that I was the one that mentioned it, but the operating limitations for Rotax 912ULS prohibit IFR. Thus, S-LSA (i.e., factory built) aircraft using the 912 ULS are prohibited from night VFR or IFR. EAA has a good discussion. Some LSA have the 912S as an option, e.g., IFR certified Tecnam Echo Super.

However, as far as I understand it, experimental aircraft do not need to comply with the operating limitations established by the manufacturer. So, if you're going to certify your 912ULS powered "LSA" as an experimental, you can use it at night and IFR. However, the pilot must have the proper rating.
Click to expand...

You're right Doug, I wasn't quoting you but you are right on with your explanation. I agree with your understanding. It's the pilot, not the airplane that makes the difference. If a -12 regardless of engine is registered as Experimental, it's just another airplane.
 
The new IO-200

Did you guys see the new Cont. IO-200 engine at Oshkosh?? This is the perfect RV-12 engine. Fuel injected, electronic ignition, proven workhorse, no more carb ice, no gear deduction unit, no water pump- hoses- etc., and all for under 200 lbs.!!! It should be ready for delivery before Van is ready to deliver kits.

I like it and think that it WILL be my engine of choise for my RV-12

Tom
 
todehnal said:
Did you guys see the new Cont. IO-200 engine at Oshkosh?? This is the perfect RV-12 engine. Fuel injected, electronic ignition, proven workhorse, no more carb ice, no gear deduction unit, no water pump- hoses- etc., and all for under 200 lbs.!!! It should be ready for delivery before Van is ready to deliver kits.

I like it and think that it WILL be my engine of choise for my RV-12

Tom
Click to expand...
If it really flies (sorry), it will be a possibility. It offers simplicity, but keep in mind that the 912S is about 135 lb. Weight is critical with LSA.
 
A 912S, dry, but with all the trimmings weighs about 155 lbs. I weighed one from a Kolb Slingshot once, with everything, including the mounting legs, and the total weight of that was 159 lbs.

I've got to admit that the IO-200 sounds nice, but I'm thinking single rotor Mazda :D

Cheers,
Rusty (don't ask, it's a long way from being ready)
 
Cont. IO-200 versus Rotax 912-S

Don't forget to fill the cooling system when you compare the weight. The running weight would be a more fair comparison. The guys at Jabaru said that after they replaced they 912S in a Zenith product with their 3300, the end results came in lighter.

What may be another porblem is where the complete engine CG comes in, relative to the firewall. I'd give up a little usefull load to have a good old reliable and proven engine like a Cont. or a lyc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top