Engine options?

[bhassel]

For me its more about attempting to overcome the carb limitations.

It would be difficult to come up with anything that met the weight to power distribution of the Rotax so its easy to see why it was chosen. Not to mention the large number of fleet hours.

I'd really try the 912 IS sport if I had slept in a Holiday Inn but after reviewing the video on what it took to put it in a CH-750 by Rotec Research Ltd, definitely made me pause. Here's a link of a short version of that video. I sure wish I could find the original link to the full video I saw on it. It made me understand better what Van's would have to go through - darn it!

Ah - here's the link I was looking for 912 IS Sport.

Bob

[Jetguy]

Originally Posted by bhassel

For me its more about attempting to overcome the carb limitations.

I'm not sure what limitations you are considering here. I guess it's because of all the float problems that are being talked about here. Once Rotax comes out with new floats it will be a thing of the past. Yes there are a few things you have to do to set them up but after that they are low maintenance. You will probably change your oil and spark plugs more than mess with your carbs. 200 hour check up on them if you want and 500 hour over haul. If you fly 50 hours a year then that a few years between checks. Yes I want all that cool technology to but how long do you want to wait for it and not fly?

[Loki]

Rotax has nothing in print as a time to rebuild carbs. They only have the 200 hour inspection time.

We have two 912 FI engines we fly with that also have the new sport upgrade. They aren't really any faster, but they do get better fuel economy and do a better job of power and fuel management at the higher altitudes. Speed with the Rotax is more related to fueslage design and prop pitch. At altitude and with a reasonable throttle setting they are getting 1.1 to 1.4 GPH better economy. (Max rpm is equal on each aircraft).

[TroyBranch]

Originally Posted by JoeM

The only thing I don?t like about the RV-12 is the lack of factory support for other engines. The other major kit manufactures offer multiple engine options for their Light Sport size aircraft and registering E-AB is the norm just like all of the other Van?s kits. The Light Sport market has a few different made just for aircraft engine choices, some that have been around for a while and some that are newer but seem to be operating trouble free. I have not seen any complaints from the few 12?s that are flying with UL or Jabaru engines, I would like to see more reports from those few to maybe encourage others to follow. It sure would be nice if Van?s would get on board and endorse some of these options.

Other manufactures may support other engines but they will not be complete and thoroughly thought out kits like vans provides. Likely hardly an engine kit at all would be provided. Vans really does it right in all aspects of their kit.

[pierre smith]

A friend of mine has recently become a UL distributor and tells me that the engines are lighter than the Rotax.

They also have a complete FW forward package and are direct drive work of art.

Best,

[Dave12]

Originally Posted by pierre smith

A friend of mine has recently become a UL distributor and tells me that the engines are lighter than the Rotax.

The also have a complete FW forward package and are direct drive work of art.

Best,

I agree, it's hard to eyeball them and not like. I am not sold on them for the 12.

[WingedFrog]

Originally Posted by TroyBranch

Other manufactures may support other engines but they will not be complete and thoroughly thought out kits like vans provides. Likely hardly an engine kit at all would be provided. Vans really does it right in all aspects of their kit.

What is impressing in VANs approach to selecting the engine is that they overcame preconceived ideas like selecting an engine from a brand they knew well and were used to work with or eliminating an engine based on the fact that it is not direct drive or made in USA. They had to have a compelling case at the time (around 8 years ago) to chose the 912 ULS as well as guts as I remember hearing recriminations from their followers (who did not know better).
We may be getting closer these days to a viable alternative to the Rotax but imagine our misery had VANs made this choice 8 years ago!

[larosta]

Keep in mind the advantages of the fact that the 912 is very similar to the 912 and 914 engines installed in Predator's, Reaper's, etc. that are operational in high availability environments. I am sure that the 1000's of hours of operating and maintenance experience as well as the millions of dollars that has been spent by Government operators on these programs is reflected in the engine you can purchase today. This probably makes the current Rotax aircraft engine unique in what is available today.

My 2 cents,
Larosta

[bhassel]

Yeah if I had my druthers, I'd go a 912 IS sport, but after watching the video I know that engineering is beyond me.

I'm 99% sure I'll stick with the standard, but I was just curious since I thought the standard Rotax for us was 15 - 20 pounds lighter than the UL.

Bob

[Terrybrd]

According to UL's site the 260is (107hp) engine is 159.3 lbs including all accessories + oil and exhaust
I believe this is a little lighter than the Rotex.

Terry