Rotax vs UL Power

[johnr9q]

I know that the UL Power engine is not supported in the RV-12 (why not - that really isn't my question but an aside question) what other information should I use to compare the engines if I wanted to install one in a CH 650? (Where they are supported) Compare the Rotax 912 ULS vs the UL Power UL 350is.
The following are what I have discovered:
1. The Rotax is $2092 cheaper
2. The UL Power has fuel injection
3. The UL Power has 30 more HP
4. The Rotax is a more proven engine (Many more out there)

What other things am I missing?

I am not a pilot but am interested in home built. I live near Sacramento (any partners out there)

[Terrybrd]

I am in the process of building a RV-12 with the UL260is.
The guys in the hanger next to me built a CH650 about two years ago and installed the UL with 130 hp and love it. It has about 230 hours on the engine and they are very happy with it.
It can get to pattern altitude or higher by the end of the runway.
If you would like more info you can contact Robert Helms who is in charge of the US division.
He is great to talk with and get help

rhelms@ulpower.net

[DHeal]

Which engine company will still be in business 5-10 years from now?

[DonFromTX]

Probably Honda!

[Dave12]

Originally Posted by DonFromTX

Probably Honda!

Viking????

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by johnr9q

What other things am I missing?

It may not be the case now (and I may be remembering incorrectly since it was more than 8 years ago now), but during initial RV-12 development, I think the configuration of the UL engine at that time was that it was aircraft power system dependent for ignition and fuel injection operation (I.E. could not produce its own power to continue running in the event of an aircraft electrical system failure.
This can be over come with additional electrical system design, but statistics show that it still induces more opportunity for failures caused within the system and by the operator (higher complexity).

[RFSchaller]

The ROTAX seems to be a tough little engine, and some of the issues like sensor failures and VR failures seem pretty minor flaws in a reliable power plant. Some guys enjoy experimenting during their builds, so I can see why they might want to try another engine as a challenge, but I doubt there is an option that supplies the balance of performance and reliability that makes it clearly superior o the 912 ULS. I just wanted to complete my plane with the minimum hassle, so the stock 912 ULS seemed the hands down choice.

[WingedFrog]

Wikipedia says "Rotax produced its 50,000th 912-series engine in 2014"

In the same line as the Canadians saying:
"Eat Caribou, 10,000 wolfs cannot be wrong"
I would be inclined to say:
"Install a 912, 50,000 pilots cannot be wrong"

[bhassel]

The UL also has more power output on its alternator.

Although I hear there is a 40 amp alternator you can add that is belt driven to the Rotax.

Bob

[David Paule]

The UL turns its propeller at shaft speed, I think, rather than gearing it down like the Rotax does. A slower-turinng prop is more efficient, and that might affect the long-term fuel usage.

Dave