What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Rotax 912iS for RV-12 E-LSA?

Not Likely......

The change must come from Vans Aircraft. Before they can allow the change, it must be fully tested and approved on their SLSA.

I wouldn't hold my breath!

Your only other option would be to build as EAB.
 
I know it is slightly off topic but for the money it sure seems the UL Power engine is a lot less expensive option for FADEC and fuel injection if you have to go EAB anyway.

Carl
 
According to the factory, this is not suitable for the RV-12:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vans-aircraft-inc/rotax-912is/381492068527838


Rotax 912is

Yeah, we saw it too - Rotax has released a new fuel-injected version of their 912 engine.

We?d been aware of this project for some time, and the concept is exciting; but there are several reasons that, in its present form, the engine is not suitable for the RV-12.

Weight: The Rotax press release says the f.i. version weighs 6 kilograms more than the carbureted version. For the metrically-challenged, that?s 13.2 lbs - a significant increase and difficult to absorb, given the RV-12?s forward-cabin configuration and legally limited gross weight.

Size: The photos accompanying the Rotax press release make it quite clear that the engine will not fit in the RV-12 cowl. Re-designing the cowl and making new molds would be an expensive and time-consuming project, increasing the cost of the kits.

Cost: We haven?t seen final numbers, but the new engine is likely to be priced significantly more than the one we use.

We will consider the pros and cons of the new engine, but for now and the realistic future, we have no plans to offer it, either as a replacement for the existing engine or as an option.

For further information visit www.rotax-owner.com
Click to expand...
 
splitty said:
I think it would be very Remiss of Vans not to look at the Introduction of the 912iS Engine .....There will be an UL power RV12 flying in the not to distant furture as well..! Also there is a RV 12 fitted with a O235 flying around with out any probs so go Figure! Only my 2 cents worth..!
Click to expand...

I think this is the aircraft, which is neat, but I'm wondering if that engine took the RV12 out of the LSA classification.
 
Why would you say that, the only way an engine change would effect the LSA status is if it were too heavy to fly in the 1320 lb limit or had an inflight adjustable propeller.

NCGAPilot said:
I think this is the aircraft, which is neat, but I'm wondering if that engine took the RV12 out of the LSA classification.
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
Why would you say that, the only way an engine change would effect the LSA status is if it were too heavy to fly in the 1320 lb limit or had an inflight adjustable propeller.
Click to expand...

Or it made it fly faster than 120 kts IAS with the power set at the manufacturers maximum continous power value. This means the combination of manifold pressure and RPM. You cant just put a fine pitch prop on it and limit it to 50% power using the RPM limit. (though I know it is being done)

Or, it weighed enough that it could no longer carry two 190 lb people and 1 hours worth of fuel (another LSA requirement that not a lot of people are aware of).
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Or, it weighed enough that it could no longer carry two 190 lb people and 1 hours worth of fuel (another LSA requirement that not a lot of people are aware of).
Click to expand...

Actually this rule only applies to SLSA.

However, the end result is the same because for "kit-built ELSA", the aircraft must match the original SLSA.
 
But if you manufacture your own engine, YOU set the maximum continuous power value, right?.
And, is not that 120 knots max speed also only AT SEA LEVEL? (I don't know many people flying at sea level)
I did not know about the two 190 lb person rule, what else does the SLSA have for little known rules?
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
But if you manufacture your own engine, YOU set the maximum continuous power value, right?.
And, is not that 120 knots max speed also only AT SEA LEVEL? (I don't know many people flying at sea level)
I did not know about the two 190 lb person rule, what else does the SLSA have for little known rules?
Click to expand...

sure if you MANUFACTURE the engine
but the OP was asking about installing an already manufactured engine
 
That can be accomplished too. Jabiru for instance simply put a different data plate on their 3300 for those that wanted a lower max cont RPM. Of course nobody would EVER run it faster than the max, right?
 
DonFromTX said:
That can be accomplished too. Jabiru for instance simply put a different data plate on their 3300 for those that wanted a lower max cont RPM. Of course nobody would EVER run it faster than the max, right?
Click to expand...

right, but the point is, Jabiru can do it, YOU can't.
you would have to ask Rotax to make a special data plate for your engine.

But this is all conjecture anyway, I doubt that the 912iS will make the plane any faster, it's still rated at the same 100HP.
 
tim walter said:
But this is all conjecture anyway, I doubt that the 912iS will make the plane any faster, it's still rated at the same 100HP.
Click to expand...

It's also up to 15 lbs heavier, and apparently has a bit less torque, even though the 100HP max remains the same. And it's more expensive, too. Apart from better fuel economy and not having to fiddle with carburettors, I can't see much real benefit in having a 912iS in the RV-12.

On the other hand, the UL Power series look very good, but it's still early days for them in the marketplace. Of course the problem with having more power is not complying with the 120kt LSA speed limit at continuous max power. Now, if you guys adopted our progressive Aussie LSA rules instead, there wouldn't be a speed limit, but you might have to keep a closer eye on Vne :D
 
splitty said:
I think it would be very Remiss of Vans not to look at the Introduction of the 912iS Engine .....There will be an UL power RV12 flying in the not to distant furture as well..! Also there is a RV 12 fitted with a O235 flying around with out any probs so go Figure! Only my 2 cents worth..!
Click to expand...

I agree completely. It makes me quite unhappy to spend that amount of money on an engine with carburetors, when a modern engine is available. Surely Van's will reconsider. I think all of us who have not bought the engine yet should lobby for the new one.

Jerre
 
My first car was an MGTD with twin SU carbs. They were a bit of a pain to balance. The carbs on the Rotax are a piece of cake. They work well, and are generally reliable.
Why do I want to spend a bunch of money for the fuel injection? More to the point, why would Vans want to spend the time and money to accomodate the extra 15 pounds on the nose? The fuel injectin adds weight, cost, and it may take a while to cetermine if they are as reliable. The cost is not insigmifficant.

Do a search on this forum on the Rotax engine. I have not seen a single post by anyone complaining that it is too cheap! But if Vans were to post tomorrow that from here on out the price has gone up xxxx$ because you must buy the injected engine, the screams will be loud.
 
Mark Henderson said:
My first car was an MGTD with twin SU carbs. They were a bit of a pain to balance. The carbs on the Rotax are a piece of cake. They work well, and are generally reliable.
Why do I want to spend a bunch of money for the fuel injection? More to the point, why would Vans want to spend the time and money to accomodate the extra 15 pounds on the nose? The fuel injectin adds weight, cost, and it may take a while to cetermine if they are as reliable. The cost is not insigmifficant.

Do a search on this forum on the Rotax engine. I have not seen a single post by anyone complaining that it is too cheap! But if Vans were to post tomorrow that from here on out the price has gone up xxxx$ because you must buy the injected engine, the screams will be loud.
Click to expand...

You get better GPH with a EFI engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top