New Lycoming IO-233

[Phyrcooler]

This was brought up in an adjoining thread... thought it was newsworthy enough to have its own thread/discussion. Here's the press release:

Oshkosh, WI - July 28, 2008 - Lycoming Engines, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today at the 2008 EAA AirVenture, the launch of the IO-233-LSA engine. The IO-233-LSA is an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) conformed gasoline engine nominally rated at 100HP to 116HP.
"The IO-233 concept started with several of our own engineers building kit aircraft and needed a power plant they could not find on the market today,? stated Michael Kraft, vice president of Engineering. ?They wanted the strengths of the venerable O-235 Lycoming Engine at less weight with no reduction in reliability and a few key feature enhancements, including low octane unleaded fuel capability. The new IO-233-LSA engine is the result, and we?re confident that it will prove to be a premium engine for Light Sport Aircraft."
New engine design features include the incorporation of throttle body fuel injection with an optimized air induction system and electronic spark ignition within a proven engine. Substantial overall weight reductions and improvements in engine size make the IO-233-LSA well suited for today?s Light Sport Aircraft applications. The engine is also approved for 2,400 hour time between overhaul (TBO) intervals giving it one of the longest Light Sport Engine TBOs in the market today.
To give pilots an unleaded fuel option, the engine will be approved for use on both ASTM D910 100LL and 93 AKI ASTM D484 / EN 228 automotive based fuels that conform to Lycoming specifications.
The IO-233-LSA is currently undergoing final performance and endurance testing. ASTM conformance will be completed in 2008. FAA certification is under consideration for 2009 and may proceed based upon market demand. Performance and packaging information is available now for Light Sport Aircraft OEM use.

Wow... a 2400 TBO. Sweet! Now if it is as light as someone mentioned (installed only 5 lbs more than a 912)... that would be an awesome alternative to the overpriced Rotax. Not sure if there is enough volume to drive the prices down between Lyco/Conti/Rotax/Jab though...? We'll see...

DJ

 

[Mel]

Wow... a 2400 TBO. Sweet! Now if it is as light as someone mentioned (installed only 5 lbs more than a 912)... that would be an awesome alternative to the overpriced Rotax.
DJ

Are you sure of your numbers? I thought the new Lycoming weight came in at 200 lbs. The Rotax 912 is closer to 130 lbs.

 

[Mike S]

Info in AOPA says 200-210#.

As to cost-------lets see, made in USA, development costs, liability costs,
ETC, sure dont see it being much, if any, less than Rotax.

 

[Peterk]

Are you sure of your numbers? I thought the new Lycoming weight came in at 200 lbs. The Rotax 912 is closer to 130 lbs.

Mel,

You're right but Rotax is130 without lots of the accessories that the Lycoming already comes with at 200/210. So its probably more like 170...still 30 pounds or more...not to mention CG problems with a 12.

Pete

 

[JHines]

116 HP?

Hmmm...60 lbs. lighter than an O-320 and maybe 116 HP, might make a nice light RV-9.

 

[Phyrcooler]

Are you sure of your numbers? I thought the new Lycoming weight came in at 200 lbs. The Rotax 912 is closer to 130 lbs.

Nope... not sure at all... just passing on a reported installed weight claim. I'm as leery as the next guy on claims... so we'll see. The design of the RV-12 is based on the lightest engine available at the time (Rotax)... so I agree that any added weight on the nose could create CG issues. Likewise, for those looking to build a light RV-9... this might be another alternative. I don't know if this would create CG issues for that craft as well.

BUT... I am excited because I still think that competition is good. Starting my build has been delayed briefly while the wife's pregnancy progresses. That, and some recent taildragger time has my mind still open on what I'm going to build. I am toying with an (LSA?) cub style kit too. So... very interested in all the engine alternatives as well.

 

[az_gila]

Electronic Ignition....

...is mentioned in the news release.

Anyone see it (is there even one to see?) to find out which ignition system it is.

The LASAR system would seem to expensive/heavy/complicated for the LSA market.

 

[Mike S]

Certified??

Note the ASTM, not FAA standards quoted.

I suspect a lot of latitude there.

 

[Larry Motley]

It looks like a confusing time for newbies like me to decide on appropriate airplane engines.

Quote from AV Web newsletter...Aug 1. .

CONTINENTAL LOOKS AT ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Ordinary automotive gasoline won't cut it as a leadless replacement for avgas according to the CEO of TCM Continental Motors. Rhett Ross told reporters at a news conference Thursday that the use of ethanol and the host of other additives that go into auto fuel to compensate for temperature and other conditions make it unpredictable in aircraft engines. "There has to be an aviation spec," he said. Ross said the company is working on alternative fuel engines, including a mogas option for the 0200 that's targeting the Light Sport Aircraft market. The diesel engine is under development but he didn't go into detail. FADEC is a major push at TMC and there will soon be three engines available with the electronic controls. More...

End Quote

 

[mburch]

Anyone see it (is there even one to see?) to find out which ignition system it is.

I saw it... surprisingly, it's some kind of new single/dual ignition thing from E-Mag. Actually the Lycoming sales dude said it is self-powering, so I guess that would make it a P-Mag. Anyway, there is only one "mag" drive pad, which has something that looks like half an E-Mag on it. Then there are also two external coil boxes which drive the plugs. Looked very lightweight, anyway.

mcb

 

[JetA4GA]

It looks like a confusing time for newbies like me to decide on appropriate airplane engines.

Quote from AV Web newsletter...Aug 1. .

CONTINENTAL LOOKS AT ALTERNATIVE FUELS....:

The diesel engine is under development but he didn't go into detail. FADEC is a major push at TMC and there will soon be three engines available with the electronic controls. More...

End Quote

What is the economic motivation for the avgas engine OEMs to strongly introduce aero diesels: Not much in my opinion since that could amount to canibalism and a lot of R&D money with no ROI for 10 years. They are sort of locked in by the wealthy business they still enjoy with all the engines they have released in the field for over half a century and the potential derivatives they can squeeze out from them (i.e. FADEC, MOGAS, etc.) ! It is therefore a business decision. As long as another OEM comes strongly with an aero diesel engine that hurts/threatens the avgas OEM's market, the aero diesel tsunami will remain something we may whish. As a result for the foreseable future I can only see that strong aero diesel engine coming from the other side of the pond from the owner of a popular and reputable airframe OEM.

F Gagnon
Powerplant/Systems Engineer
Flight Test Engineer
Ontario, CA

 

[N417AB/RV-8A]

John

Are you sure of your numbers? I thought the new Lycoming weight came in at 200 lbs. The Rotax 912 is closer to 130 lbs.

The Rotax 912 is closer to 180 dressed out. If Lycoming's IO-233 is even close in weight, Rotax is in big trouble.

 

[todehnal]

The Rotax 912 is closer to 180 dressed out. If Lycoming's IO-233 is even close in weight, Rotax is in big trouble.

Mel, you are sooo right!!!

Now, all we have to do is to convince Van that he needs to take a serious look at it for the 12. Wow!!! Wouldn't that be a winning package!!

Tom

 

[steve wyman]

Guys- The 912 does not weigh 180 pounds with its accessories! I fly behind one in my RANS S-7S, and I took the time to weigh the engine and its accessories as I installed it in the airplane. The basic engine is 125. The two radiators (oil and coolant), plus the coolant and the oil tank and the exaust pipes bring the total installed up to 152 pounds. I did not include the weight of the engine mount, the oil or the prop, but I'm pretty sure your IO-233 will need these three items also, so they should not affect the comparison. I'd bet money that the IO-233 will weigh at least 200 pounds. I'll take that 48 pound extra useful load any day! The Rotax is way too expensive- you're right about that- but its a great little engine. Runs like a top! Steve

 

[JetA4GA]

About the Lyco IO-233, anyone aware of:

- What brand and model of injection system it is equipped with ?

- Does it have a hollow crankshaft and provisions for a governor ?

 

[JetA4GA]

...also, does anyone have pictures of that engine (IO-233) that they could share ?

 

[Geico266]

The Rotax is way too expensive- you're right about that- but its a great little engine. Runs like a top! Steve

The cost of the Rotax 912 has not gone up that much, it's the value of the USD that has made it more expensive for the US market.

I know Steve gets it, but guys, there is nothing wrong with a Rotax 912. They burn car gas, are MUCH quieter, and many go 3,000 - 4,000 hours TBO off setting the cost of an overhaul of something else. I have 600+ hours behind several 912's. Many CC trips. They are a true aircraft engine designed from the ground up for light aircraft. There are more Rotax engines flying world wide than any other engine.

I'm not bashing the IO-233, I have an 0-235 on my -3. It's a good engine, and so is the Rotax 912S.

 

[aerial]

...also, does anyone have pictures of that engine (IO-233) that they could share ?

http://kitplanesmag.blogspot.com/2008/07/lycoming-introduces-new-engine-models.html

Kitplanes has a picture.

 

[todehnal]

Guys- The 912 does not weigh 180 pounds with its accessories! I fly behind one in my RANS S-7S, and I took the time to weigh the engine and its accessories as I installed it in the airplane. The basic engine is 125. The two radiators (oil and coolant), plus the coolant and the oil tank and the exaust pipes bring the total installed up to 152 pounds. I did not include the weight of the engine mount, the oil or the prop, but I'm pretty sure your IO-233 will need these three items also, so they should not affect the comparison. I'd bet money that the IO-233 will weigh at least 200 pounds. I'll take that 48 pound extra useful load any day! The Rotax is way too expensive- you're right about that- but its a great little engine. Runs like a top! Steve

You have weighed it, and that is hard to dispute, but I find it hard to believe that you can get two radiators, a large oil tank, all of those hoses and connecters, as well as a complete exhaust system for only 27 lbs. Wow!!
Don't forget the required gear box rebuild for the 912. Also, the manufacturers must know something when Rotax recomends a 1500 hr tbo and Lycoming says 2400 hrs. for the IO-233. Also, I just appreciate the high torque and simplicity of a Lyc!

Tom

 

[FrankS]

AVweb Podcast

About the Lyco IO-233, anyone aware of:

- What brand and model of injection system it is equipped with ?

- Does it have a hollow crankshaft and provisions for a governor ?

AVweb's AirVenture 2008 Podcast #20: Lycoming's New IO-233

Although they did not name brand names for components, Mike Kraft from Lycoming spoke to Avweb about the IO-233. You can listen to the interview on Avweb podcasts. AVweb's AirVenture 2008 Podcast #20: Lycoming's New IO-233.

The IO-233 has a mechanical (not electronic) throttle body fuel injector. It has a self contained electronic ingnition system with a fixed map for timing (no computer for low cost). It also has roller follower hydrualic lash adjusters for lower friction and less maintenance issues. All in all it sounds like a nice engine. 100 HP at 2400 RPM and 116 HP at 2700 RPM. Yee haw!

If the weight penalty over the 912 is approximately 50# I would be willing to give that up in the baggage compartment but I still think the CG issue on the 12 is what would prevent Vans from using it (besides the complication of creating a whole other engine installation package such a cowling, baffles, engine mounts etc).

All that said, if there was a way Vans could make it happen I bet a lot of people would opt for the Lycomotor, especially if they could spin it up and get 116 HP. Too bad Lycoming and Vans didn't collaborate sooner. Hmmm. I wonder what kind of design Vans could wrap around the IO-233? Better start a new thread for dreaming about that one.

Frank

 

[steve wyman]

The two radiators for the Rotax are not very large. The oil radiator is about 9inches across, 2 inches thick and about 5 inches in height. It weighs 2 pounds. The coolantant radiator is about 15 inches wide, 1.5 inches thick, and about 6 inches front to back. It also weighs 2 pounds. The oil tank, sans oil weighs 3.5 pounds. One thing folks seem to forget about the Rotax is its small physical dimentions; in particular,the narrow width across the cylinders. This allows for a nice slim cowl front, which translates to good fuselage aerodynamics. All you have to do, to see what putting an O-200 engine in an A/C in place of the Rotax , is to look at what happened to Cessna's C-162 Skycatcher, when they switched from the Rotax. The nose cowl went from slick to butt ugly! Steve

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

The two radiators for the Rotax are not very large. The oil radiator is about 9inches across, 2 inches thick and about 5 inches in height. It weighs 2 pounds. The coolantant radiator is about 15 inches wide, 1.5 inches thick, and about 6 inches front to back. It also weighs 2 pounds. The oil tank, sans oil weighs 3.5 pounds. One thing folks seem to forget about the Rotax is its small physical dimentions; in particular,the narrow width across the cylinders. This allows for a nice slim cowl front, which translates to good fuselage aerodynamics.

Some images of a Rotax install. Note the stubby nose cowling. My head is (perhaps) useful for scale. It is very compact.

TODR

 

[lawspud]

My head is (perhaps) useful for scale. It is very compact.
TODR

Which is compact...your head, or the engine?

 

[Geico266]

Don't forget the required gear box rebuild for the 912. Also, the manufacturers must know something when Rotax recomends a 1500 hr tbo and Lycoming says 2400 hrs. for the IO-233. Also, I just appreciate the high torque and simplicity of a Lyc!

Tom

Gear box rebuild or do you mean setting the gear box spring tension?

Rotax recommends 1500 TBO, but clearly that is being exceeded by thousands of hours. When Lycoming says 2,000 TBO they really mean 1,500... at best.

I can't argue about the Lyc simplicity. I fly behind them all the time, they are good engines also, but Rotax has them beat in the 80-100 HP range for light sport. Even the military uses Rotax 912 in their dones. Reliable, easy to work on, and they go forever.... almost.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Which is compact...your head, or the engine?

Engine is compact. Head is thick and occasionally overly-inflated.

TODR

 

[Phyrcooler]

Gear box rebuild or do you mean setting the gear box spring tension?

Rotax recommends 1500 TBO, but clearly that is being exceeded by thousands of hours. When Lycoming says 2,000 TBO they really mean 1,500... at best.

I can't argue about the Lyc simplicity. I fly behind them all the time, they are good engines also, but Rotax has them beat in the 80-100 HP range for light sport. Even the military uses Rotax 912 in their dones. Reliable, easy to work on, and they go forever.... almost.

Rotax is exceeding TBO by thousands of hours?? Seriously??

Also... The 233 is based on the 235... which I had thought had a reputation or reaching or exceeding TBO.

Please don't see this as a challenge... As I am sorting out what I am going to build... and little issues like this are just more data points in my decision process. Are these exaggerations... or substantiated histories?

I LIKE the idea of air-cooled, direct drive simplicity like the Lyco and Jab. Unless the 233 is lighter installed than we believe, and the Rotax heavier... I think that CG issues for the RV-12 will rule out the Lyco. I DO like the idea of the Jab 3300 for the -12 though.

DJ

 

[Geico266]

Rotax is exceeding TBO by thousands of hours?? Seriously??

Seriously. There are many 912's in Europe that have exceeded 4,000+ hours. Several in the US have gone 3,000+ hours. That would be thousands of hours past TBO.

 

[N417AB/RV-8A]

Gear box rebuild or do you mean setting the gear box spring tension?

Rotax recommends 1500 TBO, but clearly that is being exceeded by thousands of hours. When Lycoming says 2,000 TBO they really mean 1,500... at best.

I can't argue about the Lyc simplicity. I fly behind them all the time, they are good engines also, but Rotax has them beat in the 80-100 HP range for light sport. Even the military uses Rotax 912 in their dones. Reliable, easy to work on, and they go forever.... almost.

I like the Eagle on your posting...............bet he doesn't fly behind a Rotax

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Rotax is exceeding TBO by thousands of hours?? Seriously??

I don't know how many or for how long, but many Rotaxes make it beyond TBO. Supposedly, one of the key ways to get there is to use mogas and not 100LL. Also, the 912 series has liquid cooling, which reduces (but doesn't eliminate) shock cooling problems.

Gearboxes don't always make it to TBO. Again, using mogas helps. I've talked to rotax techs at Lockwood (they've been a rotax service center since before the 912) and the can instantly tell at gearboxes they get in for overhaul whether they've been run on 100LL or mogas.

TODR

 

[Walter Klatt]

This argument reminds of when Honda and some of the other Japanese companies first came out with their big bikes. The Harley, Triumph, and BSA bikers all pooh poohed them, but started to pay real attention a few years later when they were all being beaten at the track. Now, of course, there are still those that will always prefer a Harley, even today, which is why I don't expect Lycs and Conts to go away either.

I have flown behind an overhauled, leaking, rumbling 320, that needed mag work at 500 hours, but otherwise was reliable. Not sure if it would have made it to 2000, as I was pretty hard on it, and used Mogas. I now have a new (45 hours) Superior with ECI EXP cylinders 360 that is a great performer, but still shakes a bit, and I have just spotted some oil again on the backside of the engine. Not sure where it is coming from, and am not even going to try look for the leak.

I also have another plane with the 912, and this thing is a dream for simplicity of operation and maintenance compared to the Lycs I have owned. It is smooth, quiet, and I expect it to last major maintenance free a lot longer than my Lyc, based on reports of others who use the engine. And the engine is totally clean, no leaks.

I am looking to build an RV12, and very glad Vans went with the 912. Too bad Rotax doesn't have a 150 - 200 hp option, as I wouldn't hesitate to use that one also, if it works as well as the 912.

Walter

 

[Geico266]

I like the Eagle on your posting...............bet he doesn't fly behind a Rotax

The eagle has flown 600+ hours behind a Rotax.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I've rethought the O-233 a little. It has a lot going for it - dual EI, runs on mogas and EI (although it's throttle body). The 912 also has the dual EI and runs on mogas, but it has the dual carbs. They're not a huge problem, but having FI would be a better thing.

The 200 lb weight may be a problem for LSA. Ideally, LSA have empty weights of no more than 750 lb, which leaves about 150 lb for fuel (25 gal) and 420 lb for people and stuff. That leaves 550 lb for the entire airframe, interior, electrical, etc.

IIRC, the O-200 is about the same weight, and the Lyc O-233 is a clear winner. How many 150s out there will keep flying for another 30 years with O-233s?

Someone else has discussed the possibility of a RV-3 LSA. The O-233 would be a great engine for that application.

As for the American-grown O-233 vs the European Rotax, competition is good. Would the O-233 exist if the 912 were never built? Let's be honest, we haven't exactly seen a lot of innovation from the US engine manufacturers over the last 40 years, certainly not what they have been capable of. All of the innovation has been made in the experimental market (not that's a new refrain...): FI, EI, mogas .... This is to say nothing of the auto-conversion programs (Subie, rotary, V6/V8 conversions). If you keep selling the same product, even if it's good, you will loose some customers.

I'm glad to see Lyc come out with seems to be a solid new product. Too bad Cessna isn't going to use it in the 162 / Skycatcher - you have to wonder why since Textron owns both Cessna and Lyc.

TODR

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Someone else has discussed the possibility of a RV-3 LSA. The O-233 would be a great engine for that application.
TODR

Not unless you could dumb down the power output a lot.

The original RV-9A prototype had a cruise speed of 166 MPH at 75%/8000ft.
This was with an 118 HP O-235L2C but I imagine an O-233 in an RV-3 would be very similar if not faster.

One other point that has yet to be mentioned... The new Lyc is technically in the development stage. Not yet a proven engine by any means. Yes, it may be based on an older design but any time you change something from an older (proven) design no one knows what unforeseen problems might show themselves (thinking of some of Superiors "improvements" that they ended up re-improving) It will be quite a while before this engine has proven itself within the market, and like any other newly introduced engine, the first owners will be doing the longevity beta testing.

 

[JetA4GA]

Nothing wrong with the 912 which is actually a very good engine except for these two changes that have somewhat messed up that engine (and were mandated by ADs! ; Yes, ADs sometimes create their own set of problems):

1) Change of mechanical fuel pump from PierBurg to BING which causes fuel pressure issues during certain phases of flight (change required and imposed on ROTAX because PierBurg stopped the manufacture of the pump),

2) Change from the 50-50 Glycol based coolant to the EVANS coolant which gets the engine to overheat (about 40-50 ?F higher) and results in subtantial cylinder reduced life; Also the oil gets about 15-20?F higher bringing it to the 284?F limit on an ISA+41?F day (note that the recognized and normally used technical limit for synthetic oils is around 266?F or 130?C). therefore, overall reduced engine life. Hence, I recommend to anyone using a 912 (or 914) to go back to the 50-50 Glycol based coolant and add the required higher pressure Rad Cap and Coolant Temperature gauge red marked at 248?F (120?C); (change required and imposed on ROTAX because of a really bad engine installation on a non-certified a/c).

 

[Geico266]

Another nice feature of Rotax 912 is the cabin heat you can generate from the hot coolant. Very nice in cold weather. A real plus for guys building the -12.

Also, the dual carbs are auto pressure comensating. No need to have a mixture control.

 

[JetA4GA]

Another nice feature of Rotax 912 is the cabin heat you can generate from the hot coolant. Very nice in cold weather. A real plus for guys building the -12.

Also, the dual carbs are auto pressure comensating. No need to have a mixture control.

Agreed;

These compensated carbs actually work flawlessly by performing their intended function unlike the compensated injection system of a certain popular ( )-2XX engine that kept performing un-intended functions and that caused me its load of sleepless nights for a few years.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

2) Change from the 50-50 Glycol based coolant to the EVANS coolant which gets the engine to overheat (about 40-50 ?F higher) and results in subtantial cylinder reduced life; Also the oil gets about 15-20?F higher bringing it to the 284?F limit on an ISA+41?F day (note that the recognized and normally used technical limit for synthetic oils is around 266?F or 130?C). therefore, overall reduced engine life. Hence, I recommend to anyone using a 912 (or 914) to go back to the 50-50 Glycol based coolant and add the required higher pressure Rad Cap and Coolant Temperature gauge red marked at 248?F (120?C); (change required and imposed on ROTAX because of a really bad engine installation on a non-certified a/c).

I agree with the suggestion to use standard coolant.
New engines are delivered with the higher pressure cap. There is no requirement to use the Evans coolant as long as the airplane system has been designed and shown to keep CHT's within the normal operating range for the particular airplane the engine is installed in.

 

[JetA4GA]

Ref. Coolant type requirements: Agreed in the US; However there is an EASA AD on the coolant issue which refers to ROTAX SB-912-043 that provides all the details.

 

[gasman]

Light Stuff
As Light Sport Aircraft become more popular, so too will the desire to learn more about maintaining one of the most common engines used in these designs, the Rotax four-strokes. Columnist Dave Martin goes back to school to learn about routine Rotax maintenance as well as safe operation of the popular engine.

READ THIS in the SEPT. issue of KITPLANES

..........like if you use av gas then you rebuild the gearbox clutch at 600 hours...... an 1800 rpm idle....... use only Rotax oil filters..........FWIW.

 

[N417AB/RV-8A]

This argument reminds of when Honda and some of the other Japanese companies first came out with their big bikes. The Harley, Triumph, and BSA bikers all pooh poohed them, but started to pay real attention a few years later when they were all being beaten at the track. Now, of course, there are still those that will always prefer a Harley, even today, which is why I don't expect Lycs and Conts to go away either.

I have flown behind an overhauled, leaking, rumbling 320, that needed mag work at 500 hours, but otherwise was reliable. Not sure if it would have made it to 2000, as I was pretty hard on it, and used Mogas. I now have a new (45 hours) Superior with ECI EXP cylinders 360 that is a great performer, but still shakes a bit, and I have just spotted some oil again on the backside of the engine. Not sure where it is coming from, and am not even going to try look for the leak.

I also have another plane with the 912, and this thing is a dream for simplicity of operation and maintenance compared to the Lycs I have owned. It is smooth, quiet, and I expect it to last major maintenance free a lot longer than my Lyc, based on reports of others who use the engine. And the engine is totally clean, no leaks.

I am looking to build an RV12, and very glad Vans went with the 912. Too bad Rotax doesn't have a 150 - 200 hp option, as I wouldn't hesitate to use that one also, if it works as well as the 912.

Walter

Harley guys never Pooed the Honda's, or the Rotax.........They know girls need something to fly and ride.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Not unless you could dumb down the power output a lot.

The original RV-9A prototype had a cruise speed of 166 MPH at 75%/8000ft.
This was with an 118 HP O-235L2C but I imagine an O-233 in an RV-3 would be very similar if not faster.

O-233 is supposedly 100 to 116 Hp. I suspect the 100 Hp O-233 would be slower than the 118 Hp O-235.

TODR

 

[Dirtbos]

Jab 3300?

The 3300 would outshine any Rotax or 233. The max continous at 2750 (factory spec) and it's ability to run at 2950 all day long with no negative effects would put the 12 where it needs to be as far as cruise is concerned. Apparently Van's is taking the conservative approach. Too bad.

 

[rv6ejguy]

The 3300 would outshine any Rotax or 233. The max continous at 2750 (factory spec) and it's ability to run at 2950 all day long with no negative effects would put the 12 where it needs to be as far as cruise is concerned. Apparently Van's is taking the conservative approach. Too bad.

The 3300 is about 40 lbs. heavier than the 912. Van's chose the lightest, most proven engine on the market for the job. If you can afford another 40 lbs., there are lots of other engines that could be fitted too. For power to weight ratio, it's pretty hard to touch a 912S.

A 109 hp 1.5L Honda Fit engine is being developed now to replace the O-200 class engines used in many lightweight designs. Running tests so far are very encouraging. Something like this with everything tested and proven would be a fraction of the cost of anything offered by Continental, Lycoming, Rotax or Jabiru and is what the RV12 really needs to be a low cost package. I know Van's would be unlikely to ever fit an automotive engine though.

I like Rotax but the engine cost is unfortunately pretty hard to swallow.

 

[Dirtbos]

Wheel pants

I just got an e-mail response from Van's tech support. Apparently a wheel pant option has changed from "no plans to offer" to "we intend to offer" since the last time I asked. I think this would definitely enhance the look of the aircraft. The implication was that it would add about 4-5 mph to the cruise. Anything helps, but it still comes up short, depending on how you interpret LSA rules (sea level speed Vs "at altitude").

I flew a Sportcruiser a few weeks ago. The Rotax is a great little engine. Smooth and quiet. After I get over my disappointment about the cruise speed, I'll probably talk myself into a 12. There are a lot of other advantages to the design.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

The implication was that it would add about 4-5 mph to the cruise. Anything helps, but it still comes up short, depending on how you interpret LSA rules (sea level speed Vs "at altitude").

I think the important thing is how the FAA interprets the ASTM LSA performance rules (since for all practiple purposes they are there rules).

Van designed the RV-12 to what he felt the FAA's intent and interpretation of the rules are. Company reputation/integrity and all that.

 

[N941WR]

The 3300 would outshine any Rotax or 233. The max continous at 2750 (factory spec) and it's ability to run at 2950 all day long with no negative effects would put the 12 where it needs to be as far as cruise is concerned. Apparently Van's is taking the conservative approach. Too bad.

I once read an article that stated, "We like horsepower but love torque."

The RPM limit has nothing to do with the speed an engine / airframe can attain. Torque is what you really want at these low RPM's as the prop can be optimized to match the power output of the engine and the aerodynamics of the airframe.

Some of the brighter members of this community could probably clarify this.

 

[Dirtbos]

I think the important thing is how the FAA interprets the ASTM LSA performance rules (since for all practiple purposes they are there rules).

Van designed the RV-12 to what he felt the FAA's intent and interpretation of the rules are. Company reputation/integrity and all that.

No offense intended, but that sounds a bit like political spin that I would hear from a Democrat on Fox News. The LSA rules state "at sea level". Speed at altitude is always a bit higher. I think the aircraft didn't quite achieve the speed "as designed". They were originally quite resistant to wheel pants, as an example. Now it is an option.

There is still nothing wrong with the design. The wing removal and reinstall is just at 4 min. in the video on van's website. That is a great feature. I am hoping that some more speed can be wrung out of the aircraft though.

 

[N1593Y]

I've rethought the O-233 a little. It has a lot going for it - dual EI, runs on mogas and EI (although it's throttle body). ...
TODR

People need to understand that Lycoming is not proposing that the O-233, nor the O-360 and IO-360 that they also announced, will operate on common, ordinary "mogas". Lycoming is proposing a new "mogas" specification, 93 AKI with special RVP parameters and some other tightened parameters. This is a proposed "aviation" grade unleaded fuel, not any mogas that is made today. Considering the federal ethanol mandate will push all unleaded gasoline to "suboctane" (the highest being 89 AKI) for E10 blending, there won't be any 93 AKI clear unleaded gasoline made. There currently isn't any 93 AKI unleaded made west of the Rockies and considering that California is the largest gasoline market in the US, this doesn't look particularly good.

I attended the Lycoming presentation at Oshkosh about this "alternate" fuel. Lycoming presented figures that the amount of aviation gasoline (100 LL) is 0% of all of the gasoline made in the US. I asked him to explain how we were ever going to get them to make a custom type of unleaded gasoline for aviation when we represent 0% of the market. You figure it out.

 

[Dirtbos]

3300?

I once read an article that stated, "We like horsepower but love torque."

The RPM limit has nothing to do with the speed an engine / airframe can attain. Torque is what you really want at these low RPM's as the prop can be optimized to match the power output of the engine and the aerodynamics of the airframe.

Some of the brighter members of this community could probably clarify this.

The 3300 is rated at 120 HP, the Rotax is at 100 HP. I would assume that the 3300 torque rating is comparatively higher. 40 additional lbs. on the nose could be a problem (as mentioned in an earlier post). Weight and balance is important also. I guess as long as the 12 is available as an E-LSA only, we are stuck with it as is. The 3300 is only a dream. It would, in my opinion, make a h**l of a combination.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Considering the federal ethanol mandate will push all unleaded gasoline to "suboctane" (the highest being 89 AKI) for E10 blending, there won't be any 93 AKI clear unleaded gasoline made. There currently isn't any 93 AKI unleaded made west of the Rockies and considering that California is the largest gasoline market in the US, this doesn't look particularly good.

Eh? Do you suspect there will be no EtOH-free 93 mogas, or is there a federal requirement that all 93 mogas contain EtOH?

I attended the Lycoming presentation at Oshkosh about this "alternate" fuel. Lycoming presented figures that the amount of aviation gasoline (100 LL) is 0% of all of the gasoline made in the US. I asked him to explain how we were ever going to get them to make a custom type of unleaded gasoline for aviation when we represent 0% of the market. You figure it out.

From the DoE EIA, 2007 US production (includes finished imports), millions of gallons per year:
Mogas: 3,051
Jet-A: 528
AvGas: 6

So, Avgas is about 0.2% of total mogas production.

TODR