What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 Engine Options

J

jsenft

Well Known Member
I am doing some research on the different engine options for my RV-12. So far this is some of the information I have found. True or not is still to be determined.



Rotax 912S

Pro:

Lightweight - allows for high usable load (25lbs lighter than Viking)

Quiet (depending on muffler)

Low gas consumption

Likes 91 octane MoGas

Supported by Van

90+ of all RV-12 have Rotax engines

Proven record

Approved by the FAA



Con:

Higher initial cost

Doesn't like 100LL

Needs non-aviation oil





Jabiru 3300

Pro:

More power (120 take-off, 105 continuous)



Con:

Higher fuel consumption

Not supported by Van



UL Power

Pro:

Lower Cost

Con:

No firewall forward Kit



Viking

Pro:

Honda Core

Lower Cost



Con:

?it's not just 'bolt it on and call it an airplane engine?

No harmonic imbalance ?Will vibrate parts off ?

25lbs heavier than Rotax



Remember some of this data might be old. This is just what I found. The point of this post is to gather more information so I can pick my engine package. This post is not to downgrade any one engine, it is to get information. Please keep this in mind when your reply to the post. Just facts, don?t downgrade or blast any one solution.
 
Just as a note, the Rotax 912ULS is approved by ASTM for use in the RV-12.

It is NOT, and doesn't need to be approved by the FAA.
 
Last edited:
There are at least two flying Jabiru-powered RV-12s owned by members of this forum. They are both SNF award winners. Oren's airplane won awards at SNF and OSH this year. His 3300 (120 hp) installation required some extra strengthening of the forward fuselage and it also features wing tanks, so it's not a stock RV-12 airframe. But it's very beautiful and a great performer. :D
 
I am personally aware of two Viking powered RV12s flying in the USA, performance surpasses the Rotax powered ones. Both report exceptionally smooth engine, no parts vibrated off yet. Who told you that anyway?
One of these just flew to Oshkosh and was on display.
 
RV12 Engines

We have a 260iS UL Power flying for a year now.
There is a Firewall forward kit available now.
And yes we would do it again, very happy with the cost and performance.
 
And I could add: "It has flown to Oshkosh both in 2012 and 2013"

Alschief said:
We have a 260iS UL Power flying for a year now.
There is a Firewall forward kit available now.
And yes we would do it again, very happy with the cost and performance.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Jim and welcome to the VAF forum.

I am flying the Jabiru 2200 RV-12 prototype built by Pete Krotje at Jabiru USA. Very pleased with the engine / airframe combination. The firewall forward package will cost about $10k less than the Van's package. Jabiru USA will also provide engine maintenance and technical support.

Regards,
 
jsenft said:
Rotax 912S

90+ of all RV-12 have Rotax engines

Doesn't like 100LL
Click to expand...

912 ULS in our case

Around 97% currently by my reckoning. Apart from the ones in the US, I'm pretty sure there is at least one Jab 2200 powered RV-12 in New Zealand. Not aware of any non-Rotax installations in Australia.

100LL is OK with appropriate servicing
 
Last edited:
912 Cons

I am a RV-12 / Rotax owner and would add to the 912 Con list that it is a gear drive with a Sprague Clutch. I wish there was a "proven" alternate direct drive system when I built my 12.

Other than loosing 2 fuel pumps, an oil pressure sender, 2 exhaust gas temperature sensors and significant loosening of the Cap screws serving the motor mounts during flight, the 912 has been reliable.

Adding pros to the 912 list: It starts immediately and runs silky smooth.

Just wish it sounded like a real airplane motor.:D

Jesey
 
DAGO said:
Hi Jim and welcome to the VAF forum.

I am flying the Jabiru 2200 RV-12 prototype built by Pete Krotje at Jabiru USA. Very pleased with the engine / airframe combination. The firewall forward package will cost about $10k less than the Van's package. Jabiru USA will also provide engine maintenance and technical support.

Regards,
Click to expand...

Any idea on the longevity (TBO) of these engines?
 
Jabiru 3300

We have a 3300 Jab in our Rans S-19 and I cant say enough good things about it. It does sound great. We bought from Pete at Jab the mount, engine and cowl but did the rest on our own. Just coming up on 100 hours and no issues to report. Take a look its worth it.
 
That could only have been Chuck Peterson and I therefore am quite sure you misunderstood him.

f1rocket said:
At Airventure this year, by a RV-12 owner with an alternate engine installed. I didn't make it up but I'll open the door that I might have misunderstood him.

Like I said, I'm perfectly okay with alternative engine installations.
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
You could have added "just like 8000 other Vans EAB aircraft.
Click to expand...


Part of the big attraction of ELSA is the minimal fly-off period for Phase 1. The Vans prescribed RV-12 ELSA package is nearly turn key from airframe to engine to avionics.

We have approx 75 hrs on 328KL and the only change I would make, and plan on doing so at condition insp is changing to a Vernier Throttle for Rotax. Other than that, the 912 has been a super little engine and the "quirks" are not that big of a deal.

Not to sway from any other engine choice, but a factor in making that decision should be numbers in service and a wide support base. Rotax has both.
 
KALEWIS said:
...
Not to sway from any other engine choice, but a factor in making that decision should be numbers in service and a wide support base. Rotax has both.
Click to expand...

But! But! But!...Jabiru USA has sold over 2500 engines in the U.S!:D (Pete told me that)
 
DAGO said:
But! But! But!...Jabiru USA has sold over 2500 engines in the U.S!:D (Pete told me that)
Click to expand...


Sold, but how many of those are actually flying in service to give a good data point for TBO's?

Not knocking the jabs... Just curious.
 
KALEWIS said:
Sold, but how many of those are actually flying in service to give a good data point for TBO's?

Not knocking the jabs... Just curious.
Click to expand...

Don't have that answer, however, with 2500 sold, if the engines were problematic they would have been out of business by now. The Jabs have been around a while.

I have a friend running a 2200 on his Kit Fox for at least five years. I don't know the engine TT however he has been very pleased with the engine.
 
Last edited:
DAGO said:
The Jabiru manual states 2000 hr TBO with a top usually required around 1000 hrs.

Regards,
Click to expand...

At our last chapter meeting two members reported on recent problems with Jabiru 2200 engines. One had a catastrophic engine failure in flight at 800 hours from new when a head came off an exhaust valve. The other required a complete top end done at 435 hours from new when the engine began using excessive quantities of oil. This does not instil confidence.

I think, as with all things in life, you get what you pay for.

An aircraft engine is a life support system, not unlike a heart pacemaker. There's just some purchases in life where it doesn't pay to "go cheap".
 
KALEWIS said:
.

We have approx 75 hrs on 328KL and the only change I would make, and plan on doing so at condition insp is changing to a Vernier Throttle for Rotax. Other than that, the 912 has been a super little engine and the "quirks" are not that big of a deal.

.
Click to expand...

Kyle you will love the a Vernier Throttle for Rotax, I have had mine since day one. Smooth, can make small adjustments, and doesn't creep
 
Many have said that a 100hp rotax 912 will out perform the 3300 jabiru due to the fact that the jabiru makes its full power at higher rpm where the prop is not not as efficient.
Due to the fact that the rotax can make full power at a lower prop rpm where a prop is more efficient the rotax actually makes better thrust than the jabiru even thought it has less horsepower.

Has anyone proven this to be true?

Jake
 
jersey said:
Just wish it sounded like a real airplane motor.:D

Jesey
Click to expand...

Spot on Jesey!! To me, it makes the most irritating sound in the world. Sounds like a wounded gnat with diarrhea. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I'd give up flying before owning one. Thankfully, there are other options.

PRO:
It helps me maintain a healthy lifestyle so I'll not have to even consider the purchase of one.

Just MHO. :D
Cheers,
 
Tony Spicer said:
The Jab list is a good place to go to hear from the two percent that aren't happy. You'll have to do some digging to hear anything from the 98 percent that are very happy.

Tony
Click to expand...

Well, the question was asked so I furnished some info. Pretty easy to find plenty of people reporting problems, simply Google Jabiru Engine Problems. Might be a lot higher than 2%...

Show me how many go 1000 hours without needing some major work.

Lots of people asking me for fuel injection for the 3300 engines tell me about their woes after only 200-400 hours- sinking heads and valve issues. The first Jabs were lucky to go 50 hours before the heads went south hence the multiple major redesigns of the heads and other parts over the years. Yes, the new engines are better than the first examples but they are still no Lycoming IMO.

You don't see aftermarket heads for the Rotax but there seems to be enough demand for Rotec http://www.rotecaerosport.com/products/jab/lch/ to set up production for the Jabiru and other products to replace the carb and ignition systems as well.

There is plenty of info here both pro and con also: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/jabiru-engine-2200-mechanical-problem-reporting.2218/

The last few paragraphs here are not too flattering either and this was reported in 2011: http://www.craigr.com/2011/11/09/forced-landing-in-the-jabiru/

I have no vested interest in either company or their competitors, just saying that people considering other engines should do their own investigation before they write the big check.

When someone says they have 100-200 hours on their engine and it's great, it doesn't necessarily mean things are going to be rosy at 400 or 800.
 
Last edited:
Chuck, Viking, nor I am aware of any RV12/Vikings at Oshkosh 2013 except Chuck, and we don't believe there were any, yet you indicated there was and that is where you got the information.
Meanwhile there have been well over a thousand RV12 people that have read your statement. It would therefore be "the right thing to do" if you edited your original post to correct the damaging statement.

f1rocket said:
Well, you are wrong. It wasn't Chuck. Be careful about what you are "quite sure of".

Since I am getting nasty emails from some folks on this forum, let me re-iterate my position. As I have said in every post so far on this thread, I am quite fine with alternative engine choices. I was only repeating what I was told by who I thought was a knowledgable source. I even prefaced my comment with "I may be wrong....". Turns out the information I was provided was wrong. I stand corrected.

Now, can all the zealots stand down?
Click to expand...
 
rv6ejguy said:
I have no vested interest in either company or their competitors, just saying that people considering other engines should do their own investigation before they write the big check.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with that statement. My point is that those that are unhappy with a product tend to be much more vocal than those that are happy. I flew behind a 3300 for 450 hours over a five year period. I worked the Sonex booth at Oshkosh for 10 years and had more opportunity than most to talk to Jab owners. I stand by my statement that 98% of Jab owners are happy with their choice of powerplant. I was happy with the O-320 in my RV-3, likewise a similiar engine in my RV-4. I could put an O-320 in my Panther, but I'm going with the 3300.

Tony
 
Dave12 said:
If I recall correctly, as of 2 or 3 years ago, Rotax had sold 40,000 (Forty-Thousand) 912's.
Click to expand...

I don't have the worldwide sales figures for the Jab. The 2200 series has been produced for 18 years so my wag is that there is a fair number of Jabs out there. The factory website states they are manufacturing 90 engines per month. So there is an obvious demand for the Jabiru series of engines.
 
Last edited:
DAGO said:
I don't have the worldwide sales figures for the Jab. The 2200 series has been produced for 18 years so my wag is that there is a fair number of Jabs out there. The factory website states they are manufacturing 90 engines per month. So there is an obvious demand for the Jabiru series of engines.
Click to expand...

Jabiru engines, particularly the 2200, are generally well regarded over here but they are not without their problems and need to be well maintained (as does a Rotax). Adequately cooling the rear cylinders of the 3300 can also be a bit of a challenge I believe. You can find plenty of vocal detractors and genuine tales of woe on the local forums from those who have had bad experiences, but they are basically good engines and the vast majority of owners seem to be very happy with them. South of the equator, they are also popular in New Zealand and South Africa.

There is a new Australian designed engine in development that sounds interesting as well, and could be another option for the RV-12 airframe. Don't reach for your credit card just yet though (scroll to the bottom of the page). http://www.recreationalflying.com/t...ved-from-icp-thread.63583/page-10#post-304133
I have no connection with this BTW.
 
Last edited:
AeroVee Turbo?

Since rgmwa brought up engines in development is anyone else keeping an eye on the AeroVee Turbo? It maybe a little bit early yet (since it is still vapor-ware), but if the Monnett's can crack the 100HP under 200lb nut reliably, this might be a viable option. The low costs of parts and rebuilds all but eliminates TBO concerns and the turbo-normalization should make a good performer at altitude. There are still other challenges such as propeller selection and electrical power constraints, but even if this doubles the price of the engine it will still have a very attractive price point.

Tom

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top