What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Engine options?

bhassel

bhassel

Well Known Member
I saw on Facebook this update on the 107hp UL260iS engine in the RV-12.
https://www.facebook.com/ulpower

It says a firewall forward kit and engine for $22.9k. I asked if there was any strengthening to the firewall and fuse but the reply was:

' UL Power North America Hi Bob. At 107hp the firewall does not need to be modified. The weight, power, torque, etc. are very similar to the Rotax.'

I thought the installed ready to fly weight for the Rotax was around 146 lbs. The UL engine is listed on the website at 164.2 lbs. That's a fairly large difference, unless I'm missing something.

It would be nice to get away from the carb problems of the 912ULS, but I'm no engineer.

I've also seen the D-Motor 97 horse at 125 pounds.

I'm just wondering if I'm missing something?

Bob
 
Bob,

The installation of the ROTAX 912 is pretty straightforward if you follow the Vans instructions. If you pick something else you are buying into a lot of work. I built 3 homebuilts before my RV-12, and two required winging it on the engine. With that experience I would recommend without reservation that you use the recommended ROTAX 912 ULS.

Yes, it can be done, but is it worth the hassle?

Rich
 
No I get that, and I'm especially leaning to the Van's solution just because of the ELSA. However, that doesn't stop me from wondering about the carb issues that seem to have been occurring and looking at other possibilities.

I just wasn't sure about the weight difference between the UL and Rotax.

Thanks,

Bob
 
Like has been said, you pay a price when you use alternate engines. You become a true experimenter with some unknowns in the mix. Although it was a correct choice for me (did not like the carbs, wanted FI etc)it is not for everyone. I caution everyone considering it to think it over carefully, and maybe you are not willing to suffer all that experimenting with a powerplant. If not 100% certain you want the headaches, do NOT choose alternate powerplants!
bhassel said:
No I get that, and I'm especially leaning to the Van's solution just because of the ELSA. However, that doesn't stop me from wondering about the carb issues that seem to have been occurring and looking at other possibilities.

I just wasn't sure about the weight difference between the UL and Rotax.

Thanks,

Bob
Click to expand...
 
Viking w/ 3 blade prop

Pls check out the Viking engine package with the Firewall forward kit and the Whirlwind 3 blade prop. Mine should be here in about 2 weeks. I did a lot of background research on the Honda engine , and Whirlwind prop before making my purchase.
 
Other choices

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.
 
RFSchaller said:
Bob,

The installation of the ROTAX 912 is pretty straightforward if you follow the Vans instructions. If you pick something else you are buying into a lot of work. I built 3 homebuilts before my RV-12, and two required winging it on the engine. With that experience I would recommend without reservation that you use the recommended ROTAX 912 ULS.

Yes, it can be done, but is it worth the hassle?

Rich
Click to expand...

+1 on this recommendation. I went the alternate engine and DIY wiring/avionics route on my -12 and I estimate it doubled the build time. If your decision is only based on saving money upfront, you will be disappointed once you add up the total cost, increased build time, and decreased resale value. If you like building, fabricating, and solving problems on your own as much as you like flying, go for it.

John Salak

RV-12 N896HS
 
JoeM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Van's business model is to fly what they sell. In the long run the customer benefits because a lot of flight experience is acquired operating the same or very similar power plant installations as customers do.

It would not be practical or make good business sense to build three or four different prototypes, to develop the installations and then operate all of them.

At the time the RV-12 was in initial development, a number of different power plants were considered.
In the end, the one that already had a long term track record, was from a sizable company that could support it world wide, and that had a very good power to weight ratio to help achieve the goal of a truly useful, useful load on the RV-12, was chosen.
If that changes sometime in the future, then you may see a different engine option offered.
 
I think that comes with the ELSA territory, there is a big profit motive to be able to sell everyone an engine and every last part of the aircraft as well as blame if one with the alternative engines crashes. Those that support alternative engines are all EAB only as far as I know. I think Vans has mellowed though, at first it seemed they hated me, now they seem to allow me to coexist with them. As a courtesy, I registered mine as something other than an RV12 so if I crash and burn, it is not "one of theirs" so much anymore "just another Air Force One crashed".
JoeM said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
Last edited:
bhassel said:
For me its more about attempting to overcome the carb limitations.
Click to expand...

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?:p
 
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).
 
JoeM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
UL

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,
 
Last edited:
pierre smith said:
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,
Click to expand...

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

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:rolleyes:).
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!
 
Rotax Predator Advantage

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
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top