What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Rotax Fuel Injection

I doubt anyone will fit the 912iS in an RV-12 as a 'mod' from the standard installation unless Van's eventually offer it as an option.

The 912iS is a relatively complicated installation over the standard 912ULS because of the electronic fuel injection and ignition systems. Lots of boxes and wires to add.

Do tell why you hate carburettors?

In my humble experience they work just fine in aircraft including RV-12s. :)
 
Bill_In_Diamondhead said:
Anybody installing a Rotax Fuel Injected Engine in their RV-12? Somebody has to have done it. I do not want Carburetors in my airplane.
Click to expand...

I asked a similar question a couple months ago and got a either response of "That would be really hard to do." or a horrified response of "Why in the world would you EVER want to do that?? The RV-12 with the 912ULS is perfect as it is!!" from the participants of this forum (this in spite of the fact there are RV-12s flying with both Viking and Jabiru engines installed). :)

Here is a link to that thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=121720

I have since kept my head down low to avoid the crossfire... :D
 
Last edited:
I would love to see the 912IS or the 914 turbo as options. I'm just not educated enough in the correct areas to figure it out.

I even heard somewhere that Cato was working on a fixed pitch prop for the 12 that would shave off enough pounds to make the weight work out (or close).

Leave the head up and someone figure it out...please... :)

Bob
 
Granted, this was a test stand installation, but I've swapped a 912iS in place of a 912 ULS and run each ~40hr. We flew the ULS quite a bit. As with any installation, efficient cooling is the biggest issue.

There are more boxes and wiring, and some extra weight, though the iS absorbs some of that difference in internalizing some electrical equipment (weight includes the necessary redundant alternators). We did find that the iS maintained better mixture control and power over a range of conditions with less adjustment and had slightly lower fuel consumption.

I have a hard time imagining a net benefit to going to the iS in the -12. As others have said, changes to an existing installation add time and cost, and the extra cost for the engine itself is considerable IMO. We were considering the swap primarily for marketing reasons and also for better engine control over a range of power settings (which doesn't apply to typical aircraft). Honestly we never had an inflight issue with the carbs after proper jetting.

Compared to the typical motorcycle carb bank arrangement, the Rotax setup is pretty simple and accordingly easy to maintain, and the conditions of flight in a non-aerobatic aircraft lessen the benefits that are observed in going to FI on a car or motorcycle. That said, if your decision is based on ideology (your own or your friends) then you're going for it either way!

TLDR: In my mind the swap wouldn't be super complex (compared to installing a panel, for example) but making it a clean installation would take time and would likely not be worth the slight benefits.
 
Last edited:
A couple years ago we took our TeenFlight kids down to Van's to pickup one of our kits and to meet Van. I remember the topic of supporting the fuel injection engine came up and I recall that Van had said that he thought it would require significant change to the firewall forward kit thus increasing the kit cost. Add to that the cost of the more expensive engine. I believe his opinion, at the time, was that it was unlikely that the majority of customers would be willing to pay the extra cost. Realistically, you could buy years worth of gas for the extra cost of the kit mod and engine.

I have no idea if that is the official stance of Van's Aircraft now.
 
Last edited:
Bill_In_Diamondhead said:
Anybody installing a Rotax Fuel Injected Engine in their RV-12? Somebody has to have done it. I do not want Carburetors in my airplane.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think the 912iS makes much sense in an LSA where gross weight is limited. You are going to pay $12k more for an engine that weighs 20-25lb more.

Also, if you lose electrical power, you lose the engine. That means redundant everything for the electrical system and yet more weight.

The 912ULS is a well tested engine, and the Bing carbs are pretty easy to care for. While carbs are not ideal, in this case they make more sense than the alternative.
 
I just took the ROTAX course about 6 weeks ago and asked about swapping to the 912iS. It looked like it would pose some Cg issues, require major alterations and the interface box to talk to it for maintenance costs $1000. I came to the conclusion it was not worth the trouble to convert at overhaul time. I might change my mind if someone did all the engineering and parts development to offer as one package, but it was well beyond what I wanted to tackle.
 
You would essentially have to throw away the stock RV12 front upper and lower cowl and design a new one. Then figure out different arrangements and/or hardware for the oil cooler and the radiator (with duct) and probably the cabin heat arrangement as well. Maybe the exhaust. Not impossible but a lot of pretty specialized work.
 
Some good and accurate reasoning here why the vast majority of RV-12 builders are happy to with the standard set up and get flying quicker.

The RV-12 is an extremely complete kit - more so than with the 'earlier' RVs and because so much detail is designed in, it makes tinkering with the product unnecessary.

If your thing is in the building rather than the flying and you like the thrill of a challenge then sure - go off piste - put don't expect it to make the result better than the 'standard' aircraft. It will certainly add big time to the construction time.

Out of the 384 flying RV-12s - anyone know how many have something else other than a 912ULS under the cowl?
 
aerofurb said:
Out of the 384 flying RV-12s - anyone know how many have something else other than a 912ULS under the cowl?
Click to expand...
I'll take a wag at that number. If I'm wrong than it will invigorate the others to correct me. These are flying airplanes, non flying don't count.;)
4 Viking
1 Jab 3300
2 Jab 2200
1 UL Engines

Ok fire away.:D
 
Jetguy said:
I'll take a wag at that number. If I'm wrong than it will invigorate the others to correct me. These are flying airplanes, non flying don't count.;)
4 Viking
1 Jab 3300
2 Jab 2200
1 UL Engines

Ok fire away.:D
Click to expand...

John,

I am not aware of a 2nd Jab 2200 flying. It's been a while but I did speak with one builder in CA considering a 2200 and another in FL considering a 3300.

Regards,
Tom
 
I recently stopped by Vans and asked same question....912si in RV-12. Was told it was being discussed; however, would require whole new design of fuse and emp..

Nothing that will happen in the immediate future...so don't hold your breath:cool:

It's way more involved then anything "us" shade tree aero-engineers should tackle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top