What's new
Van's Air Force

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

With so many powerplants to choose from?

ifixf15

ifixf15

Active Member
This one is probably primarily for Mel and Scott, but it is a community thing, so everybody in the pool! After spending the last several months looking at the kit market, I am confident that the RV-12 will fit my mission profile. However, I would like to build it as an LSA compliant EAB (this is not the EAB vs. E-LSA argument). One of main reasons I am considering this is the price and capabilities of the Rotax. Since there are other options available it would be foolish to not even explore them. I intend to nail down the airframe/powerplant configuration early since I do not want to even think about changing horses mid-stream on this topic. I would prefer an option that has at least a minimal FWF solution. My main question is how would I know what engines will drive me out of LSA eligibility and which ones will not? I know that Part 1 reads ?A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. Part 1.1(1)(iii)(2)? While that sounds fairly descriptive, my English-to-Government-ese decoder ring is flashing!! Most people read that and say 138MPH tops, but that only applies to one very specific circumstance. Is this a closed course to test this? Is it a mathematical exercise? It doesn?t address prop size or pitch, wheel pants or any type of aerodynamic coefficient. I am sure that Van?s knows exactly how much energy is required to achieve that airspeed in those conditions, but there are probably dozens of ways to achieve that. I also have noticed that when some people mention that their ABC engine powers their XYZ LSA at 165MPH at 3000MSL at WOT they will be referred to as cheaters, but the regulation does not specify a max speed in those conditions. Maybe I will build the E-LSA to avoid some of the math, but it would be nicer to the budget and/or nice to be able to power a second landing light without frying the works. So, is there a way to know, or do I find out when the DAR hands me my paperwork if it is an LSA or not?
 
rotax

save yourself a lot of work and heartache by just installing the rotax
you will find that the firewall forward kit is not over priced compared with other engines when you consider that you get everything from battery to spinner
 
the rotax may not be overpriced but it is 10G more than other installations. i can sure do a lot of parts scrounging for that. i have not made up my mind yet and the rotax is certainly a choice but there are at least 2 rv-12 builders flying the viking engine. i feel i am fortunate that i have at least 2 yrs. for the alternate choices to prove or disprove themselves before i must buy an engine.
 
Engine Choice

I wasn't particularly fond of the Rotax early on, but after flying a Rans S7 from Colorado to Cape Cod, and just recently a new factory built RV12 from Aurora to the Cape, I have to agree with Vans choice for this airplane.

During my just finished delivery trip in the RV12 (36 hours) the engine started and ran flawlessly and burned no oil. The high hours due to cowardly route, OR-Palm Springs-TX-OK-MA. The aircraft performed well even at 11,500 ft across high terrain. (DA 12,000') Cruise TAS was around 112 KT most altitudes.

Stick with the Rotax.

Mitch
Slow build RV12
 
Well Tom. It seems that everyone is defending the Rotax, and no one answers your question. Pretty common on this and most forums.
The answer to your question is that a good DER, designated engineering representative, can help with your problem.
Bottom line; it is your responsibility to provide proof of compliance.
The DAR does not certificate your experimental amateur-built aircraft as being LSA compliant. To him, it is simply an EAB. It's up to you to prove LSA compliance to any authority if questioned. Most likely this would never come up except as a result of an accident; and even then only if you are flying as a sport pilot. It's possible that an FAA inspector might question it during a ramp check. But at that point it would be his word against yours, and he probably would not know any more than you do.
 
If this thought helps - the aircraft is not likely to go faster than the prop (fixed pitch or ground adjustable), regardless of what engine is attached. Figure out the prop pitch and allow a little for drag.

So, for example, if you ran the engine 2700 RPM with a 58" pitch with about an 8% allowance for drag (a fairly clean airplane), you'd probably be going about 119 knots.

I would think that if you could show something like that you'd be okay.
 
The E-LSA certification is one of the great values of the RV-12. The first thing to consider when making the decision to forsake it is resell value.

The second important factor is design: if you look at an RV-12 from the side and compare it to other LSAs, it has a unique appearance which is the result of a fundamental design decision by VANs: removable wings --> Spars behind seats-->very short Firewall Forward. These decisions had VANs boxing themselves in a situation where the Rotax was the only suitable genuine aircraft engine... and this was a blessing! Indeed, after more than 10 years after the LSA standard introduction, there is no other engine challenging its supremacy on the LSA market. The investment (i.e. money + time) to develop such an engine is so big that the business case will be very difficult to make until the LSA market expands significantly.

The irony of this is that the removable wing feature is not (yet?) that important for the majority of RV-12 owners. May be this will change if a suitable trailer becomes available.
 
Tom,

The best advice I can offer is to decide what you want the airplane to be and how much work are you willing to put in to get there. I made a decision early on to build as an EAB LSA, primarily because of the avionics I wanted to install. I also ended up going with an alternative engine, however that decision was driven by technology more than price. I can tell you the additional work for an alternate engine installation will significantly extend your build time over the Van's Rotax kit that already has every part you need. I expect to maintain LSA compliance by keeping the gross weigh stock and a placard with a LSA compliant VNE listed. A 100-110 hp engine will only get you x max speed in an RV-12 no matter who makes it.

John Salak
RV-12 #120116
 
Legally speaking, it is unlikely that any alternative engine that is installed in a RV-12 will make it non-LSA compliant. Yes, $10,000 can be saved by using a Viking engine. But it will take a year longer to build the plane. How much money could you earn by working at a job for a year? Despite what Viking claims, its engine weighs many pounds more than the Rotax. That extra weight will eat up any advantages of its extra horsepower.
The UL Power engine is another option. But here again, it will take an extra year to build the plane. It is hard to beat the Rotax for weight, performance, and ease of installation.
Joe Gores
 
12vaitor said:
Tom,
The best advice I can offer is to decide what you want the airplane to be and how much work are you willing to put in to get there. I made a decision early on to build as an EAB LSA, primarily because of the avionics I wanted to install. I also ended up going with an alternative engine, however that decision was driven by technology more than price. I can tell you the additional work for an alternate engine installation will significantly extend your build time over the Van's Rotax kit that already has every part you need. I expect to maintain LSA compliance by keeping the gross weigh stock and a placard with a LSA compliant VNE listed. A 100-110 hp engine will only get you x max speed in an RV-12 no matter who makes it.
John Salak
RV-12 #120116
Click to expand...

There is no VNE limitation for LSA, except for gliders.
 
Mel said:
There is no VNE limitation for LSA, except for gliders.
Click to expand...

Is it because there is a difference between VNE, the structural limitation specific to an airplane design and the 120 knots limitation imposed to all LSAs?
 
Mel said:
There is no VNE limitation for LSA, except for gliders.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify.
The FAA and the consensus standard does not specify a VNE, but as is the case for the RV-12 (and most others I am familiar with), the airplane designer usually does.
 
With so many powerplants ---

I've looked at all engines I thought would work in my 12 including many I liked but had no FWF package. I seriously considered doing my own FWF installation but soon realized I didn't want to do this. I was left with three companies with complete FWF kits for a 12: Vans, Viking, and Jabiru. My guess is that Van's made a good choice with Rotax and it probably was their only choice when they were designing the plane 4-5 years ago. The Viking was my choice but after considering weight - about 25lbs more, installed, than the Rotax, progressively becoming more electrically complicated, and installed cost being more than first appearance, I have come to the Jabiru 2200. What I find is a very well put together FWF kit, by JabiruUSA, weighing about 30 lbs less, installed, than the Rotax, costing much less, a proven engine with 85hp @3300, which will probably find my 12 a little slower in climb and about the same in cruise, and a much less complicated installation. I care more about reducing weight than being a few MPH slower. Will my plane be less salable with a Jabiru? The only thing I know for sure now is I will have less money in the plane and Jabiru engines are well known.
 
Here is my two cents; be careful with other engines. I too looked at other engines, In fact, I also did a post on this site about the alternatives engines. Remember your also buying the support, history, and dealerships that will support you after your plane is flying. Look long and hard into the history of the low cost auto engine that is being sold. Remember the statement above. The other aircraft engines don?t save that much money over the rotax.
 
You mentioned saleability. If X is the number of people that might consider buying an already built ELSA or SLSA RV-12, what fraction of those would consider one with a Jabiru? You decide. Nothing against the J. I personally think the fraction is small and the J will exclude many potential buyers. Just my guess.

General advice is build the plane that YOU want. But you mentioned saleability as a factor.
 
David Paule said:
I sure wouldn't give up that climb performance. That would be a big mistake. Big.

Dave
Click to expand...

Per the Jabiru site, these are the stat's they list. Not too shabby- at least here in Texas at my elevation:

Takeoff Distance..........................500 feet

Rate of Climb...............................750 fpm

Normal Cruise Speed....................120 mph

Fuel Burn......................................4.0 gph

Aircraft Empty Weight....................705 lbs

There are a lot of Jabiru aircaft flying around the world, and that helped my decision. Along with no water cooling, direct drive (ie: no reduction unit), etc. Just MY things I factored in when making my decision. To each their own, for sure! I never plan on selling the aircraft, so future sale was never a worry.
 
...Remember your also buying the support, history, and dealerships that will support you after your plane is flying....
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything in that post - but the statement above is precisely why I, a sample of only one, would never build with a Rotax. Been down that road, and would never go there again.

Also, as a sample of one, I personally know a repeat builder with two brand J (2200) and they run great.

Dan
 
jsenft said:
Here is my two cents; be careful with other engines. I too looked at other engines, In fact, I also did a post on this site about the alternatives engines. Remember your also buying the support, history, and dealerships that will support you after your plane is flying. Look long and hard into the history of the low cost auto engine that is being sold. Remember the statement above. The other aircraft engines don?t save that much money over the rotax.
Click to expand...

In addition to this statement I would also add the auto conversion engine is a USED engine. You have NO maintenance history of this auto engine or how it was used or abused.

Comparing a used engine in an auto conversion to a new Rotax is a pretty comparison. The money you think you are saving will be small change to the dollars lost in resale value of the plane. Look at the history of auto conversion packages and then decide.
 
txaviator said:
Per the Jabiru site, these are the stat's they list. Not too shabby- at least here in Texas at my elevation:

Takeoff Distance..........................500 feet

Rate of Climb...............................750 fpm

Normal Cruise Speed....................120 mph

Fuel Burn......................................4.0 gph

Aircraft Empty Weight....................705 lbs

There are a lot of Jabiru aircaft flying around the world, and that helped my decision. Along with no water cooling, direct drive (ie: no reduction unit), etc. Just MY things I factored in when making my decision. To each their own, for sure! I never plan on selling the aircraft, so future sale was never a worry.
Click to expand...

I don't want to argue with you, but at some point that plane will be sold. You cannot fly forever. Either you or your heirs will sell it.
 
Ask yourself this: Which of the four engine providers mentioned (Rotax, Viking, Jabiru, and UL Power) will still be a viable business five years from now? Ten-years from now?
 
Vans and rotex

Vans designed the 12 around the Rotex so much so it won't fit the fuel injected version under the cowl. Would it surprise any one if a redesigned 12B popped out of the prototype shop any day with Fuel injection,new gas tank and other mods.Look at what ICON has been able to get out of the FAA on weight exemptions,wile there at it why not a wider cockpit.I know,I know nothing wrong with the 12,there was nothing wrong with the 7 or 9 either,everybody I know wants to build a 14 now that there is one. Just thinking out loud.
RHill
 
viking engine

and remember as I said earlier viking engines are out of wrecked cars with no history available I would consider a used rotax with a known history if you want to save money
 
that 'll be the day that i choose MY airplane components based on what will give my heirs the best resale after i am gone!
 
bobnoffs said:
that 'll be the day that i choose MY airplane components based on what will give my heirs the best resale after i am gone!
Click to expand...

My point exactly! If my heirs want to sell it for $100, that'll be their choice. In the interim, I could care less about my heirs and will build what I WANT. :)
 
Last edited:
For some reason, what it will be worth when sold or I die just don't enter the equation. I cannot even fathom factoring in that element. Some of these "arguments" are comical and even silly if you think about them.
But that is the fun part of Experimental aircraft, we can have all these different values, make our own choices based on our own values, and still have fun.

txaviator said:
My point exactly!
Click to expand...
 
You only have one real choice for the -12 and that is the Rotex.

None of the other engines have enough history to even consider at this point, IMHO.

Let people like DonFromTX build some hours and experience with their engines before jumping in with both feet.

While I have nothing against auto engines, they should be well proven. Heck, even Continental is having problems with their LSA O-200D engines and that is just a modified version of their old O-200. What makes you think some guy working out of his garage with used Honda engines can do better?
 
N941WR said:
You only have one real choice for the -12 and that is the Rotex.

None of the other engines have enough history to even consider at this point, IMHO.

Let people like DonFromTX build some hours and experience with their engines before jumping in with both feet.

While I have nothing against auto engines, they should be well proven. Heck, even Continental is having problems with their LSA O-200D engines and that is just a modified version of their old O-200. What makes you think some guy working out of his garage with used Honda engines can do better?
Click to expand...

I went with Jabiru for reasons previously mentioned, plus the fact that the Jab 2200 has been placed in flying aircraft, by a full-blown aircraft manufacturer since 1995. Sure every engine has had it quirks, from the big boys on down. But I'd say that after 19-years of flying tens of thousands of hours, yes, the Jabiru does have plenty of proven history.

My final decision was made when I asked the opinion of a very well-respected DAR (highly active on this forum) who I've learned a ton of knowledge from. He has a Jabiru awaiting installation in his personal biplane, so that pretty well helped me make my decision.

To each their own, but to say a true, dedicated aircraft-only engine, that's been flying for 19-years now, doesn't have enough history to consider? That's just where I beg to differ. :)
 
Last edited:
I have to believe Vans asked all the same questions we are, and they concluded ROTAX was the best compromise. Certainly there are other choices, and you can probably use them but not without a lot of extra effort.
 
txaviator said:
I went with Jabiru for reasons previously mentioned, plus the fact that the Jab 2200 has been placed in flying aircraft, by a full-blown aircraft manufacturer since 1995. ...
Click to expand...

While I like the Jabiru, on paper, I have to ask one question; have they solved the head overheating problems?

I have read too many ads for Jabiru aircraft with 300 hours and 100 hours STOH, or something similar.

I really wish you luck and sure hope you get many trouble free hours out of the Jabiru!
 
N941WR said:
While I like the Jabiru, on paper, I have to ask one question; have they solved the head overheating problems?

I have read too many ads for Jabiru aircraft with 300 hours and 100 hours STOH, or something similar.

I really wish you luck and sure hope you get many trouble free hours out of the Jabiru!
Click to expand...

I'm told yes, at least when I asked specifically about the -12 install. The fiberglass baffles are REAL funky looking and have angled 'dams' molded inside in specific spots. I'll have to post a pic when I start the cowl. And Pete (@ Jabiru USA- who developed the FWF kit) has designed the cowl for supposedly great cooling. Hopefully it will cool as advertised!

Take care,
 
Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for all of the feedback, it is all helpful. I guess Mel answered the question by saying that it is up to the builder to prove compliance if and when challenged. I suppose that any engine in the 80-120HP range will probably work just fine. While all the discussion about VNE are further data points, my main concerns for considering other options are price and electrons. I know that the right seater would prefer her own display and since I plan to be using this aircraft to get kids and grandkids (and a Father-in-Law who has not exercised his PPL since the early ?70?s) flying I will probably have significant Right-seat time. Both the Brand J and Brand V offerings have added capability there.

I also would prefer to build EAB because I really don?t want to color inside the lines. I have no intention of installing a J-79, but I would like to be able to install the pop-rivet AOA solution before closing up the wing, or add that second landing light (I like symmetry). Are either necessary? No, but I would like to anyway. Also, for me (and me only) the resale argument really is not applicable. I will be building this one to fly. I have never bought a vehicle with resale being a primary consideration. My ?91 Toyota Pickup just turned 200K this summer, it still starts on the first turn of the key, uses about ? qt of oil between oil changes and gets about 25MPG. It gets washed and vacuumed after the last snow melt, the windows get washed when they get dirty and it has never been waxed. If it were to die tomorrow I will still have recouped my investment many times over. I have 2 kids fighting over who gets it next (One is a trained sniper and the other a Ranger, so I am not getting between them on this one). It is my plan that the RV-12 would be treated in a similar fashion, let the heirs figure it out.

I am an Air Force trained Avionics guy so the bigger alternators on the Brand J and Brand V is a point in their favor. Most of us guys are suckers for blinking lights and shiny buttons, me more than most. I am not trying to build an IFR platform, but a few bells and whistles would be nice. When Van?s designed this plane the Rotax was the only viable option, and it is still a very good choice. I still have a while to decide, so in the interim I will continue to ask dumb questions and in about a year of so me, myself, and I will convene the configuration board, weigh all the options, and make a decision.

Cheers
 
ifixf15 said:
I have 2 kids fighting over who gets it next (One is a trained sniper and the other a Ranger, so I am not getting between them on this one). It is my plan that the RV-12 would be treated in a similar fashion, let the heirs figure it out.
Click to expand...

I bet holidays are entertaining with the kids? :D

One is a trained sniper and the other a Ranger

:)
 
All the days are fun

All the days are fun, the problem is trying to find a time when they are both on the same continent!! Got to spend a week with all 5 kids and all 5 grand-kids (# 6 is on the way!!) this last summer. Priceless!!
 
I bet we can cool it down

N941WR said:
While I like the Jabiru, on paper, I have to ask one question; have they solved the head overheating problems?
Click to expand...

Bring it up here and I bet we can cool it down. Last winter we had 40+ days in a row when the temps didn't get above 0 F!! :D Thanks to Global Warming it looks like this year may be a little bit cooler. If anyone is keeping an accurate scorecard, that is one point for any of the liquid cooled options.
 
Last edited:
ifixf15 said:
...I know that the right seater would prefer her own display and since I plan to be using this aircraft to get kids and grandkids (and a Father-in-Law who has not exercised his PPL since the early ?70?s) flying I will probably have significant Right-seat time. Both the Brand J and Brand V offerings have added capability there.

I also would prefer to build EAB because I really don?t want to color inside the lines. I have no intention of installing a J-79, but I would like to be able to install the pop-rivet AOA solution before closing up the wing, or add that second landing light (I like symmetry)...
Click to expand...

All of those things can be done after the pink slip. My right seat also wants a screen (or will that be mine?). My father-in-law is also in the same boat. Make a panel blank, from the left panel flipped over and after the pink slip pull the right side panel and insert the new one with the second screen. Talk with Stein about what's needed to connect power and the two up. I'll only be running single system with 2 panels so that will make life a lot easier.

In terms of the alternator, I believe that the reason Van's only put in one screen (the original Dynon 180/100 had a 2 screen option before they upgraded to the Skyview) was that with the optional lighting etc., they felt there wasn't enough power being supplied. My plan is to just make sure the lights are off when the second screen is on. In all honesty, I'll be day VFR only, so the lights are kind of there because they can be, rather than I really need them. If I'm in a heavy traffic area and need the lights for safety/recognition then I'd rather have the right seat looking outside anyway!

AOA is definitely a must and will probably go in before first flight and right after the pink slip. The tough one there is the plastic tubing. Perhaps one of those pull strings needs to be protected while its crawling its way through the snap bushings, with plastic tubing... ;) I plan on using the rivet method and have already ordered an extra Pitot static kit from Van's (for other reasons) so I have an extra rivet and I've ordered the remaining parts from McMasters.

Brand J has some really nice history behind it and even though brand U is somewhat newer, those would definitely be on my list of acceptable alternative power sources (along with the Rotax 912is - which would be at the top).

As I sit here typing this, my chair elevation is 6515. The peaks around here can get over 12k, although the passes and valley are more reasonable. 10k+ density altitudes are not uncommon in the summer. More power is a good thing for me.

Bob
 
E-LSA vs. EAB

bhassel said:
Perhaps one of those pull strings needs to be protected while its crawling its way through the snap bushings, with plastic tubing... ;)

Bob
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I am considering EAB. It seems silly that this minor of a change could be an issue, but it would be even sillier if that tube with the string in it held up a pink slip. Just another data point to consider on the E-LSA - EAB decision.

Tom
 
ifixf15 said:
Bring it up here and I bet we can cool it down. Last winter we had 40+ days in a row when the temps didn't get above 0 F!! :D Thanks to Global Warming it looks like this year may be a little bit cooler. If anyone is keeping an accurate scorecard, that is one point for any of the liquid cooled options.
Click to expand...

Tom,

As Gary mentioned, I now own Pete's Jabiru engined RV-12 prototype. Pete has done a good job with the cowl and cylinder shroud design. I have had no cooling issues with the engine. Everything is running within published normal limits. As second owner, I have only flown 10 of the 90 hours total time on the engine. So far, no issues. You will give up some performance over the Rotax. You will have about a 30 pound increase in payload. It cruises about 10 knots slower. Fuel burns are about the same. It is a very straight forward engine to maintain. The Jabiru maintenance manuals are very well written and illustrated.

Regards,
 
Sgt. Tom - there is the real world of DAR inspections and then there is the fantasy anal-retentive world that you often encounter on this forum, frequented by quite meticulous DARS but who also know that they can never, ever write anything but either repeat the reg or say exactly what is the most conservative interpretation of the reg. You couple that with completed builders who see no upside in discussing the actual "mods" incorporated in their plane at the time of signoff - and it is easy to overreact. Consider - your DAR inspection will be with the wings on. And most DARs are equipped with a healthy complement of common sense.
 
Not to pile on to the auto conversion crowd, but price comparing it with a new Rotax is simply not a fair logical comparison. The Honda Fit engines used in the package have on average 30,000 miles on them. By conservative estimates that is 1,000 hours or likely more. You are not buying a new engine, you are buying a used engine with zero maintenance history. Zero.

If you chose to proceed with an auto conversion engine knock yourself out, just don't compare it to a new engine, and don't discount the money you are throwing away on resale. It is very substantial.
 
Last edited:
I wonder where you got your figures. Mine and each of my friends only have 1-3 thousand miles, hardly a good breakin. Plus, if that really bothers someone, you may order one with a brand new block, zero miles. If in question, you can carfax your VIN numbers to get real mileage figures. After all, aren't ALL engines "used" when you actually get in the air? I did not buy mine because it was cheap, but bought it because it was BETTER.

Geico266 said:
Not to pile on to the auto conversion crowd, but price comparing it with a new Rotax is simply not a fair logical comparison. The Honda Fit engines used in the package have on average 30,000 miles on them. By conservative estimates that is 1,000 hours or likely more. You are not buying a new engine, you are buying a used engine with zero maintenance history. Zero.

If you chose to proceed with an auto conversion engine knock yourself out, just don't compare it to a new engine, and don't discount the money you are throwing away on resale. It is very substantial.
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
I did not buy mine because it was cheap, but bought it because it was BETTER.
Click to expand...

In your OPINION, not based on fact and certainly not history. Hopefully, for all concerned this endeavor winds up being better supported than previous attempts.
 
Yep

Dave12 said:
In your OPINION, not based on fact and certainly not history. Hopefully, for all concerned this endeavor winds up being better supported than previous attempts.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm with Dave on this one. I've been personally involved with the "previous" engines.

Best,
 
lets see.....a honda fit engine with 30, 000 has probably used up no more than 15% of its life as a car engine , not 1/2. i guess only time will tell with the honda engine but with several billion hrs history as a car engine it has a lot going for it.if you go to the viking website there is a weight and balance sheet for an rv-12 flying with a viking engine and an eis that i believe shows 140mph at 75% power
as for resale value, if i paid 10 G more for something i would expect to get that out of it at the end. and if an overhaul was in there before the sale there would be a lot more spent on a rotex than a honda.
i have 3 yrs. of building ahead, i hope time tells.
 
E-LSA vs. EAB

It probably should be said that if I were building this aircraft strictly for resale, I would build it exactly per plans. Also, while I do not intend to intentionally subvert it?s perceived value to Dave, Pierre, or anyone else, I do intend to maximize it?s perceived value to me. I believe that is one of the main reasons that some people like building these machine?s in the first place. Since I am still in the information gathering stage, that may be the Rotax or it may be a future draft pick to be named later. I?ll get back to you on that one.

I do see one logical fallacy running through the thread recently. It is the ?Zero time engine good, Not-zero time engine bad? argument. While TBO?s and other life limits are very useful in determining depreciation, resale value, and replacement costs, they are all but useless for operational considerations. I have never seen an engine fail because of a calendar, time, or distance based unit of measure. I have seen engines fail due to faulty design and/or manufacture (see crankshafts and barrel-to-head separations). I have seen them fail as the result of ?stupid mechanic tricks? (see top overhauls) and I have seen them fail due to improper care and feeding by the owner/operator. The first ones scare me the most as they tend to happen at random and unexpected times with little or no warning. The NTSB?s own numbers prove that by far the most likely time for an engine to fail is when it has less than 200 elapsed hours. I will be the ?stupid mechanic,? so I hope to have that and the ?care and feeding? topics well covered. The 30,000 mile Honda engine has already proved that it?s bottom end was assembled correctly. While it also has other zero-time components bolted to it, is it more or less likely to have an infant mortality failure that a complete zero-time FWF solution? Hard to say. When it comes to oil, fuel, cooling, etc., even a world-class FWF package can be poorly executed. The one-off custom installation will take longer, but we will learn more too. As for daily operation, if we stay out of the yellow areas, take drastic action if we get near the red regions and keep up with our preventative maintenance and inspections any modern powerplant should operate nominally for many ?insert the favorite measure here?, especially when you consider all of the diagnostic tools available to us today. The longevity failures tend to telegraph themselves well in advance and with proper use of borescopes, Oil analysis, Engine monitors, etc. the big fan should keep turning as long as we want it to.

We know how the Rotax is going to perform, we now have several Jabiru 2200's and at least one 3300 flying. The number of Vikings and starting to grow as well. I think it has been rumored that there is at least one RV-12 with a UL Power. Let?s see how the new guys perform over the next year or so and then add those data points to the decision tree. Surely, any defect, real or imagined, will be discussed at length here on VAF as soon as they happen.
 
... or may be not

txaviator said:
True! That'll be for the heirs to hash out :eek:
Click to expand...

... Or may be not. Unless you do something stupid while flying, keep in mind that when you fly under the light sport regulation, you are supposed to self certify that you are fit as a PIC on each flight. I would bet my brand new RV-12 that among the crowd of sexa, septua and octa genarians who are now flying under these rules, an overwhelming majority will decide to stop flying before kicking the bucket. They may even not have a choice if their driver license is revoked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top