With so many powerplants to choose from?

[ifixf15]

Bob, I just attempted a search on Trade-a-Plane and Barnstormers and I could not find any 912's at all. Not an exhaustive search to be sure. It would seem that currently it is a seller's market. If I currently were attempting to sell one with 100-150 hrs I might discount it 10% or so and go from there. After all, that low a time would merely confirm that the engine works and it is now 50-75% of the way through that 200 hour danger zone. Of course that would also depend on how badly I needed cash too. What others would do would be up to them.

Tom

 

[KALEWIS]

What!

Nobody has ever left the ground in an RV12 ELSA, unless it had a "used second hand" engine, nor would they want to. It is called "breaking it in". I just thought of a correction, all ELSA engines are actually "fourth hand" engines (manufacturer, importer, Vans, and then the installer)

With this logic, Viking engines are (manufacturer-shipper-assembler-dealership-possible multiple owners-salvage-aircraft engine converter-aircraft builder/ owner.) how many hands is that?

C'mon

 

[DonFromTX]

No argument there. I was responding to CRASHLEY back in #96 comment, who called it second hand as though that was derogatory..

With this logic, Viking engines are (manufacturer-shipper-assembler-dealership-possible multiple owners-salvage-aircraft engine converter-aircraft builder/ owner.) how many hands is that?

C'mon

 

[aerofurb]

What would Continental and Lycoming have been able to produce if they had been allowed to? How many other manufacturers might have entered the aviation market had they been allowed to innovate and create? Tom

Who prevented Lycoming and Continental from producing new engines?

Who prevented 'other manufacturers' from entering the aviation market?

Rotax bit the bullet and developed the 91x family of engines - dedicated to aviation. They invested the money in producing a new range of engines for both certified and uncertified aircraft - worldwide.

What stopped anyone else doing likewise?

And the 91x series was not just General Aviation either - the Predator A use the 914 (with immense endurance)?

 

[ifixf15]

Exchange rates

I think it should be remembered that the USD$28k (not USD?30k...) is the complete firewall forward package. How much is the complete firewall forward package for the alternative engines?

The real problem is spoken of in the linked article by KALEWIS - auto engines spend (and are designed to spend) most of their life at 20% power, aircraft engines 65-75% power. The Viking is based on an auto engine - not a racing car or outboard engine. Honda haven't designed the 'Viking aircraft engine' - a third party takes a Honda auto engine and turns it into what they call, not what Honda designed it as, an aircraft engine.

Good luck to those that want to go the alternative route - that is your choice for whatever reason. But, don't rubbish the well proven Rotax to justify that decision....

Wow Jerry, I guess you got hit twice with exchange rates (having been stationed at RAF Lakenheath for over 8 years I do have some familiarity). The original intent of my question concerned suitability of various engines. I am gathering data without a dog in the fight, so I have no standing to criticize any engine.

Completely off topic - We typically used RAF Fairford for a jumping off point when exploring Wales and southwest England, so I have transited High Wycombe several times. Incredibly beautiful countryside. Many fond memories and we do miss being just down the street from Cambridge, RAF Duxford, and the Epping tube station.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[ifixf15]

FAA Certification

Who prevented Lycoming and Continental from producing new engines?

Who prevented 'other manufacturers' from entering the aviation market?

Rotax bit the bullet and developed the 91x family of engines - dedicated to aviation. They invested the money in producing a new range of engines for both certified and uncertified aircraft - worldwide.

What stopped anyone else doing likewise?

And the 91x series was not just General Aviation either - the Predator A use the 914 (with immense endurance)?

In the U.S. any component of a certified aircraft must meet FAA certification. This process can take years and cost huge sums of money. Just as an example, any new 'certified' ignition system must survive a nuclear EMP blast. EMP has no effect on a magneto, but there is no electronic ignition that I know of that will pass that test. Couple the delays in bringing an item to market with the cost of certification and pretty soon any profit margin is eaten up in regulatory compliance. If Honda were to build a IO-360 clone, they would have to jump through all the same regulatory hoops, and then have to compete in a saturated market with a known brand name, little technological differentiation, and few spare parts, etc. Take that business plan to your local investment banker, ask for a loan and see what happens.

As far as the Rotax it was originally certified in Europe and their regulations are different. (Not better or worse, just different.) The FAA and it's European counterpart have an agreement to accept each other's certifications. This is the only reasons Airbus's can operate in the US (Example: The Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic. The pilot recognized the stall and had his stick full forward to get the nose down, the co-pilot had his stick full aft in an attempt the keep the nose up. The fancy flight computer averaged the inputs. To be certified by FAA rules, any input in one stick must be transmitted to the other stick. Pitot heat would have prevented the accident completely.)

As far as Predators go there are two issues. 1) The military often operates under different certification rules than the rest of us and 2) The Predator is an unmanned vehicle which operates from another, different set of rules.

I don't think that anyone here questions the durability of Rotax engine. It is in line with the rest of the GA offerings. My main concerns were price and/or power output. Example, ULPower's 350i produces 117 hp for about 8,000 euros less, with FADEC, but less history than the 912.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[aerofurb]

Hi Tom

My comments are only to champion the Rotax cause to balance some of the comments made by other posters against the Rotax - based on what they heard about or read on forums.

Even in the UK there are many who think the Rotax is unreliable because of stories heard. You don't get much comment from anyone with direct experience of problems. Bar talk...

My point re the Predator was it was a good enough engine for the UAV and reportedly will run missions of up to 40 hours.

The Rotax 912 is a different engine to the heritage Lycoming/TCM offerings and when I started to maintain them as part of my professional job I went on a factory approved course. It was invaluable as despite maintaining GA machines for 20 years that time served did not give me the knowledge to maintain a 912. The course did. Most problems occur due to a lack of knowledge - be it in the operation or the maintenance.

We bought the FWF kit from Van's despite the fact that the engine had already been across the Atlantic once! I could have bought the engine in the UK at trade price but wanted the RV-12 spec motor (Imperial not metric fittings etc) and put a bit of money back into Van's!

Re Lakenheath - I use to live in Peterborough and enjoyed watching, listening and feeling the F15s playing in the overhead. My Dad still does! . I was based at RAF Wyton maintaining Canberras (B-57 to you lot - and that was our design that we sold to you...!). Our RV-12 has been to Duxford a few times now, excellent destination. There's a Canberra in the museum there - and an F15....

 

[rv6ejguy]

In the U.S. any component of a certified aircraft must meet FAA certification. This process can take years and cost huge sums of money. Just as an example, any new 'certified' ignition system must survive a nuclear EMP blast. EMP has no effect on a magneto, but there is no electronic ignition that I know of that will pass that test.

I've never found anything in the FAA certification requirements for electrical components to pass EMP testing. Can you point me to those regs? Also there are already microprocessor based, certified EIs out there now for years...

Seems like the ignition failing after sustaining a real nuclear EMP burst would be low down on the list of problems to have that day...

 

[ifixf15]

EMP

I've never found anything in the FAA certification requirements for electrical components to pass EMP testing. Can you point me to those regs? Also there are already microprocessor based, certified EIs out there now for years...

Seems like the ignition failing after sustaining a real nuclear EMP burst would be low down on the list of problems to have that day...

I must admit that tidbit came from my Embry-Riddle A&P instructor at RAF Lakenheath. He never provided page and paragraph. He was a former RAF Mechanic and we had numerous extended discussions as to why the Lycoming (4-cylinder, do not remember which one) was the way it was as we were tearing it apart and putting it back together. It could have been hyperbole or just outdated information (it was over a decade ago). Correction: Two decades ago ('92-'94)If I misspoke I apologize. However, he was one of the best instructors I have ever had. We spent much of the class time laughing, but I definitely retained the material. One thing I love about the British is how they can deliver a left-handed compliment with a straight face. John Cleese would have been proud.

About the bad day, I have to agree, the big fan stopping may be the most merciful way to end that day. ;-)

Tom

 

[ifixf15]

Re Lakenheath - I use to live in Peterborough and enjoyed watching, listening and feeling the F15s playing in the overhead. My Dad still does! . I was based at RAF Wyton maintaining Canberras (B-57 to you lot - and that was our design that we sold to you...!). Our RV-12 has been to Duxford a few times now, excellent destination. There's a Canberra in the museum there - and an F15....

Don't forget the Harrier, another excellent British design!!

Cheers,

Tom

 

[aerofurb]

Don't forget the Harrier, another excellent British design!!

.....that we gave to you and then bought it back then sold them back to you for a bargain price. We know how to make money!

Apologies for the thread drift....

Back on track - have the 'alternatives' come up with real world weights for their 12s? And also performance figures, fuel burn.

Engines now used I think are at least: Rotax, Jabiru (x2?), UL, O-235, Viking.

 

[DonFromTX]

I have no financial interest in Viking nor am I married to anyone that is, but it seems like I am always ?defending? them. There are numerous misconceptions voiced in this thread, so I wish to correct some of them now. There are many Vikings flying in many different planes, none have experienced the failures that some believe will happen. A turbo Viking just flew a CH750 from Florida to Arizona in two days, two persons aboard.
The biggest misconception is that the engine will certainly fail, since in a car it runs at lower power and rpm. However the same engine is used in Formula F racing (even has the exact same number stamped on it as my Fit car and Viking engine has on them). It runs entire races at 6 to 8 thousand rpm with no difficulties, I don?t find the ?other? aircraft engines competing in these areas.. The same L15A7 engine is used in outboards, Honda specs say it is to be run at 5300 to 6300 rpm. Honda brags that these engines are of ?Legendary quality based on the Honda Fit L15A7 engine.? Those who say those are entirely different engines need to look closer. Enough about RPM, we run the Viking engine at 5000 to 5500 rpm typically, there have been no failures, wear at the 500-800 hrs checks show no wear evident.
Second is the ?limited production? fear. The Honda Fit is produced in 10 plants in 8 countries, with the total number way back in July 2010 at 3.5 MILLION units, far more than any of the other choices for the RV12..

 

[ifixf15]

Let's ask

Back on track - have the 'alternatives' come up with real world weights for their 12s? And also performance figures, fuel burn.

Engines now used I think are at least: Rotax, Jabiru (x2?), UL, O-235, Viking.

That is a very good question. Let's ask everyone. I will start a thread asking for real-world numbers for the alternative engines.

Tom

 

[ifixf15]

Back on track - have the 'alternatives' come up with real world weights for their 12s? And also performance figures, fuel burn.

Engines now used I think are at least: Rotax, Jabiru (x2?), UL, O-235, Viking.

New Thread posted. We shall see soon who responds. There should be a good number of Jabiru 2200's I would think. There are only a few Jabiru 3300 and UL's that have spoken up and hopefully a growing number of Vikings. I have not heard of any O-200's or O-235's, but hopefully if there are they will respond.

Tom

 

[aerofurb]

O-235 RV-12

Well it took off:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=78921

 

[Dave12]

It runs entire races at 6 to 8 thousand rpm with no difficulties, I don?t find the ?other? aircraft engines competing in these areas.. [/QUOTE

Could it be because they (Jab, Rotax, UL, etc.) are aircraft engines?

 

[LifeofReiley]

How about a Subaru FWF? Should be a bunch of them laying around in hangars across the country you can get for almost FREE. I believe they were abandoned.

 

[Jesse]

They make millions of Honda Fit engines, yes. They run high rpm's, yes. Getting those rpm's to the prop through the PSRU is the trick. Rotax has that figured out in a way that works and has proven itself. I think it is not as much the engine that should be discussed, but the process of turning fuel into prop rpm's efficiently and dependably, especially in the Rotax vs Viking debate, but the direct drive engines mentioned really can fit in this category too.

I have a. Friend with a Zenith 701 that will be flying to and from Haiti in it. I couldn't, in good conscience, recommend that he do so with the VW engine he was running. He is putting in a Rotax 80 HP engine. Would you do that with a Jabiru, UL, Viking, etc? I wouldn't.

 

[ifixf15]

Well it took off:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=78921

Good news, hopefully he will post his numbers.

Tom

 

[Mounz]

It has been informative and amusing reading this thread.

One should not lose sight of what the horsepower being delivered to the propeller @ 2700 rpm is versus weight and TBO in this debate.

Whilst I think the UL power is probably the best contender when compared with the Rotax, one would have to choose the 130 hp variant to have an engine giving an honest 100 hp at 2700 rpm. The Jabiru 3300 also only delivers its rated hp at a much higher rpm value than 2700. Both installations are going to be heavier than the Rotax and if one factors in the TBO, hourly running costs will be lower and mean that the Rotax in the long term will be an economical choice with less hassle and downtime.

Once upon a time I was interested in installing an Eggenfellner Subaru in my
RV-7 and I'm glad I didn't. All who did learned the hard way that the motors never produced the horsepower claimed and ended up being much more expensive than promised. The FWF installations ended up adding in excess of 100lbs to the gross weights not to mention a host of other problems such as overheating etc. The "195" hp Egg-Subaru was outperformed by a 160 hp Lycoming in the same airframe. I'm not saying the Honda installations he's purveying are in the same category but I would caution all to be careful and do your homework objectively before making your decision. A Honda engine may be wonderful in the cars they build but in a plane......????

Of all the engines mentioned in this debate, I think only the UL Power comes close to the Rotax and presents a serious alternative. I like the idea of doing away with the reduction gearbox. It would be nice if the folks who've installed this engine publish their real world numbers. I would be equally interested to hear the Jabiru 3300 numbers. I would be surprised if they came up substantially better than the Rotax.

Whilst I'm not enamored by the sound the Rotax makes, I've spent many hours behind them and I'm convinced of their reliability. I started flying general aviation aircraft again about 15 years ago after spending many years on airliners. Not knowing the Rotax then, I made my enquiries and was surprised to hear that people running flight schools swore by them as the chances of making TBO on a Rotax was better than on the Lycomings and Continentals. That says something about an aircraft engine suffering the abuse of a training environment.

 

[ifixf15]

EMP Chapter & Verse

I've never found anything in the FAA certification requirements for electrical components to pass EMP testing. Can you point me to those regs? Also there are already microprocessor based, certified EIs out there now for years...

Seems like the ignition failing after sustaining a real nuclear EMP burst would be low down on the list of problems to have that day...

Ross,

I was re-listening to an older EAA Webinar with Mike Busch the other day (All about Magnetos, January 2012) and he also mentioned the EMP requirement during the Q&A time. A quick e-mail to Mr. Busch and he replied with the following references.

14 CFR 33.28(b)(2): Environmental limits. The applicant must demonstrate, when complying with ??33.53 or 33.91, that the engine control system functionality will not be adversely affected by declared environmental conditions, including electromagnetic interference (EMI), High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), and lightning. The limits to which the system has been qualified must be documented in the engine installation instructions.

AC 20-158 - The Certification of aircraft Electrical and Electronic Systems for Operation in the High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Environment

Hope that this helps.

Tom

 

[rv6ejguy]

Ross,

I was re-listening to an older EAA Webinar with Mike Busch the other day (All about Magnetos, January 2012) and he also mentioned the EMP requirement during the Q&A time. A quick e-mail to Mr. Busch and he replied with the following references.

14 CFR 33.28(b)(2): Environmental limits. The applicant must demonstrate, when complying with ??33.53 or 33.91, that the engine control system functionality will not be adversely affected by declared environmental conditions, including electromagnetic interference (EMI), High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), and lightning. The limits to which the system has been qualified must be documented in the engine installation instructions.

AC 20-158 - The Certification of aircraft Electrical and Electronic Systems for Operation in the High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Environment

Hope that this helps.

Tom

EMI and HIRF are pretty standard tests for most EMS even in the automotive world but these are a lot different from EMP which is usually the result of a nuclear detonation. A little hard to actually test for IMO. Some Mil Spec electronics are design hardened against EMP and radiation but it's probably unknown how they would really perform in an actual event.

I am guessing that no COTS based EI/EMS system out there on the certified or experimental market would survive an EMP event. Let's hope we never find out...