New Rotax 912IS < its injected

[fly_tornado]

Rotax has added a new engine to its line of popular four-cylinder, four-stroke aircraft engines—the 912iS. The new engine represents somewhat of a technological leap for aircraft powerplants in that it features direct fuel injection and an electronic engine management unit. Company officials rolled out the new engine at BRP/Rotax's company headquarters in Gunskirchen, Austria on Thursday morning. The launch customer for the new engine will be Pipistrel Aircraft, an LSA and soon-to-be manufactuer of certified aircraft located in Slovenia. BRP clearly intends the 912iS to be a "green" engine with improved fuel economy and lower emissions as one of its design goals.

 

Horsepower of the new engine will remain at 100, as with previous models of the 912, but in place of the Bing carburetors, which some owners have complained about having to adjust from time to time, the 912iS will have automotive type fuel injection with an ECU capable of timing and shaping each fuel charge. Each cylinder will have dual injectors for redundancy. BRP claims up to 30 percent lower consumption than like-power aircraft engines.

 

The overall physical size will remain essentially the same as previous models of the 912, although the weight will be about 6 kilograms more for a total weight of about 63 kg or 140 pounds dry, installed weight. The engine will also have an external alternator to both power the ECU and ship's systems. BRP says the engine will be available in two versions, the 912iS non-certified and the 912iSc for certified aircraft. Production is scheduled for March 2012 and the engine will come out of the box with a 2000-hour TBO. AVweb will have a full video report on the engine later this week.

 

The engine will run on autogas up to E10.

 

Bombardier feeling the heat from ULPower?

 

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Just watched the videos on the new injected one...I WANT ONE...looks like it will run on E10 as well more fuel options than before...I wonder though how much it will cost

 

Mark

 

 

[skeptic36]

Just watched the videos on the new injected one...I WANT ONE...looks like it will run on E10 as well more fuel options than before...I wonder though how much it will costMark

'Bout another 7k apparently

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-08_rotax.asp

 

some info here.

 

21% fuel saving. should also reflect on unscheduled maint. and TBO.

 

All Rotax engines have been able to consume E10 type fuels for a while.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Doesn't say anything about how it runs leaded avgas.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

'Bout another 7k apparently

See the last paragraph here:

 

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-08_rotax.asp

 

 

[fly_tornado]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rockwell-collins-new-electronic-engine-control-unit-brings-the-new-rotaxr-912-is-aircraft-engine-into-a-new-era-of-propulsion-efficiency-for-light-aircraft-2012-03-08

[gregrobertson]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rockwell-collins-new-electronic-engine-control-unit-brings-the-new-rotaxr-912-is-aircraft-engine-into-a-new-era-of-propulsion-efficiency-for-light-aircraft-2012-03-08

According to Bert Floods price is about $24,000 +GST which would make it nearly $6000 more than a standard 912 ULS. I am not sure if that includes any extras which are not included on a 912 ULS but either way many of us will be using carbs well into the future. Rotax probably make one of the best piston engines ever built and I am happy to be flying behind one, but they certainly are not cheap.

 

Greg.

 

 

[eightyknots]

 

Bombardier feeling the heat from ULPower?

 

I'm sure that is what finally prompted Rotax in producing a FADEC, fuel-injected aircraft engine. The two things that disappoint me is that the engine is around 10% heavier and the horsepower was not lifted somewhat. By way of contrast, UL Power's engines go as high as 130 hp for a light, FADEC, fuel-injected aircraft engine.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Looks good....but as with any new engine, I'll wait and see, and give it at least 12 months. I just hope it's a bit less complicated electronically than the 914....I do think ECU controlled fuel injection is the way to go for the future, and I've been waiting for Rotax to do just this........................................................Maj...

 

 

[Gundy]

You get what you pay for. I like the fact that Rotax can tell us exactly what Conrod went into what engine. That a good reason for me to pay extra money. I've never had any trouble with any 912s I've ever dealt with. Worth the money I think so. Injected model I'll be waiting a while wife said no more building planes for a while Bummer. Gundy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Yes I'm sure internally it's the same great tough engineering that we have come to love and expect from Rotax. I do like the fact that basically it is still the tried and trusted 100 hp uls engine, as a base.

 

Even Rotax has had it's small dramas when introducing new models in the past (532,582 crankshaft breakage, 447 cooling, and 618 reed valve dramas). However like Gundy I would certainly be happy to fit a new 912iS to my Lightwing right, now if I had the means, and I'm sure it'll be a major move for Rotax, to keep them at the cutting edge of engine reliability for small aircraft..

 

The 912 range is used extensivly in some military drones, so I'm sure even as we speak the new engines are being throughly tested in service !.....................................................Maj...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The other major significant improvement is the reduction in emissions. Big plus there. I think you will also find the electronics have been proved elsewhere.

 

I have just bought a new diesel engined van, turbo single rail injected. All this sort of thing is new to me so i did some studying on them. Amazing improvments on power and fuel consumption and emissions. All around 170% improvment on the old generation engines. I'm impressed. Only thing i don't like about it is i am now only capable of doing the oil changes myself. The addition of fuel injection to the 912 is not for more power but better economy, reduced emissions and improved reliability in meeting TBO by better control of fuel air mixture vs load and providing it at exactly the right moment. All carburettor engines have never been able to supply the correct amount of fuel/air to each cylinder. With the new 912i your egt and cht should all be the same for each cylinder. Smoother running and more even distribution of heat and stress will see a longer more reliable life.

 

ozzie

 

 

[eightyknots]

I would hazard a guess that this is as much a 'test bed' or 'beta' , as a much improved motor for a market they have already..To prove that efficient fuel delivery van be achieved, so when the 6 cyl 150+hp version ... that must be in deveopment comes out, so there is no problems with long induction tracts as seem with other motors.

With software..you can test in the lab with magic results, but when realeased an 'Joe Public' gets to it, every unimaginable problem appears..

 

This looks like Rotax is following the same path

Are you suggesting that Rotax is 'doing a Microsoft' on the public?

 

If a Windows ® operating system fails, that's one thing; a Rotax failing mid-flight is quite another. Surely, they would have more sense than that??

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It's certainly not Rotaxs' habit of doing that. I'm sure if we looked further this new engine has probabily been in development for some years, and at the very least has been tested in an engine run test-bed, as it should be with all new engines..It's good that they are already starting with a well proven and reliable bottom end.............................................Maj...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You guys are really starting to show your ages now, single function computers like what you find in an ECU are more than capable for running a gas of tank through without a fault. Complex operatin systems have been able to run for extended periods for the last 10-15 yrs. even windows can go for a longtime. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The engine has been under development for 3 years. They put 1000 hrs on the bench and another 700hrs in the air. I assume the same engine for both tests.

 

It still developes 100hp @ 5800rpm but the torque has dropped from 94ftlbs @5100rpm to 89ftlbs @5800rpm.

 

Double ECUs for redundency driving double injectors and twin plugs. electrical system has also been upgraded. two generators using the same rotor, one runs the ECUs, twin fuel pumps etc. and the other the aircraft battery. loss of battery will not stop the engine.

 

I suspect the electronics are possibly Boshe considering were the engine is built.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Gundy]

I really think this is a good thing. It is called progress. I wonder how long it will take for a company to bring out a chip for the computer to get more power out of it. As we know they can turbo a 80hp to 115hp with no issues. Considering the 80-100-115hp engines all run the same bottom end so I would think they could wind the computer to at least 115hp and still keep reliability. Gundy

 

 

[Planechaser]

I really think this is a good thing. It is called progress. I wonder how long it will take for a company to bring out a chip for the computer to get more power out of it. As we know they can turbo a 80hp to 115hp with no issues. Considering the 80-100-115hp engines all run the same bottom end so I would think they could wind the computer to at least 115hp and still keep reliability. Gundy

Yep. I recon this is how they will sidestep the extra weight.

They couldn't do extra H.P. right off the bat though because so many light aircraft have the 912 100hp as the max motor.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think it will take off, especially with European manufacturers where fuel economy is a big issue. The idea that you can fly 20% further with the same airframe with only making a small change CoG documentation is too appealing to resist.

 

 

[Planechaser]

I think it will take off, especially with European manufacturers where fuel economy is a big issue. The idea that you can fly 20% further with the same airframe with only making a small change CoG documentation is too appealing to resist.

Yeah, that was my take as well. If, (and it's a big if in the real world) the iS can use 17L/H where the ULS uses 19L/H thats 4000L over the life of the engine.

 

At $1.50/L, that's $6k, or the extra cost of the engine. So the fuel economy alone should pay for the extra buy in cost, over the life of the donk, let alone the fact that you can fly further/longer on your tanks.

 

The hour savings, especially if you are paying someone else to do it, of balancing and stripping/rebuilding the carbs may be eaten up else where, but so what! The costs are already covered long term.

 

 

[eightyknots]

It still developes 100hp @ 5800rpm but the torque has dropped from 94ftlbs @5100rpm to 89ftlbs @5800rpm.

I wonder if this is the result of developing a more fuel efficient engine? However, if the bore (and especially the stroke) stays the same, so should the torque. I wonder if the drop in torque will affect the ft/min climb rates of light aircraft?

 

I really think this is a good thing. It is called progress. I wonder how long it will take for a company to bring out a chip for the computer to get more power out of it. As we know they can turbo a 80hp to 115hp with no issues. Considering the 80-100-115hp engines all run the same bottom end so I would think they could wind the computer to at least 115hp and still keep reliability. Gundy

I was thinking along the same lines, Gundy. Re-chipping an engine is done a lot with cars so why not re-chip it to the tried and proven 914's output of 115 hp for no weight gain (apart from the extra fuel the pilot will need to carry for the extra horsepower:cheezy grin: )

 

Yeah, that was my take as well. If, (and it's a big if in the real world) the iS can use 17L/H where the ULS uses 19L/H thats 4000L over the life of the engine.At $1.50/L, that's $6k, or the extra cost of the engine. So the fuel economy alone should pay for the extra buy in cost, over the life of the donk, let alone the fact that you can fly further/longer on your tanks.

The hour savings, especially if you are paying someone else to do it, of balancing and stripping/rebuilding the carbs may be eaten up else where, but so what! The costs are already covered long term.

I want one! ....but in a year's time when the bugs, if any, have been ironed out of the new engine.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

With an interview with the Rotax engineers mentioned a knock detector was installed and currently unused.

 

 

[skeptic36]

.At $1.50/L, that's $6k, or the extra cost of the engine. So the fuel economy alone should pay for the extra buy in cost, over the life of the donk, let alone the fact that you can fly further/longer on your tanks.

This is a recent quote from an aircraft manufacturer:

"they (Rotax) are not making things very easy at all. the difference in price is roughly $6800 and then the special monitoring system is $3800. not to mention the required 20 hour course you have to take to install it. Plus they want you to use their exhaust and motor cradle which is part of the additional $6800 and their EFIS has no flight information what so ever. Quite honestly the answers I got were vague and the rep seemed really worn out.Probably all of the negative reactions to everyone's questions"

 

It reads like the full cost could be a little more than 6K

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[eightyknots]

Things are probably onerous at this stage of the 912iS' development because it is so new. I would guess that once this engine becomes "old hat" these problems will have been ironed out. If they are not straightened out, UL Power from Belgium will get an increasing share of the LSA/ultralight/microlight market for engine and Rotax wouldn't let that happen, I am sure.