Viking

12vaitor said:

-------
Reese: The discussion would be far more helpful if you would stick to facts you know something about.

• There is nothing "smashed together" on the intake manifold, it is an equal length runner design with a small plenum on the air control body. Good design for making power at high rpm.
  
• No problems on the EFI injectors (standard Honda part) or ECU (there was a software update for improved cold weather starting). There were some reports of improved performance after cleaning the injectors on engines that sat unused for a couple of years.
  
• Have you dyno'ed the engine to know it is not making the claimed 110 HP? Honda specs the engine at 117 HP and every Viking RV-12 flying has reported a bit more speed than a 100 HP Rotax RV-12 (I have the same Sensenich prop as the Rotax RV-12, it just turns left instead of right). Not sure how you can do that with less HP than the Rotax.
  
• I have never seen a claim that the engine is zero-time "new", it was clear where the engines came from when I purchased mine. The fact that you can get a spare core engine for $1,500 should be a hint this is not a new engine.
  
• The only change to the PSRU design in the past four years (as used on my RV-12) was going from self-contained oiling to using engine oil and a return to the engine oil tank. The flywheel/starter ring changed from a machined aluminum design to a steel version. I see no reason to change mine to either modification.
  
• Wiring looks to be the standard Honda FIT engine wiring harness for FI, FI sensors, and spark coils. You have to do your own starter, alternator, and engine (oil, water,etc.) sensor wiring. I used aircraft wire purchased from SteinAir. I have seen some automotive wire jobs being used, but that is on the builder.
  
• The 135 HP GDI is a different engine than the 110 HP engine. The orientation change may be better from some FWF applications, not sure I would put a 135 HP engine on an RV-12. Looks like they are also working on a turbocharged version at 170 HP. I would think changing the PSRU would be desirable given the HP increases being discussed. BTW, they did not hide the fact that the turbocharged 110 had problems that caused them to drop the design.

I do have a problem with the cavalier attitude about W&B, pushing designs past VME, and presuming both Van's and the aircraft industry in general does not know what they are doing. Sadly, there is a crowd out there that likes playing fast and loose (and not limited to RVs either), and are perfectly willing to risk their lives doing so.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS

Click to expand...

You obviously weren't around when the first Viking engines came out. The first intake was a dog's breakfast and strangled the power output- same as on the EZ30 Subarus. When compared to 912S engines on at least one airframe, the first Viking's were not even close in speed and ROC, showing they weren't even making 100 hp let alone 110. Intake changed and the power was there. Weight was considerably more than the Rotax.

There have been at least 3 iterations of ECUs and many versions of software. Lots of folks in cooler climates couldn't get their engines started even after a couple of reflashes because Jan never tested them in cold climates- just like the Subarus. Engines delivered without ECUs at the start and some people waiting for ECUs for almost 2 years- same as the Subarus at the last. Recently Viking offered yet another ECU to customers for around $1300, to finally remedy all the issues with past ones...

Lot's of detail changes of various bits all over the engine that were not done right from the start. The original turbo which he was all ready to sell to people with minimal testing, predictably expired in short order and was yanked from the lineup- again shades of turbo Subaru experiences because Jan doesn't listen to people who know better. 170hp from the GDI turbo engine? Not gonna last long either IMO.

In summation, Jan learned little from his Subaru experience and repeated all the same mistakes over again, using early customers as beta testers.

He would have done well to publish true weights and dyno the engine for real power output. This just hurt his credibility as it did with the Subarus years before doing the same thing.

Anyway, several years down the road and the product has predictably improved (at customer's expense) a lot, but now the GDI version is coming along with how much flight testing behind it? That's always been the problem with Jan's stuff- insufficient flight testing before release. It might work well, might not.

Jan's is not short of good ideas, he's an innovative thinker and tireless worker. He just fails in the final execution and customer service end.

The Fit engine is a good core and if Jan or someone else can get all the details together and offer FF packages at a good price, it will be a good gig for people to fly without paying 912 prices.

Reese said:

Don't get me wrong here. I like auto-conversions. I like the Honda Fit engine in airplanes. I just have some nit picky things I dont like about Vikings particular installs and I think, in my opinion, that you should get a little better product for the price point. If you are happy with yours more power to you !

Click to expand...

Just curious if you have actually had your hands on a Viking engine as the basis to form your opinions. I am far more skeptical than you might imagine, but 40 years of military electronics and mission systems development gives me a good decision filter. Franky, I do not see how they can profitably sell it given the amount of machine work and labor involved for the parts added to create an aircraft engine. This is not a Van's FWF kit, and if that is your level of expectation you will have to do some work on your own to get it there. And don't forget, you get to write your own POH, PAP, and Maintenance Manual on top of building to whatever level of quality you find acceptable.

Someday there may a variety of RV-12 FWF packages for Rotax, Viking, UL Power, and Jabaru that are all done to a level consistent with Van's RV-12 FWF package, until then you are on your own if you go this route.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS

P.S. Does anyone know what the "E" in EAB stands for?

12vaitor said:

P.S. Does anyone know what the "E" in EAB stands for?

Click to expand...

Yep.

I realize the modern Vans community is largely a group of assemblers, rather than scratch builders. That is definitely not a bad thing. Reducing the skills buy-in to a reasonable level with good kits is what made the entire EAB scene the success it is today...and a rising tide floats all boats. Personally I like it, and assist everywhere I can.

However, it's all a matter of perspective. We also have guys who were flying their own scratch-built conversions in scratch-built airplanes 20 years ago, or more. For those guys, a builder who buys a conversion doesn't get to brag about the wisdom of his choice, or its "experimental" nature. I'm just sayin'....

Ok, how many hours have you flown your Viking so far?

12vaitor said:

P.S. Does anyone know what the "E" in EAB stands for?

Click to expand...

Just because the word "experimental" is on the plane doesn't mean I have dreams of becoming a "test pilot".

Reese said:

Just because the word "experimental" is on the plane doesn't mean I have dreams of becoming a "test pilot".

Click to expand...

Really? Then you should buy a C172. You can't have any expectation that you are going end up with an airplane that has certified levels of reliability out of the box when you buy an auto conversion.

Cessna and Lycoming spend $$$$ and years to get a type certificate and even then there are issues. To develop the Viking to Lyc levels of reliability requires an army of engineers, technicians and sophisticated facilities functioning for several years with no money coming in, just LOTS going out. So Jan is turning things out that have not been tested for 1000s of hrs....duh! What did you expect? Did you think somebody was putting up $50million to develop this thing? Early owners are going to be beta testers. He will make mistakes. And there will be issues, lots of them. And he will try to make it look as inviting and mature as he can. And somebody might even get hurt. Anybody who expects or demands something different is dreaming.

12vaitor said:

Just curious if you have actually had your hands on a Viking engine as the basis to form your opinions. I am far more skeptical than you might imagine, but 40 years of military electronics and mission systems development gives me a good decision filter. Franky, I do not see how they can profitably sell it given the amount of machine work and labor involved for the parts added to create an aircraft engine. This is not a Van's FWF kit, and if that is your level of expectation you will have to do some work on your own to get it there. And don't forget, you get to write your own POH, PAP, and Maintenance Manual on top of building to whatever level of quality you find acceptable.

Someday there may a variety of RV-12 FWF packages for Rotax, Viking, UL Power, and Jabaru that are all done to a level consistent with Van's RV-12 FWF package, until then you are on your own if you go this route.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS

P.S. Does anyone know what the "E" in EAB stands for?

Click to expand...

John, you hit the nail on the head. Most of the people here who are arguing this topic have never actually seen let alone fly behind a Viking engine yet they are experts, even more than those who have not only seen a Viking but also trust them well enough to fly them. Many of these arm chair quarterbacks consistently blather on about how something is poorly designed, won't work, doesn't meet certain engineering specs or is just a plain old piece of trash yet many of them wouldn't know where to start if they wanted to design their own airplane engine. Some people complain about how for the price you should get more, blah, blah, blah. Some complain about past experiences from a decade ago and that is a legitimate gripe, but most simply argue "facts" when they simply have no experience with this particular engine, only hyperbole and hearsay from other "experts" who have also never seen this engine.

The simple truth is that many don't want to see this lower priced engine or company survive which is truly sad because the high cost of airplanes is killing GA. Some don't because this engine doesn't "meet the mold" of what they believe a airplane engine should be. Some because a low priced engine that is approximately half the price of other engines affects the bottom line of other companies. Some because of internet banter, they believe that they are doing a service to the community yet when most of these people are confronted by an actual owner and flyer of a Viking, they are passed off as fools or stupid by these same arm chair quarterbacks who have no experience with a Viking engine.

There have been links posted on this very thread of very happy Viking owners who love the engine, one of which has close to 500 hours on his engine. Even you with your 40 years experience in military equipment and a Viking owner who admitted that you would buy Viking again are passed off as someone who just doesn't get how "bad" this engine is.

As I have stated before, there are numerous people who actually have flying Vikings in various airframes. Many will give rides, all one has to do is ask. There are numerous videos on youtube of RV-12, CH650, 750, etc... showing the engine running on the ground as well as actual flight data yet people still claim that it won't work or will fail at any time with no actual data to prove that. The consistent negative Viking arguments that are always given are not given to disprove but instead disparage. I hope at some point, that not only Viking but other less know engine manufacturers become successful in the marketplace as driving down the cost of airplane ownership will be the only thing that can save GA for a new generation of wishful fliers.

GhostRider32 said:

The simple truth is that many don't want to see this lower priced engine or company survive which is truly sad because the high cost of airplanes is killing GA. Some don't because this engine doesn't "meet the mold" of what they believe a airplane engine should be. Some because a low priced engine that is approximately half the price of other engines affects the bottom line of other companies. Some because of internet banter, they believe that they are doing a service to the community yet when most of these people are confronted by an actual owner and flyer of a Viking, they are passed off as fools or stupid by these same arm chair quarterbacks who have no experience with a Viking engine.

Click to expand...

DS,
I can not refute that maybe some here do fit the stereotype that you describe. (If they do, they at least are not hiding behind simple initials as their only identification in their profile.... which I believe is against forum rules .... they are willing to be identified and stand behind their opinion).

Any way, I hope no one lumps me in your group. I make my livelihood working in the kit aircraft industry. The cost of reliable power plant installations is one of the biggest factors in the success of the industry.
For that reason I am hopeful that the Viking engine can one day be labeled a huge success. How could that not make more kits get sold. That would be a win/win for everyone.
I have been employed in the business for a long time, and have been involved as a hobbyist for even longer. Because of that I feel a level of responsibility to others.

It is true that some adopters of the Viking (and other alternative power plants) relish the challenge involved with making that power plant choice. The problem is, is those people are the minority. Most of the people that purchase a Viking, Egg Subaru, or any other, usually think they are buying a more modern engine that they will be able to install in the modern airplane kits now available, with the same ease and reliability as a traditional aircraft power plant, because the majority of the sellers, (Jan included) have promoted them as that.
That couldn't be further from the truth. You are of course free disagree with that, but I have 25 years of involvement seeing it happen over and over.

There have been a few instances where a designer began flying a new engine type, but held off selling anyone anything (even though there was a lot of pressure from people waving money in their face) until they had 500 - 1000 hrs of successful operation, and they truly developed a proven, reliable, installation package. This is extremely rare however. The engine we are discussing here has not been developed that way.

The bottom line (repeating what I have said repeatedly for a lot of years now) is we need experimenting. If you are interested in doing that, then by all means give one of the alternative engines a try (but do it fully aware that you could end up spending as much or even more than if you chose the traditional route) But, if you are like the majority of people who are primarily interested in getting through the huge undertaking of building an airplane, and when it is completed you hope to just turn the key and go fly for many years afterward, it is most like a very bad choice no matter how appealing it may seem.

I, too, refuse to be lumped into that category. I can back it up by inviting you to see the Mazda Renesis hanging on my firewall right now. As I've said repeatedly, my misgivings have nothing to do with the Honda core engine and everything to do with the vendor's well deserved reputation. And I'm not just talking about lack of technical expertise, but the ethics of the vendor.

I'm glad you and others have been successful with your Vikings. But (and I'm referring to the vendor), I'm reminded of the old saw that if you give enough monkeys typewriters, eventually you might get a masterpiece. And you'll have about the same luck taking the monkeys to court.

Charlie

rvbuilder2002 said:

DS,
I can not refute that maybe some here do fit the stereotype that you describe. (If they do, they at least are not hiding behind simple initials as their only identification in their profile.... which I believe is against forum rules .... they are willing to be identified and stand behind their opinion).

Click to expand...

If 2 simple initials is against forum rules then I was unaware of that and I can change if indeed it is against the rules.

It's interesting that instead of presenting something to refute anything I have said, you try to present my presence here as somewhat illegitimate or shady simply because I listed my initials as DS as if somehow anything I have said is null and void because I value my privacy and don't generally list my full name on any forum due to privacy concerns. Frankly, I'm surprised that people as a whole are not more protective of their privacy.

If you will go to the Viking forums website, you will also see a man named DS who just posted on Thursday a question about the difference between the old 110 engine and the new 130 engine as I have concerns that while they are replacing the 110 with the 130, there isn't much info available on the new 130 engine. You will also see that Jan replied and then you'll see that I asked another question.

http://vikingaircraftengines.ning.com/forums/differences-in-the-110-vs-130#comments

No one has been named or lumped in a specific group by me. I simply stated that there are those who without a doubt have an axe to grind and no matter what is said or how many success stories there are, Viking will never be good enough, period. There could be 1,000,000 Vikings flying and still, there is a group that will claim that they will never be successful and that the engines are junk and destined to fail.

At the same time, there are legitimate issues with previous engines that Jan has presented to the public. There were obvious issues with some of the Subaru conversions that quite frankly, would have probably made me very skeptical of Jan myself.

This is where the difference lies for me with the old engines vs. the new engines. For every person who has a complaint about the old Subaru conversions, there is one who has success with the new engine. Would I buy a old Subaru conversion from Jan? Absolutely not as there are too many complaints about them. Will I buy a Viking from Jan when I am ready? Quite possibly, from all of the reports I've seen and the videos on the internet, it appears to run and operate as advertised.

In the end, the more people who enter aviation whether they are flying a Rotax, Viking, Lycoming, Jabiru or any other manufacturer, aviation as a whole benefits.

Any engine developed by one or two guys is going to have a very long development cycle and lots of issues along the way. Look at the number of ADs that Lyc and Continental have against them. It is a really difficult task. I hope they are successful. There is a very special breed of homebuilder out there who is willing to ride that road with them and my hat's off to them, provided that they go in with eyes open and they are not just dreamers, new to aviation, seduced by glossy advertising. Hopefully they are pilots who have some serious time and can contemplate having to deal with a forced or precautionary landing or 2 along the way while they get the kinks out. We all are in this for something different and we need people willing to take the road less travelled. They are of the same spirit as the Vans, the Rutans, the Pitts etc.

Caveat emptor

GhostRider32 said:

... Would I buy a old Subaru conversion from Jan? Absolutely not as there are too many complaints about them. Will I buy a Viking from Jan when I am ready? Quite possibly...

Click to expand...

I think the majority of the folks on the "Alternative Engine" list are all for more alt. engines getting into RVs, and being successful! I think we also want perspective buyers to be aware of past issues with products, materials, techniques, etc.; so they can go into any deals or installs with their "eyes wide open". A buddy of mine is still owed $10K+ for parts never provided from 5+ yrs ago, and in spite of numerous requests for a refund, he has only received hollow promises of payment.

Hoping it all works our for you!

Doug Lomheim
RV-3A sold
RV-9A / Mazda 13B (FWF)

dlomheim said:

I think the majority of the folks on the "Alternative Engine" list are all for more alt. engines getting into RVs, and being successful! I think we also want perspective buyers to be aware of past issues with products, materials, techniques, etc.; so they can go into any deals or installs with their "eyes wide open".

Click to expand...

Exactly right.

A lot more than just the folks on the alternative engines lists too. The world is changing. Lines between "traditional" and "alternative" are blurring, and vendors are learning.

What do you call a kerosene fueled compression motor with roots at Mercedes-Benz, converted by Continental Motors?

http://continentaldiesel.com/typo3/index.php?id=2&L=1

Closer to this thread, consider the Raven and AeroMomentum examples.

At one time, the alt-engine world was truly dumb as dirt about torsional issues. Yet 20 years ago, smack in the middle of the swamp, Raven's Jeron Smith developed a frictional true damper in parallel with a soft element, all packaged in the upper sprocket of a belt drive. The system is light, and simple, and has been sold on various Suzukis for going on two decades. It works, and it's now offered on the Fit motor.

AM's Mark Kettering is an engineer, did a traditional math analysis of the torsional issues, and elected to go with a rubber ring soft element. A rubber ring coupler has no significant true damping, but is for sure a standard approach to powertrain frequency tuning, the real issue with a PSRU. Mark reportedly then ran his beta models on airboats for a few years, a very good way of conducting "real world testing" transferable to aircraft. And AM builds its Suzuki-based engines from new parts.

Even Jan is learning; the Fit layout incorporated a rubber ring coupler right from the start. The last iteration of the Subaru incorporating the springs and one half flywheel from the stock Subie dual mass system was clever, but an engineered rubber coupler is hard to beat from a design standpoint. The designer can pick from a long list of offerings in the exact torsional stiffness needed for the application, and have the ability to swap if the first torsional estimates were wrong. Don't laugh; it happened to Rotax with the early 582 C-box.

Torsional issues are only one aspect of developing a successful bolt-on powerplant. Nobody is perfect, and nobody gets it perfectly right the first time. Any of the above could have a software glitch, for example, or decide to make an improved component available for retrofit. When that happens, it really does come down to how it gets handled, a matter of business practice. There are very good engineers who are terrible at customer satisfaction issues, CSI experts with zero engineering skills, and great imagineers who make terrible business decisions.

Here's the thing; blanket arguments of superiority (or lack thereof) are just wrong. Too often the strongly held opinions are based on little more than a belief system. It works both ways. A lot of long-term players will never trust Jan. The water is muddy enough that they may never trust any alternative vendor. At the same time, right here we're reading strongly worded statements from supporters with no actual flight time beyond an up-and-down demo ride. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "passed off as fools or stupid" as written by one poster, but for some there may be an element of "don't yet know what they don't know".

Nobody is done learning until we die. Let's stick closely to hardware and technical discussion. Debating belief without seriously addressing technical is just a pointless flog.

Amen, Dan...well said.

DanH said:

Raven's Jeron Smith developed a frictional true damper in parallel with a soft element, all packaged in the upper sprocket of a belt drive. The system is light, and simple, and has been sold on various Suzukis for going on two decades. It works, and it's now offered on the Fit motor.

Click to expand...

Kinda ....... Jerod has a few prototypes flying, but has said recently the project is delayed to focus on family

Very well said Dan.

Big Dog Barks

Way to go Dan. Hit the nail on the head, as usual.

We get life's reminders from many experiences. It was a pleasant Alabama afternoon and I went to a picnic in college with a bunch of friends and their dogs. A couple, (canines) were particularly at one another, but not drawing blood, but persistently running through the ranks and became annoying. Before any owners quelled the 30 min ordeal, suddenly one dog who had been quietly laying and watching jumped up as the two ran by, aggressively and very quickly separated the two, and in literally two seconds, all was calm for the remainder of the day.

A little off topic, but all this talk has me thinking about another Honda engine that seems like a good fit for aircraft conversion. I own a 2006 Honda Aquatrax PWC. The engine is a 1235cc I4 with fuel injection and electronic ignition. Being a PWC engine, the controls are quite simple and it is designed to be a drop-in unit with few external connections. The version I have is turbocharged and rated at 165hp (not sure of the RPM for that rating). The normally aspirated version is rated at 125hp. The engine is very compact and connects to the jet drive via a damping coupler. According to the Honda site, this was a purpose built marine engine. The displacement is similar to the Fit, but bore and stroke are quite different. Probably based off one of their motorcycle engines.

The engine has been very reliable in a very harsh environment, but that doesn't mean it would be good in an aircraft application. I have no idea how much it weighs, and cooling would be interesting to figure out. Just thinking out loud really, but makes sense to me.

WingsOnWheels said:

A little off topic, but all this talk has me thinking about another Honda engine that seems like a good fit for aircraft conversion. I own a 2006 Honda Aquatrax PWC. The engine is a 1235cc I4 with fuel injection and electronic ignition. Being a PWC engine, the controls are quite simple and it is designed to be a drop-in unit with few external connections. The version I have is turbocharged and rated at 165hp (not sure of the RPM for that rating). The normally aspirated version is rated at 125hp. The engine is very compact and connects to the jet drive via a damping coupler. According to the Honda site, this was a purpose built marine engine. The displacement is similar to the Fit, but bore and stroke are quite different. Probably based off one of their motorcycle engines.

The engine has been very reliable in a very harsh environment, but that doesn't mean it would be good in an aircraft application. I have no idea how much it weighs, and cooling would be interesting to figure out. Just thinking out loud really, but makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

Some people have used motorcycle/snow mobile style engines.

Usually you have to run those engines up to 8,000 rpm to get the power out of them though.

More common to see engines like that used by ultralights.

Reese said:

Some people have used motorcycle/snow mobile style engines.

Usually you have to run those engines up to 8,000 rpm to get the power out of them though.

More common to see engines like that used by ultralights.

Click to expand...

Would defiantly need to see the torque curve to make any real assessment. Max RPM for that motor is 7000rpm according to a website I found). Since it is a shorter stoke than the Fit engine, peak torque is probably at a higher RPM. However, it is the same size motor as the Viking/fit engine so the applications should be similar. The packaging of a marine engine seems more appropriate for aircraft conversion than an auto engine, so the conversion may be easier.