What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Viking Engine Performance Data

Geico266

Well Known Member
Another thread prompted me to ask a question of those who have installed the Viking engine.

Ron Russ posted a speed of 136.5 MPH (verified w/ 4 way GPS) in the RV-12, climb rate of 1,000 fpm, and 200' take offs on the Viking web site.

An unconfirmed report from a Sea Ray says the performance was that of an 80 HP engine and 30 pounds over a 912s and the engine was replaced.

Real numbers please?
 
Last edited:
I don?t think there are any other RV-12?s flying with the Viking. I am considering using the Viking when I build but not based on the performance figures but more on the technology, design and value of the engine. I first met Ron at Sebring when he arrived and he stated that it was his first long XC trip and he was very happy with the performance. I don?t remember any exact numbers but I think the important things to consider are how the aircraft performs in normal cruise configuration, not top speeds at wot. The Viking may not have been a good fit for the SeaRay due to its high drag airframe but seems to work fine on RV-12 type aircraft. I am looking forward to seeing how the next batch of Vikings turn out as I?ve seen they are now in customers hands and should be flying within the year.
 
I am considering using the Viking when I build but not based on the performance figures but more on the technology, design and value of the engine.

A question, and not just for Joe.

What technology and/or design features are superior to the Rotax 912, and why?
 
Things like fuel injection, electronic ignition and liquid cooling. I know the technology of the past century of carbs and mags is proven and very reliable but as in every other application for internal combustion engines the aircraft industry is far behind. The outboard marine engine industry has continued to develop its product and reliability is better than it has ever been. (The basic engine used by Viking is used in the Honda outboard.)
 
Things like fuel injection, electronic ignition and liquid cooling. I know the technology of the past century of carbs and mags is proven and very reliable but.....

The 912 has electronic ignition and liquid cooling. The electronic ignition requires no ship's power. As you say, the Bing CV's have proven to be very reliable....and likewise require no power source.

Try again. What technology and/or design features are superior to the Rotax 912, and why?
 
I’m not knocking the 912, I’m just open to alternatives and am glad to see people trying the Viking, UL and Jabaru engines. All four engines have their pros and cons, it’s just nice to have a choice.

Also, keep in mind my opinions are from someone that is fairly new to general aviation and my lack of experience may affect my judgment I’m learning a lot from VAF. As you can see from my avatar I’ve worked on old and new technologies and admit in some areas the old is more reliable.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody know the service interval for Viking's and Rotax's PSRU?

What is inside the PSRU? Belts? or gears?

If belts, how often do they need to be replaced?
 
I?m almost sure gears on the Viking. When I was talking to Jan at Sebring the holdup in shipping the engines was due to his gear supplier.
 
Things like fuel injection, electronic ignition and liquid cooling. I know the technology of the past century of carbs and mags is proven and very reliable but as in every other application for internal combustion engines the aircraft industry is far behind. The outboard marine engine industry has continued to develop its product and reliability is better than it has ever been. (The basic engine used by Viking is used in the Honda outboard.)

In the certified world I would agree some things are way behind. But in the experimantal world fuel injection, electronic ignitons that very timing with altitude are already commonplace on Lycomings.

As to liquid cooling,well on a fast airplane liquid cooling only appears to add significant drag.

A well equipped Lycoming is a very efficient motor..especially when run LOP, I'm not aware of any car engines who's fuel management systems allow for LOP running.

Frank
 
In the certified world I would agree some things are way behind. But in the experimantal world fuel injection, electronic ignitons that very timing with altitude are already commonplace on Lycomings.

As to liquid cooling,well on a fast airplane liquid cooling only appears to add significant drag.

A well equipped Lycoming is a very efficient motor..especially when run LOP, I'm not aware of any car engines who's fuel management systems allow for LOP running.

Frank

Car engines do, sorta. Exhaust gas recirculation creates effectively lean of peak mixtures. Fuel injected small block Fords (the ones I'm most familiar with) are well known to suffer decreased fuel economy when the EGR is disconnected.

I'm hair-splitting though. I agree with you; our air-cooled aircraft engines have the capacity to be amazingly efficient. The limitation is the systems bolted to them, not the engines themselves.

Aircraft engines achieved astonishingly good fuel specifics all the way back in the third decade of the 20th century. A somewhat rare but fascinating book on the subject is "The Power To Fly", by LJK Setright (George Allen & Unwin LTD, Great Britain, 1971).
 
Here is a quote from Ron Russ posted on the Viking Engine site;

"Before you read this prop test information about my Viking RV-12, I thought I would inject my impression of the Viking engine. Take-off is out of this world. Climb is over 1,000 fpm. You have to be in this plane to experience the thrill of flying behind the Viking engine.

I had a chance to fly the Viking RV N97HV for about four hours the past two days. Warp Drive sent me a high taper prop for testing. It is a 68" diameter ground adjustable. I started with 15 degrees pitch and takeoff roll was a little over 200 ft. Average, 4 way ground speed, was 136.5 mph at an rpm of 5,410 / 4000 ft msl. What an engine."

Ron Russ
 
VIKING PERFORMANCE

Your not comparing apples to apples. An aluminum RV 12 verses a fibre glass boat weighting 1,300 lbs. is no comparison. There was a lot of weight added to the Sea Ray after the engine was installed. If you want to see my RV12 Viking perform you should have been at Sebring. Ron Russ 60 hours and enjoying every minute.


Another thread prompted me to ask a question of those who have installed the Viking engine.

Ron Russ posted a speed of 136.5 MPH (verified w/ 4 way GPS) in the RV-12, climb rate of 1,000 fpm, and 200' take offs on the Viking web site.

An unconfirmed report from a Sea Ray says the performance was that of an 80 HP engine and 30 pounds over a 912s and the engine was replaced.

Real numbers please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your not comparing apples to apples. An aluminum RV 12 verses a fibre glass boat weighting 1,300 lbs. is no comparison.

A fly-off with a pair of RV-12's should be easy to arrange.... Rotax vs Viking.

Ballast for pilot weight difference. Pick a wide runway, side-by-side at departure with a race to some agreed altitude, then on the same flight a top speed dash. Perhaps go three times, allowing each party to make prop pitch adjustments if desired.

Apples to apples. How about it Ron?
 
Your not comparing apples to apples. An aluminum RV 12 verses a fibre glass boat weighting 1,300 lbs. is no comparison. There was a lot of weight added to the Sea Ray after the engine was installed. If you want to see my RV12 Viking perform you should have been at Sebring. Ron Russ 60 hours and enjoying every minute.

Ron, I was not comparing your plane to the Searay, I was stating the performace results as you posted them. I am glad you are happy with your engine. Competition is a good thing, I would like to find out more about it. I am just asking a questions about your performance numbers and aircraft weight. How much does your plane weight?

This is not a trap, this is time for you to let us know about your obvious success with the Viking engine. You have a flying RV-12 with an alternative engine on it, and that is very cool. That is what experimental is all about.
 
Last edited:
A well equipped Lycoming is a very efficient motor..especially when run LOP, I'm not aware of any car engines who's fuel management systems allow for LOP running.

Frank

Many car engines can run lean. Volkswagen's FSI engines can run as far as 40:1 in low load conditions. But cars can't do WOT LOP, which is very efficient - low pumping losses, set power with the amount of fuel. Unless it's a diesel of course. :)
 
Many car engines can run lean. Volkswagen's FSI engines can run as far as 40:1 in low load conditions. But cars can't do WOT LOP, which is very efficient - low pumping losses, set power with the amount of fuel. Unless it's a diesel of course. :)

To my knowledge, auto engines never run at a TRUE 40:1 AFR as this is outside the range of charge ignition possibilities even using stratified charge technology. Modern auto engines often run well lean of stoichiometric (14.7 AFR) at low loads below 25% power. First tested by Honda about 15 years ago now- 17 to almost 20 to 1 AFR is common today using wideband O2 sensor feedback and targeted AFRs in the ECU mapping. Many auto engines will run at stoichiometric until about 50% power.
 
Viking performance on Searey LSX

I'm the guy with with the first Viking on a Searey LSX. I also had an RV-12 kit that I intended to complete with a Viking engine.

I worked with Jan Eggenfellner for about 9 months and even brought my kit to his shop and allowed him to design and install the Viking/Honda mounts and wiring harness on my plane. I had great expectations for the success of the engine and made several efforts to get Jan to work more closely with the Searey factory engineers to enhance the process. He did come to the Searey factory while my plane was being completed there and discussed issues with Searey personnel, but ultimately he did things his way.

From the first flight it was obvious the engine made the plane SERIOUSLY aft C.G., to the point that I had to fly with 30 lbs. ballast in the nose and full nose down trim to fly straight and level. When I landed on the water it was necessary to immediately push the stick forward to keep the plane from bouncing back into the air. The same was true for grass strip landings. The engine with necessary accessories weighs 25 to 30 pounds more than a Rotax 914. That weight is primarily aft C.G. on a Searey. Jan Eggenfellner wanted me to raise the engine, move it forward on the root tube 3 inches and use a prop spacer. The Searey factory advised against these changes, saying they would not satisfactorily solve the problem.

A thrust test during the build process, at the Searey factory, and before installation of the wings, windshield, canopies and everything else that obstructs air flow to the prop, showed 475 lbs. of thrust; however after the plane was completed and flying, several different degrees of prop pitch were tested and the best thrust developed under nearly identical conditions (at the factory) produced only 425 lbs. thrust. An 80 hp Rotax, on a Searey, was tested immediately after my test an developed 435 lbs. thrust.

I never flew with more than myself (174lbs.) and 12 gallons of gas in the plane and never achieved satisfactory climb out performance. Average was around 500 fpm. The Searey is heavy (998 lbs. empty) and has lots of drag.

I also had several occasions when the engine "burped" and the last one when it ran very rough for long enough that I had to engage the back-up ECU to stay in the air. Three times Eggenfellner flew over and adjusted the ECU by connecting his laptop computer. Each time he said it was not a big deal and not to worry about it. Well, I did worry about it and the last time he adjusted the ECU was the last time I flew the plane with the Viking Engine.

Eggenfellner had a long list of changes he wanted to make to my newly completed plane to continue his R & D process, but I'm not a test pilot and it was apparent that the R & D was going to be an extended process and turn my show plane into something I would no longer be proud to show.

With all that in mind I decided it was in my best interests to return the engine and install a Rotax 914. Eggenfellner did an about-face, from friend to enemy; refused to refund my money (contradicting his advertising and our agreement) and even attempted to obstruct my efforts to sell the engine, by telling a potential buyer it needed $2000 in upgrades and they would be better of to buy an new one. I explained my reasons to Jan and suggested that not living up to his promises was bad for business, but he became irate and said I didn't deserve a refund. Luckily for me, the buyer bought it for $8000, in hopes that he could get it upgraded. My loss was over $4000 and I had to sell my 90% completed RV-12 kit to get $$$ for the Rotax 914.

That pretty much sums up my experience with Viking Aircraft.

I'm completing the installation of the Rotax 914 and look forward to flying my Searey with the tried and true engine for which it was designed.
 
Welcome to VAF!!!!

Tom, welcome to the good ship VAF:D

Good to have you aboard, thanks for the first hand report.

Sorry to hear of the troubles you had :(
 
Last edited:
I can relate!

I had the exact same experience when I had his 4 cyl Subaru package on my RV-9A. The engine quit on me at 3,000 MSL (2,000 AGL) and I didn't make it back to the airport. Jan came to Kansas to look at it and a day later the vapor lock in the fuel system that happen was still there, so the engine would not restart until the pressure in the fuel rail was released. The engine then started but Jan said all I needed was a new Engine mount for about $800 and a new prop flange. All in all the parts would be around $2,000. At that point he was willing to sell me the parts, but when I decided to just sell the whole engine package, he tried the same tactics to discourage the new buyer and also refused to sell him the parts. Because of this I ended up selling the package for $2,000 less because Jan would not sell him the parts. This is a terrible way to gain customer support and I'm amazed this guy still has any kind of business.


Thanks


Eggenfellner had a long list of changes he wanted to make to my newly completed plane to continue his R & D process, but I'm not a test pilot and it was apparent that the R & D was going to be an extended process and turn my show plane into something I would no longer be proud to show.

With all that in mind I decided it was in my best interests to return the engine and install a Rotax 914. Eggenfellner did an about-face, from friend to enemy; refused to refund my money (contradicting his advertising and our agreement) and even attempted to obstruct my efforts to sell the engine, by telling a potential buyer it needed $2000 in upgrades and they would be better of to buy an new one. I explained my reasons to Jan and suggested that not living up to his promises was bad for business, but he became irate and said I didn't deserve a refund. Luckily for me, the buyer bought it for $8000, in hopes that he could get it upgraded. My loss was over $4000 and I had to sell my 90% completed RV-12 kit to get $$$ for the Rotax 914.

That pretty much sums up my experience with Viking Aircraft.

I'm completing the installation of the Rotax 914 and look forward to flying my Searey with the tried and true engine for which it was designed.
 
I remember discussing the fuel system on the Egenfellner package on their forum many times because I was very concerned at the potential for vapour lock.

I even redesigned the system on paper for a forum critique, Jan dismissed the idea without discussion.

As an experienced engineer with many years of designing such systems I was a little surprised at his attitude.

I believe I counted three vapor lock induced crashes before I was banned from the forums.

Inciently, I then installed my design on my RV with a Lycoming and no mechanical fuel pump. This is what is still running faultessly today after 500 hours.

Frank
 
Tom, Thanks for posting a very honest, detailed, and compete accounting of your experience with the Viking Engine.

Anyone else done a wb with a 12?
 
Last edited:
Tom,
Welcome to the forum! Thank you for your very informative post. Those of us that have been around here for awhile will recall that your experience is not unlike that of others who used an alternative engine from a guy that used a Subaru engine.:eek:
Good luck with your Rotax! I think it'll be a great engine.
Best regards,
 
I had the exact same experience when I had his 4 cyl Subaru package on my RV-9A. The engine quit on me at 3,000 MSL (2,000 AGL) and I didn't make it back to the airport. Jan came to Kansas to look at it and a day later the vapor lock in the fuel system that happen was still there, so the engine would not restart until the pressure in the fuel rail was released. The engine then started but Jan said all I needed was a new Engine mount for about $800 and a new prop flange. All in all the parts would be around $2,000. At that point he was willing to sell me the parts, but when I decided to just sell the whole engine package, he tried the same tactics to discourage the new buyer and also refused to sell him the parts. Because of this I ended up selling the package for $2,000 less because Jan would not sell him the parts. This is a terrible way to gain customer support and I'm amazed this guy still has any kind of business.

Thanks


It's a small, small, (aviation) world............. and there is nowhere to hide..........:(

If you don't treat your customers right.
 
It's like deja-vu, all over again.
Yogi Berra
:rolleyes:


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
It's like deja-vu, all over again.
Yogi Berra
:rolleyes:


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

AMEN to that.

It's also called live and learn - unfortunately people learn from personal experience more than that of others.

Jan's intentions are noble (to offer an alternative to the Rotax at a reasonable price) but he has not figured out how to deliver the product - same as with the Subaru. He has refused to test his engines on a dyno, instead relies on selected performance data from manufacturers which turns out to be unreliable in an airplane. I was sucked in on torque data with the H6 Subaru, it should have performed as well as an IO360 but was no where near it for reasons never determined. I was having a real problem living with a slow airplane thinking it was all drag due to a poor build.

Well, that all changed when the engine was switched to a 180 HP Lycoming, the airplane performed as well as Vans, warts and all from numerous cowl mods trying to get Subby to run cooler. :)

Note: the RV-8 will be powered by a Lycoming engine....period!
 
Last edited:
Same song, second verse....

Man...I wish builders would just wait until a new engine has been in the field at least a couple of years so real world performance and service on their particular airframe can be determined. But the Koolaide is powerful stuff and I've found it nearly impossible to reason with a novice builder once they have taken a big gulp. It nearly always ends badly for the early adopters.......
 
I've seen auto engine conversions come and go since the 1960s and the only ones that the average builder seems to have success with are the VW and maybe a Corvair. A few gear heads can make others work on a one off basis if they are skilled enough. But they usually end up costing as much as a Lycoming and you have to play test pilot.
 
Last edited:
Surprising

This information is almost as shocking as Whitney Houston's death. Both sad in their own way. Glad it worked out and you are no longer a test aircraft.

There is a conspicuous absence of the guy on VAF that is putting a Viking engine on his 12. I have had several back line conversations with him and tried to convince him to reconsider his choice. No joy!!!

This is an issue of safety. I will not compromise safety for anything and it is important that people hear the facts. Especially if they are relatively new to the RV World and not aware of the past history.

Good luck Tom. Thanks for your first hand report of your experience.
 
Same Song...

NSI, Crossflow, Eggenfellner, Maxwell, Geared Drives, JPA, Vesta, PowerSport, Viking. What do all of these conversions have in common?

1. Not one had even 500 hours of flight time on one example without issue before being released to the public for sale. Some companies did a better job than others with regards to testing but the fact remains that none have really properly been flight proven with multiple examples for say, 1000 hours each as one would expect to validate reliability of the entire package. Really a couple hundred hours on one example is essentially meaningless.

2. Few if any have managed to match the reliability, weight, fuel burn and performance offered by the traditional engine choices.

While there have generally been few issues with the core engine chosen, there have been mild to serious issues with each one with regards to the whole FF package- fuel, ignition, gearbox, turbos, cooling etc. These are just as serious in most cases as a hard engine failure. In some cases the packages have been complete jokes, lasting only seconds or a few hours before failure.

The posts here really sum it up:

1. Don't be the first to line up for a package that is not substantially flight proven. That pretty much leaves you right back in the Lycoming and Rotax camps. End of story for most people.

2. If you learn nothing from previous experience and treat new customers poorly, you are destined to repeat the same business failures again. The internet will slay you with bad press pretty quickly.

3. Not testing the product properly and extensively before release will always come back to haunt you.

4. Publishing vague or unsubstantiated weight and performance figures for a FF package will come back to haunt you.

Sorry to say but the vendors and builders with stars in their eyes never seem to learn...

Yes, the Lycoming and Rotax are expensive and still have the occasional issue but you are getting a product that has been massively proven in return and for most people who just want to fly their aircraft, these are really your best choices.

Auto conversions can be very reliable as proven by some one offs and ones like the RAF Subaru Gyros which have tens of thousands of hours collectively with an excellent record but the record by FF vendors has not been good at all for the most part.
 
Last edited:
Man...I wish builders would just wait until a new engine has been in the field at least a couple of years so real world performance and service on their particular airframe can be determined. But the Koolaide is powerful stuff and I've found it nearly impossible to reason with a novice builder once they have taken a big gulp. It nearly always ends badly for the early adopters.......

They'd be waiting a long time if nobody was prepared to go first...
 
While there have been a few bright spots, I actually thought Sam's post said it all in a rather nice way.

Will any of these vendors still be around in 10 years to supply parts and service even if the packages work well? To date, most have crashed and burned after a few years.

As long as you really understand what you are getting into with a new, untested engine package, I don't see a problem with it but the unknowns really don't suit most builders or pilots. It does help to be a gearhead if you go down this path IMO.
 
They'd be waiting a long time if nobody was prepared to go first...

The first-time builders need to wait a long time before adopting an alternative engine. That long wait needs to be filled by a vendor accumulating hundreds of hours of testing. Let the vendor and a few gearheads work out the bugs instead of some poor guy who sinks his hobby money into his first project with an unproven engine package. That builder usually loses a ton of money, build time, and safety margin. But if he sticks with the project, he will most likely get a lot of experience firewall forward.....installing a second engine.
 
The first-time builders need to wait a long time before adopting an alternative engine. That long wait needs to be filled by a vendor accumulating hundreds of hours of testing. Let the vendor and a few gearheads work out the bugs instead of some poor guy who sinks his hobby money into his first project with an unproven engine package. That builder usually loses a ton of money, build time, and safety margin. But if he sticks with the project, he will most likely get a lot of experience firewall forward.....installing a second engine.

Yep and I have to say I like your dry sense of humor.
 
Here is a quote from Ron Russ posted on the Viking Engine site;

"Before you read this prop test information about my Viking RV-12, I thought I would inject my impression of the Viking engine. Take-off is out of this world. Climb is over 1,000 fpm. You have to be in this plane to experience the thrill of flying behind the Viking engine.

I had a chance to fly the Viking RV N97HV for about four hours the past two days. Warp Drive sent me a high taper prop for testing. It is a 68" diameter ground adjustable. I started with 15 degrees pitch and takeoff roll was a little over 200 ft. Average, 4 way ground speed, was 136.5 mph at an rpm of 5,410 / 4000 ft msl. What an engine."

Ron Russ

I don't understand. Ron Russ is posting performance numbers that are impressive, but no one will substantiate his performance numbers or post weight and balance numbers of his flying RV-12 with a Viking engine. Why all the secrecy and defensiveness? :confused:

The Viking cost $10K less than a Rotax so giving up some performance is not the end of the world. Ron did fly it to SnF so it is flying. :confused:
 
Last edited:
I don't understand. Ron Russ is posting performance numbers that are impressive, but no one will substantiate his performance numbers or post weight and balance numbers of his flying RV-12 with a Viking engine. Why all the secrecy and defensiveness? :confused:

The Viking cost $10K less than a Rotax so giving up some performance is not the end of the world. Ron did fly it to Sebring, so it is flying. :confused:

There always seems to be secrecy on the weight and a reluctance to test head to head with an airframe using the standard engine. If there is nothing to hide and the performance is good, why not share it with the world and increase your sales?:confused:
 
I've seen auto engine conversions come and go since the 1960s and the only ones that the average builder seems to have success with are the VW and maybe a Corvair.

This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the relevant VW and Corvair engines are similar to Lycomings. ;) All have horizontally opposed, air cooled cylinders with steel barrels and aluminium heads. All have valves operated by pushrods and rocker arms. All are so well balanced that they do not require any counterweights on the crankshaft (thus greatly reducing weight). And none of them have the unnecessary complexity of electronic engine control units.
 
Last edited:
It is doubtful if Corvairs or VWs last very long in aircraft. Show me one that has 1000 flight hours on it without an overhaul or failure. They just don't have the cooling fin area to jam out high hp for extended periods IMO and I've worked on both. They might be fine for small aircraft flying around the circuit and short trips and for people who only fly a bit each year. They are cheap to rebuild though even if they only last a couple hundred hours so they have their place I suppose.

I'd take EFI over a carb any day. We have tens of thousands of flight hours on our units on hundreds of aircraft and UAVs and they work very well and reliably.
 
Above all though...I don't get the bad customer service part. You need to be stirling in this already tough segment...

I've read Tracy Crook's rotary book, along with the Corvair book (for fun)...great people to deal with, and online reports bear that out.

It is doubtful if Corvairs or VWs last very long in aircraft. Show me one that has 1000 flight hours on it without an overhaul or failure. They just don't have the cooling fin area to jam out high hp for extended periods IMO and I've worked on both. They might be fine for small aircraft flying around the circuit and short trips and for people who only fly a bit each year. They are cheap to rebuild though even if they only last a couple hundred hours so they have their place I suppose.

I think the AeroVee (VW based, by Sonex) does pretty well? Recommended overhaul is between 700 and 1200 hours, but its cheap. Not sure though -- stopped digging deep when I came back to RV land and sold my Sonex plans. I did worry about the thrust bearing. (I recollect someone makes a plane-worthy thrust bearing for the Corvair though.)

Also seems like there are a lot of rotary engines out there, and for some time now -- they just don't talk about it much, and just do their thing. (And IMO you need to be somewhat of a gearhead to approach these...but I think they thus draw the right crowd to be building them in the first place, given you don't walk up to a vendor and get the full package.) If nothing else, I enjoy driving one. :p

In any case...I'm set on Lycoming for now. But I do find the alt. engines very interesting... I just don't want to work on the development in the context of getting my plane flying. (Might be a fun separate hobby though.)
 
Last edited:
I think the AeroVee (VW based, by Sonex) does pretty well? Recommended overhaul is between 700 and 1200 hours, but its cheap.

Hmmm, recommended TBOs don't mean much to me as people can pull any number out of a hat. I wonder how long the typical one goes in the real world? I'm on many of the alt engine forums and it doesn't sound like many accumulate anywhere close to these hours before something goes wrong or that most of the aircraft they are attached to ever even get flown that much.

Anyone have some real data on high time VWs that have never been apart?

I often see published TBOs for auto conversions before they have even flown, let alone finished several hundred hours and a teardown to establish a realistic TBO period. More Koolaid.

Yes, the good thing about auto engines is they are cheap to overhaul so even if they only go 300-400 hours, the overhaul costs per flight hour are still low.

How long the Viking will go and more specifically the gearbox is pure conjecture at this point.
 
It is doubtful if Corvairs or VWs last very long in aircraft. Show me one that has 1000 flight hours on it without an overhaul or failure.

Well you are entirely correct. Corvair and VW engines are popular auto conversions because they share some significant similarities with Lycomings...but of course in the final analysis they are NOT Lycomings.

The track record with auto conversions is just abysmal. But newbies keep getting suckered in by the seemingly cheap price of entry.
 
.....(Might be a fun separate hobby though.)

It is fun - for a while - as long as you don't fly it very often. :)

But as a regular thing there comes a point when the feeling of impending disaster with every take off gets tiresome. Like are the failures ever going to end?

The passing of Bud Warren and his daughter was a very sad event in this world.
 
It is fun - for a while - as long as you don't fly it very often. :)

But as a regular thing there comes a point when the feeling of impending disaster with every take off gets tiresome. Like are the failures ever going to end?

Yeah.... I just meant as ground hobby, to work on engine ideas. But NOT with the pressure/goal to use it on the aircraft you are waiting to fly. As a separate project entirely, I think one could do a lot more testing and design...and no big deal (other than money) if it just doesn't work out.

I still like the rotary engines...but if I stay interested in the concept, I'll tinker with that once I have a traditional flying plane.
 
It is doubtful if Corvairs or VWs last very long in aircraft. Show me one that has 1000 flight hours on it without an overhaul or failure. They just don't have the cooling fin area to jam out high hp for extended periods IMO and I've worked on both. They might be fine for small aircraft flying around the circuit and short trips and for people who only fly a bit each year. They are cheap to rebuild though even if they only last a couple hundred hours so they have their place I suppose.

I'd take EFI over a carb any day. We have tens of thousands of flight hours on our units on hundreds of aircraft and UAVs and they work very well and reliably.

Burt Rutan found the VW conversion not to be feasible back in early Vari EZ development. I believe they said anything over 60hp with the VW is not a practical powerplant. Early Quickie and Q2 pilots could attest. Below 60hp are actively being tested and used in the Ultralight world.

FWIW The "alternative engine" issues are mirrored in the canard world as well. There are a few people who spend lots of time working on the FWF while flying with Mazda and Subs but it is not an overall successful project on that platform (canards). At least two builders recently have removed the Sub and installed a Lycoming. Sounds like spport could be an issues.

IMHO I think the $$$ is the main attraction, not the technology.

Ryan
 
Burt Rutan found the VW conversion not to be feasible back in early Vari EZ development. I believe they said anything over 60hp with the VW is not a practical powerplant. Early Quickie and Q2 pilots could attest. Below 60hp are actively being tested and used in the Ultralight world.

FWIW The "alternative engine" issues are mirrored in the canard world as well. There are a few people who spend lots of time working on the FWF while flying with Mazda and Subs but it is not an overall successful project on that platform (canards). At least two builders recently have removed the Sub and installed a Lycoming. Sounds like spport could be an issues.

IMHO I think the $$$ is the main attraction, not the technology.

Ryan

Hey Ryan, you live so close to RV mecca, go for it.

The MKIV is a neat airplane but quite limited in what it can do compared to an RV. The RV build is much quicker, even the so-called slow build route is a quick build by comparison.

I built and flew the MKIV back when Nat Puffer was on the scene. His absence has left a void in that world. The MKIV was a fun to fly and always attracted attention where ever you went, but it was more a novelty than a useful machine, it did not like anything less than 3000' of hard surface. On a hot day, the take off roll was akin to heavy bomber take off. Also, there was a chronic need to add or remove ballast from the nose depending on front seat load. CG is critical with that machine.

I sold the airplane to a friend, he is still flying it. But he also owns and flies a Cub just to keep a foot in that world. I will be flying with him in the Cub to get reacquainted with a tail dragger before blasting off in the -8.

You must know Al Wick - is he finally ditching the Subby effort?
 
Al Wick is still firmly in the Subaru world. He is fitting a turbocharged 6 cylinder EZ30 with Vipec ECUs to his Cozy now. He had good success with an atmo EJ25 in it before although this no doubt will prove more challenging.

Will be interesting to see how it works out.
 
Back
Top