What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 with Honda/Viking Engine Flown

Status
Not open for further replies.

DonFromTX

Well Known Member
This past week provided a significant step forward for those considering the Viking engine. The first RV12 so powered flew to the delight of the owner. It provided him with a faster (131mph in the pattern without even trying), smoother, quieter, more modern engine, and at half the cost of the Rotax powered version.
 
This past week provided a significant step forward for those considering the Viking engine. The first RV12 so powered flew to the delight of the owner. It provided him with a faster (131mph in the pattern without even trying), smoother, quieter, more modern engine, and at half the cost of the Rotax powered version.

This is great news, especially for those who are dedicated to the Experimental Amateur Built category. The Viking engine brings some competition in the light sport area where Rotax is king world wide (not without reasons, though). The Viking engine initiative also shows that it is possible to use high tech engines derived from the car industry at an affordable cost. Unfortunately, for those who hold the E-LSA rating dear, the only hope would be that VANs decide to certify the Viking engine for the RV-12: this will not happen. It will not happen because the Viking engine is built from used components. For the same reason it is not quite fair to compare the price of the two engines, unless you compare the Viking with the price of an overhauled Rotax. My hope is that, after a successful launch, the Viking folks consider building the engine from new components. If it's still competitive, that could be a game changer, even with its single ignition.
 
I don't know who flew the airplane first, Jan Eggenfellner or Ron King, but they each flew it successfully.

It's always good to see another experimental take to flight for the first time.

Congrats to Ron King for the achievement. It is a good looking airplane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I notice you use the word "used" as if it were nasty. Remember every flying aircraft, including the RV12 is doing so on a "used" engine, every Formula F race won, is won with a "used" Honda engine. Personally with such a long life engine as the Viking, I would choose the "used" engine block with a couple thousand miles before the body was totaled out by an insurance company, over a brand new one at the same price. I think that Vans would not resell the engine, used components or not, for several other reasons..
The cost of a new block from Honda is very reasonable, I bet if it were important to you, Viking would make you one with a new block.
 
Jan flew it first, then gave Ron some pointers and turned him loose in it. It is Ron Russ, not Ron King.
Notice the short run and lift off with Ron flying, and NO FLAPS either. He said it sort of got airborne before he was ready for it to do that.

Here's a link to a couple short videos and some images of the airplane.

I don't know who flew the airplane first, Jan Eggenfellner or Ron King, but they each flew it successfully.

It's always good to see another experimental take to flight for the first time.

Congrats to Ron King for the achievement. It is a good looking airplane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LSA Restrictions?

Since one of the requirements to fly as a sport pilot is that you are in an aircraft with several restrictions, one of which is speed. The speed "limit" is 120 kts at the manufacturer's recommended maximum RPM at sea level. If you go amateur built and put a Corvair/Honda/VW or whatever car engine on it, who is the manufacturer and if not the engine designer, who decides that maximum? And what is it based on? Just like you can't put any old wing on there (stall speed restriction) how can you register such an aircraft as LSA?

I know Van's certified their SLSA (RV12) to the guidelines, I'm not enough of an engineer to know how you do it with an alternative engine.
 
how can you register such an aircraft as LSA?

I know Van's certified their SLSA (RV12) to the guidelines, I'm not enough of an engineer to know how you do it with an alternative engine.

This aircraft could not be registered as LSA. I would be registered as experimental amateur-built.
If challenged by FAA, insurance company, or anyone else, it would be up to you to prove compliance with light-sport parameters.

It's like my tax Lady always says, "If you think you can convince a judge, go right ahead."
 
Easy answer, just like thousands of other Experimental aircraft. They are not registered as an LSA, only as an EAB that happens to meet the LSA requirements. The engine manufacturer simply limits the max cont rpm to fall into LSA limits. Jabiru had to do this to their 3300, you can buy one with a low max cont rpm data plate, or an identical engine with a different data plate with a higher rated rpm.
Perfectly legal for the owner then to run the engine past the stated max cont rpm. If it goes too fast, Viking can then set lower rpm limits.
The ELSA RV12 apparently comes in quite a bit under the LSA figures according to Vans web site, so there is wiggle room for better than stock performance.
 
Last edited:
I like it! I prefer to go E-AB when I am ready to build as I want to lay out my own panel and use the alternate fuel tank seen on another VAF post. There should be a few more Vikings flying by the time I get to that point.
 
Congratulations to Ron! I hope this powerplant proves viable. It would be great if Ron would publish test flight reports - I'm sure there are a lot of interested people.
 
Since one of the requirements to fly as a sport pilot is that you are in an aircraft with several restrictions, one of which is speed. The speed "limit" is 120 kts at the manufacturer's recommended maximum RPM at sea level. If you go amateur built and put a Corvair/Honda/VW or whatever car engine on it, who is the manufacturer and if not the engine designer, who decides that maximum? And what is it based on? Just like you can't put any old wing on there (stall speed restriction) how can you register such an aircraft as LSA?

I know Van's certified their SLSA (RV12) to the guidelines, I'm not enough of an engineer to know how you do it with an alternative engine.

You are on the right track. The speed restriction is for 120 Kts. at sea level in level flight at maximum certified continuous power, there is a Cub look a like that uses the Lyc. 180 HP engine restricting the 180 HP to five minutes and then restricting Maximum Continuous Power to 80 HP and they seem to be getting away with it so far.

They did an interesting move when the FAA wrote the Light Sport Rules they said words to the effect that we could use any aircraft that fit the rules no mater how it was certified, so aircraft like J-3 Cubs and Luscombe 8-A's are legal to fly as Light Sport Aircraft by a Pilot flying on the privileges of a Light Sport Pilot; such as a older ATP rated pilot who no longer maintains his/her medical. The same is true for Experimental Home Built Aircraft, which is to say if the aircraft has always been compliant with the requirement of the Light Sport Aircraft Rules, in this case a RV-12 built as an EAB so that it could have an alternate engine like the Viking, so long as the aircraft stays within the LSA rules for aircraft it can be flown by a Light Sport Pilot. Should it ever fail to meet the requirements then it is just another fine home built and you must be a Student Pilot with a Medical or better to fly it. In the recent post on the Viking powered RV-12 touting a speed of 131 Kts in the airport pattern, if this were at the established Maximum Continuous Power Limit then the aircraft would no longer qualify for a Light Sport Pilot to fly it legally. I assume in this case they had a higher power setting and they will not receive a call from the FSDO anytime soon.

For an EAB aircraft the builder sets all of the operating limitations for the particular aircraft and they are accepted by the FAA inspector or DAR, who may be more restrictive if the inspector feels that the proposed limitations are not safe or reasonable. If you built a nice RV-8 which Van's recommends a Maximum Gross Weight of 1850 pounds and you ask the inspector to list the Maximum Gross Weight as 2500 pounds the inspector would likely say no or ask you to show some engineering documentation that the change from the Kit Manufactures recommendation was sound and reasonable. In the case of the RV-12 with the Viking Engine the builder could set the Maximum Continuous Power limit at any number of HP that would allow the aircraft to qualify as a Light Sport Compliant Aircraft, perhaps a limit of around 80 HP would serve the requirement. You can still use more power for Take Off or an En-route Climb as the restriction is normally set for 5 minutes at a higher power level.

For what it is worth Boeing will sell you a modification for aircraft like the B-767 that changes the Take-Off power limit from five minutes to 10 minutes as there are some commercial airports in values that you need full power for more than five minutes to clear all the mountains or you have to lower the Gross Take-Off Weight considerably for that airport to comply with the certification performance requirements for large aircraft.

The only kit aircraft that can be registered as Light Sport Aircraft are ELSA compliant kits such as the RV-12 and I have heard that the Rans 19 can be offered as an ELSA kit, but it is generally not. There may be a few others and as you know the manufacture must build a SLSA compliant aircraft and then all ELSA kits must be identical copies of the SLSA aircraft, this is a significant restriction for a kit builder to comply with and we can all be very proud of the way Van's has fully complied with both the letter and the spirit of the regulations in this area.

Best regards,
Vern
 
The Viking has redundent electronic ignition systems and two fuel pump/filtration inlets all fused seperately. Single spark plugs per cylinder with seperate coils. A flick of a switch and you are on the redundent system. Also fuel injection.


If it's still competitive, that could be a game changer, even with its single ignition.
 
Since one of the requirements to fly as a sport pilot is that you are in an aircraft with several restrictions, one of which is speed. The speed "limit" is 120 kts at the manufacturer's recommended maximum RPM at sea level.

The actual requirement is 120 kts at max. continuous power. Power is derived from RPM and manifold pressure. So, you technically can't just set a propeller pitch to limit sea level speed with flight at say, half throttle to stay below 120 kts, and be in compliance.

The ELSA RV12 apparently comes in quite a bit under the LSA figures according to Vans web site, so there is wiggle room for better than stock performance.

This statement is not true.
If you use maximum continuous power at sea level (as described above) as the baseline with a fixed pitch propeller (as required by LSA), you will not be able to attain that same speed at all altitudes.
Also keep in mind that the specified speed #'s on Van's site were without wheel pants and the nose leg fairing and at gross weight at 7500 ft.
 
rvbuilder2002;Also keep in mind that the specified speed #'s on Van's site were without wheel pants and the nose leg fairing and at [U said:
gross weight[/U] at 7500 ft.
Which means we builders don't even know if it is legal with pants and fairings. Can you divulge the actual tested speed at sea level at max cont power? Seems like something that should be available to us as builders rather than some 7500 foot figure that has nothing to do with ELSA.
 
The actual requirement is 120 kts at max. continuous power. Power is derived from RPM and manifold pressure. So, you technically can't just set a propeller pitch to limit sea level speed with flight at say, half throttle to stay below 120 kts, and be in compliance.

The interpretation you present is not consistent with the Carbon Cub kit. From their web site -

"The builder is legal to fly the Carbon Cub EX as a "Light Sport" pilot as long as the kit is certified at a maximum weight of 1,320 lbs. Our kit was tested to ASTM standards at a gross weight of 1,865 lbs. If you decide to set the gross weight at 1,865 lbs, you will not be allowed to fly as a "Light Sport" pilot; and you will need a medical and a private pilots license."

This airplane, which I saw at OSH, had a placard on the instrument panel limiting power to 80 HP in order to comply with LSA max speed rules. It is powered by a Lycoming 180 HP engine and is restricted to 5 minutes at take off power. After 5 minutes, it has rpm restrictions to meet the letter of the rule on speed. I do not believe the LSA rules preclude what Carbon Cub is doing to meet max speed rules or they would not be doing it.

If this air plane is approved by the FAA for LSA, the precedent has been set. Pulling the power back with any engine, as per a placard limiting HP, is one way to meet the max speed requirments.
 
And if you "forget" to pull back on the throttle for the whole trip, you have not violated even one bit the LSA rules:).
My question there is since the engine MANUFACTURER has not made this restriction in power, is it in fact OK for LSA requirements? For the 170 mph Sonex with 3300 Jabiru, it is not Sonex that is making the limit, it is Jabiru. Rumor has it that as engine maker, John Monnet is going to put a different plate on the AeroVee for the OneX just to keep it legal. The Viking may have to have a limit plate as well, easy to do if you are making the engine.
 
Lets see, how can I get around the regs this time??

there is a Cub look a like that uses the Lyc. 180 HP engine restricting the 180 HP to five minutes and then restricting Maximum Continuous Power to 80 HP and they seem to be getting away with it so far.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of the RV-12 with the Viking Engine the builder could set the Maximum Continuous Power limit at any number of HP that would allow the aircraft to qualify as a Light Sport Compliant Aircraft, perhaps a limit of around 80 HP would serve the requirement. You can still use more power for Take Off or an En-route Climb as the restriction is normally set for 5 minutes at a higher power level.

"The builder is legal to fly the Carbon Cub EX as a "Light Sport" pilot as long as the kit is certified at a maximum weight of 1,320 lbs. Our kit was tested to ASTM standards at a gross weight of 1,865 lbs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This airplane, which I saw at OSH, had a placard on the instrument panel limiting power to 80 HP in order to comply with LSA max speed rules. It is powered by a Lycoming 180 HP engine and is restricted to 5 minutes at take off power. After 5 minutes, ] it has rpm restrictions to meet the letter of the rule on speed.

If this air plane is approved by the FAA for LSA, the precedent has been set. Pulling the power back with any engine, as per a placard limiting HP, is one way to meet the max speed requirements.

And if you "forget" to pull back on the throttle for the whole trip, you have not violated even one bit the LSA rules:).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rumor has it that as engine maker, John Monnet is going to put a different plate on the AeroVee for the OneX just to keep it legal. The Viking may have to have a limit plate as well, easy to do if you are making the engine.

And folks wonder why the Experimental crowd is not looked on favorably in a lot of aviation circles, and why the FAA has been breathing down our necks.

If there was this much thought and effort put into trying to COMPLY with the intent of the regs, instead of figuring out how to exploit a loophole to get away with something clearly not part of the intent, then we might be able to stop looking over our shoulders quite as much.
 
It should not be up to us to determine the "intent", not sure where you found the "intent" of the rules, not in anything I have found.
They COULD have simply said no faster than 120knots anytime, anywhere, if you are a sport pilot, but they did not. To the best of my knowledge the "intent" was to stimulate the aircraft industry and the number of pilots.
 
Last edited:
Caution!

I'd sooner fly my 6 to the moon than buy a firewall forward package from Jan Eggenfellner.

This new venture looks a lot like the old one... Pretty anodized pieces on an engine worth "about $500-1,000" - as before he changes the exhaust and intake but still uses the factory dyno charts - no dyno testing!

Compare this "Viking Aircraft Engines" chart:
FitTorque&Hp.jpg


To this Honda Fit chart:
09fit_pt_3.jpg


I really doubt these highly tuned engines make factory power levels without a tuned intake and exhaust.

Those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Eggenfellner's prior firewall forward venture, search VAF or go here and click on "engine."

My intent is not to bash, I think alternative engines are great.

However, I do think that Mr. Eggenfellner has a history of selling untested packages that don't make the stated power. He also doesn't seem to ever dyno his packages; as demonstrated above, he relies on the auto manufacturer HP curves.

I recommend lots of caution and due diligence when seeking an alternative engine installation.

More than a handful of builders, some here on VAF, have ended up spending more time and money on the alternative engine only to end up switching back the "standard" engine in the end.


Hans
 
The interpretation you present is not consistent with the Carbon Cub kit. From their web site -

"The builder is legal to fly the Carbon Cub EX as a "Light Sport" pilot as long as the kit is certified at a maximum weight of 1,320 lbs. Our kit was tested to ASTM standards at a gross weight of 1,865 lbs. If you decide to set the gross weight at 1,865 lbs, you will not be allowed to fly as a "Light Sport" pilot; and you will need a medical and a private pilots license."

This airplane, which I saw at OSH, had a placard on the instrument panel limiting power to 80 HP in order to comply with LSA max speed rules. It is powered by a Lycoming 180 HP engine and is restricted to 5 minutes at take off power. After 5 minutes, it has rpm restrictions to meet the letter of the rule on speed. I do not believe the LSA rules preclude what Carbon Cub is doing to meet max speed rules or they would not be doing it.

If this air plane is approved by the FAA for LSA, the precedent has been set. Pulling the power back with any engine, as per a placard limiting HP, is one way to meet the max speed requirments.

My opinion is that they are pushing the limit of the rule. This shouldn't be an issue decided by a bunch of lawyers arguing over what the words say, instead of what they mean.

Part of the issue is that in the reg's, in one place it states maximum power, and in another it states max. RPM. So which is right? Is it correct to pick the one you like best?
 
And if you "forget" to pull back on the throttle for the whole trip, you have not violated even one bit the LSA rules:).


I have seen you post this numerous times before Don, and I believe it is totally wrong.

I don't know where you got this idea, but I would like to see the portion of the rules that make you think this way.

If you mean to imply that since the airplane has met the letter of the law and has a data plate and placards that list an engine RPM limit for continuous operation, but there is know legal requirement for any pilot to abide by those limitations, that he can legally run the engine at higher power. I understand the logic because after all, the pilot knows that the engine is the exact same one that doesn't have the lower RPM limitation (wink, wink), so there is no problem running it faster. My opinion is that this thinking is totally stretching the rules.

I guess you, like many other people still don't get it... the way the FAA deals with non compliance of rules, is to make more rules.
I feel that playing games with this type of thing, in the long run will hurt everybody.

We dodged a bullet when the new E-AB rules were being drafted (precipitated because of too many people stretching the rules), why should we think that a review of the LSA rules wont be next?
 
Let's be careful with this thread

This is the third thread on this subject, the first two ended badly.

It might be a good time to reread the forum rules concerning civility. Expression of opinions is fine if done in a civil manner. We don't need a thread that in any way resembles the warfare we have seen in the past few days on another site that ended up reflecting very badly on that forum's residents.
 
Last edited:
I have to say one thing and that is every time the Viking chat comes up for a 12 it becomes very controversial. My two cents are interpreting rules to increase advantage over that intended can lead to restrictive changes. A good example is all the talk in D.C. about ridding the tax rules of the exceptions that have rendered the tax system unfair to many. The FAA moves like molasses in January, but they will move eventually if they feel the LSA rules are being stretched too far, and that would be unpleasent for all of us.
Dick Seiders
 
You should know by now I love playing devils advocate Scott, and am simply exploring how people are stretching the rules.. I have never encouraged or suggested I would do or even want to do these things, but we must I believe understand what is really going on. The 180hp cub and the LSA RV9a's that are selling, are as far out as it can get I think, and I agree we are asking for some "interpretation" of the rules soon with this going on. As I have said numerous times, what I want is a legal LSA that goes 119.99 knots under the letter of the law.
On the other hand, those that believe that if you get over 120 knots during let down for landing you busted a rule are a ways off from the intent as well.

.
I have seen you post this numerous times before Don, and I believe it is totally wrong.

I don't know where you got this idea, but I would like to see the portion of the rules that make you think this way.

If you mean to imply that since the airplane has met the letter of the law and has a data plate and placards that list an engine RPM limit for continuous operation, but there is know legal requirement for any pilot to abide by those limitations, that he can legally run the engine at higher power. I understand the logic because after all, the pilot knows that the engine is the exact same one that doesn't have the lower RPM limitation (wink, wink), so there is no problem running it faster. My opinion is that this thinking is totally stretching the rules.

I guess you, like many other people still don't get it... the way the FAA deals with non compliance of rules, is to make more rules.
I feel that playing games with this type of thing, in the long run will hurt everybody.

We dodged a bullet when the new E-AB rules were being drafted (precipitated because of too many people stretching the rules), why should we think that a review of the LSA rules wont be next?
 
No aircraft are registered as LSA. An aircraft can meet the LSA requirements as defined by the FAA no matter how it has been registered, whether it be Type Certificated or E-AB or E-LSA or S-LSA.
I do not think that the FAA approves an airplane as meeting the LSA definition. It is up to the pilot who is flying under Sport Pilot rules to prove that her airplane meets the LSA definition.
Like Mel said,
it would be up to you to prove compliance with light-sport parameters.
A sport pilot who bends the rules might get away with it for a long time. But if the FAA ever investigates him for some other infraction, they might check the radar tapes and notice how fast he was going. Or they might weigh the plane and discover that it was being operated over the 1320 pound weight limit. When dealing with the FAA, a pilot is NOT innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the pilot is guilty as charged unless he can prove otherwise.
The Viking engine might not give the RV-12 better performance than the Rotax; and bending the rules will not be an issue. Testing will tell. I hope that the Viking Engine turns out to be successful in the RV-12 and other aircraft.
Joe Gores
 
The New 233 Lycoming Lite Weight will be the ticket for LSA and even the RV9's in the very near future... FI & EI sipping 3.5-4 GPH in cruise.
 
I agree with you Joe. I too hope that the Viking is successful. The fact is, it has a long road ahead of it. To buy a fwf that is largely untested? Good Luck, I do sincerely hope it works for you all. I will keep the 912, it is an awesome engine. The more I use it, the more I like it.
 
The New 233 Lycoming Lite Weight will be the ticket for LSA and even the RV9's in the very near future... FI & EI sipping 3.5-4 GPH in cruise.

That's a lightweight 0-235 with a few bells and whistles. The O-235 in my old Tomahawk averaged between 6 and 7 GPH. I'm sure you could do better if you throttled back to 50%, and EI and FI may help a little, but it would take game changing improvements to take that basic engine to <4 GPH at anything approaching 75% power.
 
No aircraft are registered as LSA. An aircraft can meet the LSA requirements as defined by the FAA no matter how it has been registered, whether it be Type Certificated or E-AB or E-LSA or S-LSA.
I do not think that the FAA approves an airplane as meeting the LSA definition. It is up to the pilot who is flying under Sport Pilot rules to prove that her airplane meets the LSA definition.
Like Mel said,
A sport pilot who bends the rules might get away with it for a long time. But if the FAA ever investigates him for some other infraction, they might check the radar tapes and notice how fast he was going. Or they might weigh the plane and discover that it was being operated over the 1320 pound weight limit. When dealing with the FAA, a pilot is NOT innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the pilot is guilty as charged unless he can prove otherwise.
The Viking engine might not give the RV-12 better performance than the Rotax; and bending the rules will not be an issue. Testing will tell. I hope that the Viking Engine turns out to be successful in the RV-12 and other aircraft.
Joe Gores

Or even worse! Your insurance company. Invalid liability insurance can be more painful than a revoked pilot's license.

Pete
 
Jan Eggenfellner's base tenet of providing a LSA engine at a reasonable cost is valid.

(The Rotax is expensive because it is certified, well maybe not for the RV-12, but it has that kind of background in other applications and cost is reflected with the RV-12.)

Whether or not Viking can do that at some $13,000 is the question. He has a lot of experience pulling an engine together, hanging it to an airplane and flying it. And for sure he learned a few things with the Subaru adventure. But as we all know, there is no staff of dozens of engineers reviewing the effort.

One thing he learned with the Subby effort is not to respond to every request for more HP. Another is to insist on installation standards he has developed. The Subby effort jumped the tracks when the original H4 (used engine) was abandoned for the STI and H6. Neither worked out very well. The first effort with the H4 was on the right track and with fine tuning could have been much more successful.

The Viking effort takes that experience into account. It is KISS from the git-go with a fixed pitch prop and there is an effort to keep installation deviations to a minimum. It seems the Viking is doing well with many hours of flight in the Zenith 601 and no crashes. :) Perhaps the deep science Honda has behind the engine will meet the bill.

I hope the effort succeeds. Rotax, Continental, Lycoming and other LSA engine manufacturers are what they are with their overhead and cost structure. Perhaps Viking can compete on a smaller scale and come up with a viable engine. Only time and customer success or failure will determine how it all works out.

Same can be said for any new engine. If you feel adventurous, go for it. If you don't feel adventurous, don't do it. There's something here for everyone. :)
 
..the way the FAA deals with non compliance of rules, is to make more rules. I feel that playing games with this type of thing, in the long run will hurt everybody.

Yep.

A little history. Once upon a time not so long ago, we had the freedom to fly inexpensive two-seat "ultralight trainers". They outsold single-place ultralights 5 to 1. Everybody, including the FAA, knew there wasn't that much training going on, but as long as things remained sensible all was well.

Then came Sun 'n Fun 2000. A small number of Titan Tornado pilots decided to enter the S&F air race with their ultralight trainers. The spit hit the fan when they came across the finish line running well above anybody's idea of ultralight trainer speeds.

Despite the FAA's long-standing policy of not doing mass inspections at airshows, they immediately organized an invasion of Paradise City. Quite a few airplanes were grounded.

Not long after, we first heard about proposed new rules for something called Light Sport. It was sold to us as a driver's license medical, so the entire aviation community bought in.

As it turned out, owners of heavy ultralights (as they became known) were given a grace period to register them. After the grace period, they were scrap. The ones who registered did so with a future deadline after which they could not be used for training. Suddenly you had to attend an expensive school before you could maintain your own aircraft. Inexpensive trainers were gone. And that driver's license medical? At the last minute we were informed that if you had failed a previous flight physical, you couldn't fly LSA.

Did you attend S&F or OSH this year? Did you walk over to Paradise City or down to The Farm? At one time both places were vibrant centers of activity. Now they're dead as canned tuna.

The ultralight community did it to themselves. Do you really want to go another round?
 
A couple posts and a few quotes mentioned a Lycoming 180 hp Cub.

FYI, the Carbon Cub uses a Lycoming clone that's been significantly modified to be lighter than an actual Lycoming. It's not a Lycoming and the aircraft and engine manufacturer (they're the same) have set different limits for it:

http://www.cubcrafters.com/carboncubss/engine

Not trying to be picky, just hope that y'all don't inadvertently come to a conclusion based on a mistaken bit of information.

Dave
 
Dan H. came close to the point I've been thinking while browsing this thread. The root cause of adventuring ways around the LSA limits is the insanity of the medical rules. Class III is utterly unhinged from any safety rationale, and the lurch to LSA drivers-license flying is driven by the threat of losing your medical/grounded vs. don't tell/don't ask LSA. Whether you auger in at 120 knots or 170 will not interest the coroner.

"Stupid is as stupid does" applies to government, too.

John Siebold
 
I never fail to become amused at the responses a thread such as this produces. We have learned from the thread that because of redesigned exhaust (which is cast into the head and cannot even be changed) and a batch of lies, the engine does not even produce enough power to be practical or fly (one should take a look at Ron on his first video takeoff to change their idea of that), as well as great fear that it is so powerful we will all lose our LSA classification because of the speed! We also learn that since the Subaru would not fly, therefore neither will the Honda, apparently not realiizing there are hundreds of hours of flying with no failures whatever on the prototype Viking and several production units. Thread drift allows us to compare Carbon Cubs with Lycomings and Sonex as well. Our moderators seem to ignore personal attacks as justified opinions. What is it that brings this all out? Shrinks should have a field day with that.
 
I never fail to become amused at the responses a thread such as this produces.

I don't entirely disagree with your observation and I suppose I really ought to stay out of this, but I would like to respectfully suggest that perhaps it would have not gotten contentious if bait hadn't been thrown in the water with the very first post:

"This past week provided a significant step forward for those considering the Viking engine. The first RV12 so powered flew to the delight of the owner. It provided him with a faster (131mph in the pattern without even trying), smoother, quieter, more modern engine, and at half the cost of the Rotax powered version."

I think the emphasized sentence wasn't really necessary to pass along the good news. True or not, it appeared to me to be at best a premature victory lap, at worst a deliberate provocation, although I'm sure that it was intended to be nothing more than an exhibition of enthusiasm over a potentially great improvement in opportunities for other RV-12 builders.

In the absence of a past history of this very topic having blown up before, I imagine that sentence would have been totally innocuous. That history is there, though, as we all know, so my opinion is that a little more attention could be paid to the way things may be perceived on this topic, no matter the intention.

Perhaps the next Rotax-powered RV-12 first flight will point out that "it provided him with a reasonable pattern speed of 100 mph, a cruise speed that easily met Van's published numbers, potentially better resale value, an international factory support network, and decades of proven reliability with over 40,000 engines flying today."

I think that example would also be needlessly inflammatory given the history of this topic, well intended or not.

I've said this before: I fail to understand why the qualities of any given engine can't be described without maligning another. I think it's terrific that there is a potentially viable alternative engine for the RV-12 and that it is truly good news that there is now a flying test bed for the specific installation, but I don't see anything positive coming from using it to try to talk down the Rotax.
 
Last edited:
I think you may have a valid point there Dave, I was in a reporting mode and was simply reporting Ron's impressions, and did not intend to flame the Rotax people. Perhaps if I had left out the highlighted remarks and let those that wanted to know more ask questions, it would have been better presented. I am learning I guess.
Maybe I should have put in front of the highlighted text the words: "HE FELT - - "
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'll bite.

Jan,

1. Does the Viking use the stock Honda intake tract?
2. Does the Viking use the stock Honda Exhaust system?
3. Are the power/torque charts on the Viking website actually from the Honda auto engine?
4. Has the Viking engine been dyno tested?

Thanks for your response.
 
There is a site that has thrust test measurements of the Viking.

<much snipped>

Jan

Jan, I hate to say this, because I appreciate the work you are doing to develop alternatives. But thrust figures are not a good metric. Thrust figures do not necessarily translate to flight performance because it is possible to "cook the books" by bolting on a prop which generates huge amounts of static thrust, but doesn't fit the performance envelope of the aircraft to which it is attached.

In a similar airframe, the relevant metrics would seem to be installed weight, climb rate, top speed, fuel burn, and reliability. I'd love to see SBS testing of a Viking RV-12 vs a Rotax RV-12 and eventually vs a Jabiru RV-12. Obviously, your product comes out ahead on the cost front, the question is whether it is better, equivalent, or worse in the other areas.
 
I'm gonna try to be blunt without crossing the site rules.

Several years back I spent upwards of 23 grand for a Superior XP-360. Before I plunked down a small fortune for what looked like an overgrown V-dub engine, I had lots of questions for the folks getting my money. Only when I was satisfied with the answers did I give a small deposit. Furthermore, I did not hand over the balance until I had the engine in my hands. That engine now has hundreds of trouble free hours and has just carried a 17 year-old pilot 12000 miles around the US without a hitch.

Fast forward to my current LSA project and my serious consideration of the Viking engine. I'm asked to fork over the bulk of the price up front and my questions are mostly met with accusations of being a "nit-picker" and not supporting general/experimental aviation. I hope D.R. will pardon my French, but this is total B.S.

I'm going to interpret the lack of direct response to my question about the charts to mean that they were simply lifted from Honda literature. Similarly, I'll assume there has been no Dyno test of the actual Viking engine. Regarding the thrust test, I AM concerned about weather, prop, scale, and any other sources of measurement error that might have occurred. It might seem like nitpicking, but that's how I am with my money and my hide. Should I trust that the gear drive and other systems were thoroughly engineered/tested, but that a simple fish scale pull test is all that could be provided for the complete engine?

I can't speak for others, but these are some of the thoughts that keep me from throwing a ticker tape parade for the first -12 flight report.
 
The REAL point!

I am a witness to the previous gearbox failures/fixes etc with the Subie engine and Jan's gearboxes.

I've watched this thread and any questions as to TV issues are deflected. For you newbies..TV, or Torsional Vibrations..are responsible for the demise of many geared engines over the years, since WWII, if not tested and designed correctly. It has to do with the power pulses of the engine, pulsing the mating teeth of the gearbox, possibly causing the gear reduction drive to self-destruct.

The Honda engine's reliability is a given...no problem.

It seems to always be the ancillary or "other" system" problems..like water cooling, for example, on the original Subie installations on RV-6's and -7's that were only solved by massive enlargements of the RV's intake air on the cowls. I flew with several Subie guys and always saw 230-240 deg. water temps, so they flew a shallow climb to keep the airspeed up and the temps halfway reasonable...and a few more who spent big bucks going back to Lycs.

Then the gearbox issues started, which you -12 guys never heard about. Now we have another new engine and gearbox and can't find out who, if anybody, did the TV testing/evaluation and only a money-saving carrot causes you guys to go for it.

I sincerely hope that none of you have to park your airplane someplace other than an airport if your gearbox self-destructs, as an RV-8 owner near Atlanta did.

To Jan: I sincerely admire all your efforts to present a viable alternative to the expensive Rotax and your many hours on the project. Kindly enlighten me/us, as to what testing/evaluation was done concerning TV issues with the new Honda/Viking system gearbox.

If it has all been done and found acceptable, I offer a sincere apology!

Best,
 
For my part I don't understand expending so much energy over all the back and forth of who claims this or says that on this particular engine issue. Why not just sit back and see what happens over time? The results will be there for all to see.
Dick Seiders
 
Why not just sit back and see what happens over time? The results will be there for all to see.
Dick Seiders

Dick,

May I very respectfully disagree? Why? Because this is not just a dollars and cents issue but very definitely is related to safety. To "wait and see" how many suffer "off airport landings" or worse is not OK in my book. These kinds of issues should be thoroughly put in the sunshine before anyone goes off willy-nilly on a very new product.

As many have repeatedly stated, no problem with the Honda engine, even a used one. I currently have a Honda airport car that has 175K miles and I never worry a bit about the engine. When they go in an airplane it's the other systems, the prop, redrive, cooling, electronics that bring the grief.

I also think it would behoove Jan to put out all the metrics that folks request, as it should not be hard to do. Otherwise he's heading into the same minefield as he did with the Subarus. To sluff it off as "nitpicking" is not what any business should do with questions asked in good faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top