What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Viking 180HP Engine

thoma015

Well Known Member
Now that Viking is selling a 180HP motor i wanted to see if anyone had any plans to hang this on their RV? Viking claims 180HP and 12.6 GPH at full bore with the ability to run on Auto Gas. With a price tag of 16k it definitely sounds like an interesting choice over a comparable IO-360 Series engine. Thoughts....
 
Last edited:

That does look interesting but it will be awhile before it makes it to the experimental market. However, the Viking engine is ready now. Im about to close up the wing and order my fuselage so its never to early to start thinking about what im going to hang on the front of my plane.

I know there are some RV-12s out there with a 130HP Viking. Id love to hear input from anyone whos thinking about the 180HP or any viking engines in general.
 
Now that Viking is selling a 180HP motor i wanted to see if anyone had any plans to hang this on their RV? Viking claims 180HP and 12.6 GPH at full bore with the ability to run on Auto Gas. With a price tag of 16k it definitely sounds like an interesting choice over a comparable IO-360 Series engine. Thoughts....

Well, here is my thought-------you now owe me $0.02;)

I suspect you are going to get a lot of negative feedback from folks here due to the prior Subaru based engines sold by Jan Eggenfellner, the guy who has now re-entered the market with this Viking brand Honda based setup.

I have no idea if the new stuff is any better or worse than his prior, but I am pretty sure a lot of folks out there were pretty soured by their experience with the Egg Subie. I suspect you may see some of that in any responses you get to your inquiry.

So---------take the information to come with a grain of salt, as they say.
 
Well, here is my thought-------you now owe me $0.02;)

I suspect you are going to get a lot of negative feedback from folks here due to the prior Subaru based engines sold by Jan Eggenfellner, the guy who has now re-entered the market with this Viking brand Honda based setup.

I have no idea if the new stuff is any better or worse than his prior, but I am pretty sure a lot of folks out there were pretty soured by their experience with the Egg Subie. I suspect you may see some of that in any responses you get to your inquiry.

So---------take the information to come with a grain of salt, as they say.

I have seen the other threads on the 110 and 130 that get closed due to the prior Subaru problems being brought up. Im not looking to start that again. Im truly looking for real world advice from previous Viking owners or thoughts from potential buyers for the new 180HP motor.
 
If that's still the 4 cyl Honda Fit engine (it appears that it is) with the addition of a turbo, note that the tightest Honda winds that engine seems to be the 150 HP outboard motor, which has unlimited high efficiency cooling. That engine's fuel consumption is listed on an independent web site as 13.4 GPH at wide open throttle. There's no free lunch. Compressor-boosted by 20% over Honda's max HP and maintaining a .4 BFSC at that level? Not happening.

I love the idea of alt engines (I'm installing an alt engine in my -7).
BUT....
If you are interested in doing an alternative engine, you need to have a clear head and access to a strong foundation in real world physics and engineering. As good as Honda engines are, pushing any engine 20% past the mfgrs max in similar duty cycle applications, and doing it with a turbo at sea level (and not as a normalizer) sounds like a recipe for disaster. If not instant, then long term.

And as always, it pays to take a long hard look at the history of any vendor offering aviation products.

On that turbine front, if those guys can do half what they are claiming, they will be incredibly rich. Anyone know if it's more than an artist's concept photoshop file in a stock IPO? And will that 50 HP engine sell for less than $100K?

Charlie
 
This is a 1.5L motor from the new Honda Accord, it is the same size at the previous 1.5L Fit motor. Honda rates it at 192HP. It comes from Honda with the turbo charger its not a viking turbo slapped onto the old motor so its been designed from the ground up with the turbo charger in mind.
 
Oh, my mistake. I went back and looked at the Honda site again. The highest HP outboard using the 1500cc Fit engine is 100 HP; not 150. I think that's the one Viking is rating at 130 HP.

The 150 HP outboard uses a 2354cc core 4cyl engine. (Not the 2000cc engine.)

Pretty much everything else I wrote still seems to apply, but more so, seeing that the Viking version is giving up 354cc & claiming an extra 30 HP, using boost at sea level.

Charlie
 
New engine

If this is your first RV build, I'd go with as close to what Van recommends as possible, and you will learn a ton. Then, with that knowledge and experience, build another RV with the alternative engine. Your chances of success will be much much higher. That will be $0.02 please. :D
 
Now that Viking is selling a 180HP motor i wanted to see if anyone had any plans to hang this on their RV? Viking claims 180HP and 12.6 GPH at full bore with the ability to run on Auto Gas. With a price tag of 16k it definitely sounds like an interesting choice over a comparable IO-360 Series engine. Thoughts....

Depends on what you want, an airplane that you fly locally a lot and tinker with constantly, or a reliable airplane that you can actually go somewhere in and not have to worry.

Not to mention value, with an auto engine conversion the value will suffer big time.

IMO if you can't afford to build it like they designed it, move on to something else.
 
What you are really buying is a relationship with the small business owner, Jan.
Listen to Mickey. He and I stepped into that pot of goo about the same time.
 
If I was a potential buyer of the 180hp Viking I would need to factor in the cost of the Lycoming that would eventually replace the Viking....... ;)
 
If I was a potential buyer of the 180hp Viking I would need to factor in the cost of the Lycoming that would eventually replace the Viking....... ;)

The interesting thing is Jan seems to have had a reasonable amount of success with the ~100 HP Viking. There don't appear to be pitchfork bearing hoards marching up his driveway. So, <arguably> he's batting .500 (he went bust on Subarus).

The question is whether you're willing to go with an engine supplier which has a track record based on two products - one of which clearly failed and one of which we don't hear a lot about.

Me? That's too big of an expense to roll the dice on a 50/50 bet.
 
I looked at the Eggenfelder efforts some years ago and inspected his efforts at OSH and a local Sonex owner. One question Jan refused to answer was what investigation he made into modifications that should be made to an engine, designed for upright installation that was now laid on its side.

He was at a loss to understand the question at the time, and for approximately 2 years afterward, made no apparent effort in response to the inquiry.

He did give some answers to questions I posed, in one instance, claiming that he had contacted the design engineer for the radiator manufacturer. When I contacted the manufacturer, the design engineer was appalled at the use of the particular radiator for that application and denied he had EVER talked to anyone about use in that application. Furthermore, Jan showed no understanding of an engineer's approach to selecting a radiator

Now that he's proposing a substantially boosted intake charge, properly addressing the cooling is all the more important.

My prior exposure, resulting in the above opinion, was years ago and I only hope that my criticism generated a greater level of diligence and intellectual honesty in the man.

Here's the problem, in the cooling system, coolant temp difference as little as 10 deg can result in fluid layering - significantly reducing cooling performance. Ignoring the aeration that is always produced and the possibility that air can be trapped in a laid-over engine, a user can (will?) expose the engine to very hot spots that (depending on instrumentation and location) won't be picked up on the guages.

Caveat Emptor !
 
All,
Great points all. Working in flight test im willing to take some risks but usually uncle same is paying the bill to make sure everything has been fully tested. When it comes to my money i want something that just works. Ill keep an eye on the viking engine to see how this plays out. I really think Jan means well he just needs someone who will test for him.
 
My experience with racing turbocharged auto engines is that they are not designed to produce continuous max power. Even on a race track, the power goes up and down a lot.

I would be really surprised and impressed if the Honda based engine can survive at 180 hp boost levels for very long.
 
All,
Great points all. Working in flight test im willing to take some risks but usually uncle same is paying the bill to make sure everything has been fully tested. When it comes to my money i want something that just works. Ill keep an eye on the viking engine to see how this plays out. I really think Jan means well he just needs someone who will test for him.

Uh, he seems to find one every time he sells an engine.
;-)
 
My experience with racing turbocharged auto engines is that they are not designed to produce continuous max power. Even on a race track, the power goes up and down a lot.

I would be really surprised and impressed if the Honda based engine can survive at 180 hp boost levels for very long.

No problem for factory turbo engines to survive these days or for decades now actually. If you've watched some other threads I've posted examples in which you've seen other auto turbo engines making over 100hp/L for hundreds of hours continuously however Jan's previous turbocharging experiments didn't last very long.

For the most part, as long as ALL the factory engineering and validation is intact on the mechanical bits and engine management, turbo engines could easily survive. It won't have to be making 180hp for long. At altitude and in cruise, you'd be down around 135hp which is nothing for a modern, over 2L, 4 valve engine at moderate revs- say 4500 rpm.

The big question is, what has he changed? We'll he's changed Honda's carefully developed intake manifold and put on a short runner piece with a rectangular section. That cannot be good for flow or mid rpm power. Looks like the stock turbo unit too which won't be a good match for aviation use and would impact the BSFC markedly at high power, yet from his charts he's saying it does around .4 everywhere. Unlikely. These numbers appear to be estimates at best. If it's really doing .4 at 6000 rpm on boost, those Honda pistons must be very robust indeed.

It may actually work but we'll only know that when a bunch of them get to 500+ hours without being touched.

Test, test, test before you sell is the best practice and post some actual numbers, not guesses. No engine is going to have the same BSFC from 2000 to 6000 rpm. The VE peaks at 4500 rpm and frictional losses are much higher at 6000 compared to 3000. The numbers show he'd have to run at an AFR of around 20 to 1- hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Sittin' back with the Popcorn!

I just bought a bucket of popcorn. This is getting interesting! I think I'll stay with water to drink. Never cared much for the Kool-Aid! :eek:
 
Plus 1

Plus one to what Scott and Mickey said.

You can take the words of those who have experienced being the "customers" of an auto conversion supplier with a pinch of salt as was suggested earlier. Or you could ask yourself why they would say what they say. Your call I guess.
 
Getting back to one of Walt's points. An RV with a non-standard engine tends to be a turd on the used market. When I was shopping for an airplane if I saw one for sale with an automotive engine conversion the asking price was usually discounted compared to a conventional powered equivalent (Hint 1). So I would add the cost of a replacement aircraft engine and associated systems and structural work to bring the aicraft into the realm of "acceptable". That can quickly make the discounted asking price look expensive. I wasn't looking to be a test subject based on unmeaningful statistical sample size or provide testing for purposes of continuous product development. I have been a member of the Society of Flight Test Engineers since 1988 and subscribed to "Contact" magazine for 20 years. I have read over and over again about builders of automotive powered EABs eventually switching to aircraft engines (Hint 2). So when the time came to shop the used market I didn't care about any claims of superior operational and initial costs attributed to an alternative powerplant. All I wanted was a reliable airplane with a proven engine that any decent A&P could work on and parts could be ordered from Aviall or ACS easy peasey.

Jim
 
Uh, he seems to find one every time he sells an engine.
;-)

putting an auto engine in an airplane should be the builders choice because he wants to do it period! i expect the builder knows full well engines were never run to failure in the shop.
no doubt it is more of a sure thing to wait until an engine is tested. HOW is that going for the followers of a recent honda developer who wouldn't sell until he had more test hours? still waiting?
being an experimenter and builder is good for aviation. not everyone's cup of tea though.
 
Jan could do himself and his customers a favor by investing in the fuel to run 2 engines- one on an airplane and one on a programmed test stand or dyno which cycles the engine up through all the rpm and load ranges just as the OEM auto guys do. Make sure he gets at least 300 of those hours at full rated power and 500 hours total on each engine. Collect the hp/ torque data and fuel flow. If he's using a test stand with prop, he'd want the hp absorbtion curve for that prop to be able to plot actual hp. Do a weekly video report like the Raptor Aircraft guys do and show ALL the warts and fixes.

This is the only way to validate the whole package. It's very important to consider the redrive here, not just the engine as it's even more of an unknown with TV lurking in the background.

The fuel would cost around $30,000 for these tests- about the price of 2 of these engines. Seems like a good investment to me if you want a good reputation and to sell a lot of engines.
 
Jan could do himself and his customers a favor by investing in the fuel to run 2 engines- one on an airplane and one on a programmed test stand or dyno which cycles the engine up through all the rpm and load ranges just as the OEM auto guys do. Make sure he gets at least 300 of those hours at full rated power and 500 hours total on each engine. Collect the hp/ torque data and fuel flow. If he's using a test stand with prop, he'd want the hp absorbtion curve for that prop to be able to plot actual hp. Do a weekly video report like the Raptor Aircraft guys do and show ALL the warts and fixes.

This is the only way to validate the whole package. It's very important to consider the redrive here, not just the engine as it's even more of an unknown with TV lurking in the background.

The fuel would cost around $30,000 for these tests- about the price of 2 of these engines. Seems like a good investment to me if you want a good reputation and to sell a lot of engines.

I agree. There could be more transparency on testing procedures and processes. The Raptor guy(s) are doing it right by keeping everyone updated even when there is a failure. Auto conversions have been successful and I still like the idea. I really do hope this viking engine turns out to be a success.
 
Seriously, wasn't it Honda that showed a V-6 prototype at OSH about a decade ago? I guess they're just too smart to turn large money into small money by entering the light aviation market.
Charlie

Are you sure that wasn't Toyota? Toyota, at one time, was considering building a reciprocating aircraft engine. Scaled Composites built a test aircraft. Then Toyota backed out, probably due to liability issues.
 
The Honda and Toyota aero engines were really just engineering exercises. I don't think either company was really serious about selling them. Think about it. Why would they at the numbers likely to be produced?

Mel, you're probably thinking of Bombardier/ Rotax. They were testing a V6 aero engine.
 
Yeah, Mel, you're probably right. It was so long ago, all I could remember was that it was a Japanese mfgr. No doubt either company could make a great a/c engine.

I do remember mentioning that engine to a friend who was a high-powered stock broker. He thought it was funny that they'd even consider getting into the light a/c market, given what they were worth as a company, and the maximum total dollars they could make on an a/c project for their effort, compared to all the other industries they were involved in.

Charlie

edit: here you go (2 decades; not one):
https://www.avweb.com/news/atis/181827-1.html
 
Last edited:
Jan could do himself and his customers a favor by investing in the fuel to run 2 engines- one on an airplane and one on a programmed test stand or dyno which cycles the engine up through all the rpm and load ranges just as the OEM auto guys do. Make sure he gets at least 300 of those hours at full rated power and 500 hours total on each engine. Collect the hp/ torque data and fuel flow. If he's using a test stand with prop, he'd want the hp absorbtion curve for that prop to be able to plot actual hp. Do a weekly video report like the Raptor Aircraft guys do and show ALL the warts and fixes.

This is the only way to validate the whole package. It's very important to consider the redrive here, not just the engine as it's even more of an unknown with TV lurking in the background.

The fuel would cost around $30,000 for these tests- about the price of 2 of these engines. Seems like a good investment to me if you want a good reputation and to sell a lot of engines.

Good post, they could just get an Apache (or some other light twin) and install the prototype on one side. Continental did a lot of testing that way.
 
Mel, you're probably thinking of Bombardier/ Rotax. They were testing a V6 aero engine.

The one I saw was definitely a Toyota. It was during a tour of Scaled Composites when I was going through Test Pilot School at Mojave in 1998.

We had to sign a non-discloser statement.
 
The one I saw was definitely a Toyota. It was during a tour of Scaled Composites when I was going through Test Pilot School at Mojave in 1998.

We had to sign a non-discloser statement.

Toyota worked on a Lexus based V8 for aviation. Bombardier had the V6.
 
Honda was kinda serious...

See here....
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=0e683aae-b532-471d-acd0-dd7337e5873a#

Honda built a 4 cylinder, 225hp airplane engine and was flight testing it with the help of Continental.
I guess they dropped the project for liability reasons??? Really too bad they decided to skip small aviation engines and only build jets.

But liability seems odd... Honda built the 3 wheelers, the 4 wheelers, the screaming fast jet skis, outboard engines, sport motorcycles....

The market must be too small.
 
Last edited:
See here....
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=0e683aae-b532-471d-acd0-dd7337e5873a#

Honda built a 4 cylinder, 225hp airplane engine and was flight testing it with the help of Continental.
I guess they dropped the project for liability reasons??? Really too bad they decided to skip small aviation engines and only build jets.

But liability seems odd... Honda built the 3 wheelers, the 4 wheelers, the screaming fast jet skis, outboard engines, sport motorcycles....

The market must be too small.

I think Honda knew what the liability and financials were like in this market before the first pencil went to paper. They built it anyway to learn something, not to actually ever sell it.

To return to the OP's question. This Viking engine is too new to have any serious customer hours on it for useful, specific feedback. Wait a few years and talk to some users before you commit yourself.
 
Here is the Honda from some years ago.
ou5.jpg
 
One idea going around was that Honda wanted to understand the FAA certification process. So they went with one of their strengths (engines) to test and learn the paperwork and administrative red tape before venturing into aircraft, i.e. Honda Jet.

Seemed reasonable.
 
Another Contender...

Aside from Honda, Sauer Engines in Germany has been building a European Certified version of Ferdinand Porsche's (VW's) venerable "boxer" since 1978 and it still competes well against the Rotax 912, even in Europe.
Sauer's engine is based on the Vanagon's Wasserboxer case with hydraulic lifters and several other mods. Many European builders are choosing it over the R912 for pricing and performance, one of these being the new Groppo Trail.
Though not an RV option (except maybe the 12), it presents a certfied ASTM standard automotive based power-plant of which none of the above, are as yet.

http://www.sauer-flugmotorenbau.de/Aircraftengines_certified.html

V/R
Smokey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKosnKnndYs
Groppo Trail
 
Last edited:
Honda

The answer to the speculations of why Honda didnt proceed with the Aero Engine, is because it was built as a result of the US government awarding huge contracts for Drone engines, and supporting parts ...and the specs were what the contracts specified. ..we had 3 versions planned, of different displacement and hp. The prototype engines were built, bench tested and then we put one on each end of a Cessna 337 for further testing..and put alot of hours on it. The whole plan went sour when the US GoV passed piston engine drones faster than an RV passes a cub..and went right to super high thrust requirements..read that turbines, quicker than Honda could get the engines ready.
Without the GOV drone contracts, the GA market was deemed to small, and the project was dropped..as a 24 year employee of the Honda engine division..it about broke my heart...because boys,,it was a fantastic engine.
Few people know how close the aircraft market came to finally having a really good piston engine available to us all..sooo very close...

Don
 
The answer to the speculations of why Honda didnt proceed with the Aero Engine, is because it was built as a result of the US government awarding huge contracts for Drone engines, and supporting parts ...and the specs were what the contracts specified. ..we had 3 versions planned, of different displacement and hp. The prototype engines were built, bench tested and then we put one on each end of a Cessna 337 for further testing..and put alot of hours on it. The whole plan went sour when the US GoV passed piston engine drones faster than an RV passes a cub..and went right to super high thrust requirements..read that turbines, quicker than Honda could get the engines ready.
Without the GOV drone contracts, the GA market was deemed to small, and the project was dropped..as a 24 year employee of the Honda engine division..it about broke my heart...because boys,,it was a fantastic engine.
Few people know how close the aircraft market came to finally having a really good piston engine available to us all..sooo very close...

Don

That's very interesting that you were involved in the project and have some insight. I am wondering which US drones/ UAVs switched to more powerful turbines in that era though? The Predator platform continued to use Rotax 914s, the Gray Eagle used Thielert and Lycoming piston engines. Total number of those airframes produced is around 400 ish I believe since the mid '90s- hardly a significant number compared to GA engine consumption.

The Reaper used a 900hp turbine so that platform was too large (10,000 pounds) for the engines Honda was developing and they have only made around 200 to date with first operational use in 2007- after Honda abandoned their aero engines.

The Global Hawk is a 30,000 lb airframe which could not be powered by a piston engine.

Am I missing some drone/ UAV platform which went on to large production numbers in the mid 2000s that could have used the Honda engine? Which ones besides Reaper went over to gas turbines?
 
Ross,
Honda is a huge company..and you can read that a huge bureaucracy. The company moves very, very slow. (largest engine mfg in the world its claimed) The US government contract are also awarded in a less than timely fashion. Honda began developing this engine series long before 2000. Now.,I dont pretend to be any kind of expert on the drones either..far from it in fact. I am in the USA Engine division. This engine was not developed by us here, but as a collaboration with the Aero division,( Carolina's) and japan engineering. ... Anyway..the project was began when Rotax had the lions share of the volume. The design specs went out for more hp than Rotax could provide. And the powers that be at Honda, for whatever reason, decided that the current available competitors, which were Lycoming and Continental, would be pretty easy to beat. Very Small companies in the engine world you know..with very old tech. Seemed logical to me. So, from the decision to embark..to the first prototype was about 5 years.. and in that 5 years, the contracts for the 200 hp class virtually went away. I cant tell you if a drone was ever built with that size powerplant, or a zillion were built,,.I simply dont know. All I know is, by the time our engine was ready, there was so little market in the gov contracts for it..the discussion was bandied about to attempt to certify it for re-power in the GA fleet. hence..that cessna Mixmaster you probably saw with one on each end of it. I dont have to tell anyone here how hard it was to get thru the FAA red tape certification process back then..but after another year or 2..when the drone contracts were obviously not going to happen for Honda, and the market studies all showed a declining market for GA engines..Honda dropped the program. Oh, I made all kinds of noise about the amount of production of RVs and other experimentals and the numbers that were possible there, but honestly, EXP aircraft are not looked at with much respect around here..and my words fell on deaf ears. Not being involved directly on the program..not that it mattered..it was just heartbreaking for me, because of my aviation habits.
Heck Ross, I have been begging for years for them to give me that pretty little turbine on the Honda Jet with a shaft and reduction on it , telling my bosses we could sell hundreds at least in the standby generator power industry pretty dang quick, because of it efficiency. No luck there either. And to date..I dont think we have sold a single one to anybody for an airplane!..so what do I know...
 
Last edited:
BTW..one more thing..There was probably more profit made on those 400 engines you mention , than all the profit on GA engines sold in the market. You see the US gov does not just buy an engine for military usage, and say thanks.
They order a list of parts for EACH engine to support it for many , many years. Generally, its like.. a single 4 cyl engine, will be accompanied with an order for a dozen pistons, 4 crankshafts, 4 cams..12 rods..and so on..for EACH engine..its amazing..
So If they airframe company get a contract for a production run of 100 aircraft..the engine company get 100 complete engines, and 400 more in parts..where the profit is pretty high!. this is the biggest reason, that without the drone contracts, the program was dropped..
 
Thanks for the insight. It's a real shame Honda didn't continue what they started and spent millions on. You know they'd have advanced the state of the art well past what Lycoming and Continental were doing at the time. Would be good to have that other choice and they could have sold thousands by now...
 
Back
Top