What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Viking 130?

Fearless

Fearless

Well Known Member
Just putting a feeler out there but is any current builder installing a Viking 130 on their 12? I know there are a few 110's out there but curious about someone going with the 130. I know about Jan's RV reputation so we don't need to go there. You can PM me if you want to remain stealth.
 
on the viking website there are pics of installation of a 130 in at least one rv12. lots of info and comparisons of 130 and other engines.
i have heard they have been selling at several a week since introduced.
should have some history on them accumulating. and then there's Hondas history. i have heard of zero problems related to gearbox.
 
There have been some failures of the 110 rubber drive couplers/ spiders/ pilot bearing inside relatively short hours. Possibly another case of insufficient TV testing.

Apparently there is a new design on the 130 engines but it hasn't been out that long to know how it will last.

damper1_zpsbjxpig87.jpg
 
Last edited:
The photo of those rubber drive couplers is scary. As a decades-long Honda driver I have tremendous faith in the basics of Honda engines. Our son has a Honda Fit which has proven to be absolutely bullet-proof in every respect. As a result I dearly want the Honda Fit engine to succeed in aviation. In fact, I have access to a Fit engine right now that I'm considering purchasing just to have in reserve in case a suitable aircraft project comes along.

It's such a shame that Jan seems, once again, to have conducted far too little testing before going to market.

Ross - from your knowledge/experience, are there any viable PSRU's currently on the market for this engine?
 
I hesitate to recommend gearbox/ engine/ prop combinations which don't have a lot of flight hours on them.

Air Trikes http://www.airtrikes.net/engines.shtml is offering the Russian SPG gearboxes for the Fit engine now which have many, many flight hours in front of Suzuki engines of similar power. They have a good reputation there but no TV testing has been done and the Fit is a different engine. I have a couple customers installing these onto Fit engines.

One of my customers did a Fit conversion a number of years ago and has over 200 trouble free hours on his. He built his own belt drive. http://www.sdsefi.com/honda.htm

I have another customer fitting FOUR Fit engines to an Experimental. I can't talk about that one much but he's a serious, talented guy who has many other builds under his belt.

Great engines if you get a reliable drive attached to them.

As Jan keeps working out the bugs, he may eventually end up with a truly reliable package however he keeps switching recipes, recently abandoning the port injected models to now offer a direct injected model with more new unknowns.

There are at least 2 other companies working on Fit aero conversions now. I can't comment on those either at this time.
 
Last edited:
Viking 130 PSRU

rv6ejguy said:
There have been some failures of the 110 rubber drive couplers/ spiders/ pilot bearing inside relatively short hours. Possibly another case of insufficient TV testing.

Apparently there is a new design on the 130 engines but it hasn't been out that long to know how it will last.

damper1_zpsbjxpig87.jpg
Click to expand...

Looks like this might be good information for the "Alternative Engine" forum?

Doug
 
It might be appropriate to add that when these rubbers fail, the airplane still makes power to the prop and flys to a safe destination, and replacement rubbers are very inexpensive and easy to install.

rv6ejguy said:
There have been some failures of the 110 rubber drive couplers/ spiders/ pilot bearing inside relatively short hours. Possibly another case of insufficient TV testing.

Apparently there is a new design on the 130 engines but it hasn't been out that long to know how it will last.

damper1_zpsbjxpig87.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Ross, for sharing your thoughts here. I would really like to hear how the SPG gearboxes work out on FIT engines as this seems a pretty reasonable way forward. Will talk to Vassilli at Air Trikes and see what he says.
 
it's really hard to develop an engine without a very rich corporation behind you. I personally don't blame Jan in terms of his integrity, he just doesn't have the ability to do 1000s of hours of testing. So if you want to get one of his engines, you will be doing some testing in effect. That's just how it is, and some people are fine with that.

I have a 2007 fit, 250,000 km (about 150,000 miles), absolutely bullet proof. I pulled the spark plugs at 160,000 km (100,000 miles) and they looked new! I had already bought new plugs and the guy apologized because at $12 he thought they were too expensive, which made me laugh.

I hope he is able to make it work and be successful. It would be nice to have a really good modern engine conversion at that power level.
 
sblack said:
I have a 2007 fit, 250,000 km (about 150,000 miles), absolutely bullet proof. I pulled the spark plugs at 160,000 km (100,000 miles) and they looked new!
Click to expand...

I have a Honda CRV with almost 200,000 km on the clock and honestly I have never spent a cent on that car other than normal services and tires. The reliability of the mechanicals has been just mind boggling. I also have a Subaru Outback and it is just amazingly reliable as well.

But would I ever use a Honda or Subaru car engine in a plane....no way Jose! For a multitude of reasons they're just not optimised for the application. They may be very reliable in cars but they have proven to be consistently (and catastrophically) unreliable in aircraft.
 
Captain Avgas said:
I have a Honda CRV with almost 200,000 km on the clock and honestly I have never spent a cent on that car other than normal services and tires. The reliability of the mechanicals has been just mind boggling. I also have a Subaru Outback and it is just amazingly reliable as well.

But would I ever use a Honda or Subaru car engine in a plane....no way Jose! For a multitude of reasons they're just not optimised for the application. They may be very reliable in cars but they have proven to be consistently (and catastrophically) unreliable in aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think as long as people haven't done anything radical to change them the automotive engines have proven themselves to be quite reliable just like they are in the cars.
It is the associated mechanicals (PSRU, other systems, etc.) that are usually the problem and that is understandable.
The automakers have years of history and evolutionary experience backing up their engineering.
When someone engineers an aircraft installation of the same engine and then begins selling them with less than 100 hours of testing on just one prototype, the result should be expected to not be good.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
I think as long as people haven't done anything radical to change them the automotive engines have proven themselves to be quite reliable just like they are in the cars.
It is the associated mechanicals (PSRU, other systems, etc.) that are usually the problem and that is understandable.
The automakers have years of history and evolutionary experience backing up their engineering.
When someone engineers an aircraft installation of the same engine and then begins selling them with less than 100 hours of testing on just one prototype, the result should be expected to not be good.
Click to expand...

Thielert took a very reliable Mercedes diesel engine and spent tens of millions of dollars developing it into the Centurion 1.7 aircraft engine. After producing over 1500 of them they pulled the engine from the market following widespread customer dissatisfaction. It's obviously not easy to pull off a reliable auto conversion, even with piles of money, top engineers, and tons of testing. The chances of some backyarder achieving the holy grail on a shoestring budget are very remote indeed. ;)
 
sblack said:
it's really hard to develop an engine without a very rich corporation behind you.
Click to expand...

Engine, yes, but we're talking drive systems here. I've done the drive system work from scratch....prediction, design, fabrication, live torsional testing, and flight test. When I did go flying, I knew the oscillating and mean torsional shaft loads, and didn't tear up any torsional soft elements in the process.

I personally don't blame Jan in terms of his integrity, he just doesn't have the ability to do 1000s of hours of testing. So if you want to get one of his engines, you will be doing some testing in effect. That's just how it is, and some people are fine with that.
Click to expand...

Having demonstrated it is possible to precisely determine torsional shaft loads on a homebuilder's budget, I don't have much respect for excuses. If a vendor sells a redrive that fails, it is simply a defective product, not the product of an attempt to do the impossible. The idea that we should not blame the vendor because we can't possibly expect him to do "1000's of hours of testing" is nonsense. It simply does not require 1000's of hours.

The photos below were taken in 1998 and 1999. That's a really crappy single channel analog telemetry transmitter, obsolete even then. It would be way easier with today's equipment. Heck, this past year Kevin Eldredge was beaming shaft torque to an in-cockpit recorder while turning laps at Reno. Industry does it every day, worldwide.

 
Last edited:
rv6ejguy said:
There have been some failures of the 110 rubber drive couplers/ spiders/ pilot bearing inside relatively short hours. Possibly another case of insufficient TV testing.

Apparently there is a new design on the 130 engines but it hasn't been out that long to know how it will last.

damper1_zpsbjxpig87.jpg
Click to expand...

I just want to know what "TV" means!
 
Captain Avgas said:
Thielert took a very reliable Mercedes diesel engine and spent tens of millions of dollars developing it into the Centurion 1.7 aircraft engine. After producing over 1500 of them they pulled the engine from the market following widespread customer dissatisfaction. It's obviously not easy to pull off a reliable auto conversion, even with piles of money, top engineers, and tons of testing. The chances of some backyarder achieving the holy grail on a shoestring budget are very remote indeed. ;)
Click to expand...

The Thielert, under new name Continental, is still in production to my knowledge and by all accounts quite reliable now. Yup they had many problems initially and IMO some of the engineering was not so great and they failed to do enough testing. Finally got it right.

The Austro AE300 is also based on the Mercedes diesel (cast iron block) and was quite reliable from the get go.

There are thousands of auto conversions flying and working well so the chances can't be that remote to get it working well on a backyard budget. Not for everybody as has been said many times before.
 
P. T. Barnum

His advice should be seriously considered by anyone even casually considering any purchase with the label Eggenfailure attached to it.
 
rv6ejguy said:
The Thielert, under new name Continental, is still in production to my knowledge and by all accounts quite reliable now. Yup they had many problems initially and IMO some of the engineering was not so great and they failed to do enough testing. Finally got it right.
Click to expand...

The current model Centurion CD-155 (155 HP) produced now by Continental is still based on a Mercedes Benz diesel auto engine. Compared to a Lycoming O360 they are considerably heavier, much more complex, less reliable, and cost $20,000+ more to purchase. And if that is not bad enough, the engine has a TBR (Time Between Replacement) of 2100 hours. That's right, at 2100 hours the whole engine is throw-away....no possible overhaul. And the gearbox has a life of only 1200 hours. Hardly an auto-conversion success story. ;)
 
Last edited:
What is the story with the destroyed soft element? Where can we read more about it?
 
Not long ago, an infamous but reputable airplane mechanic was quoted saying,
"The worst thing that happens to a Rotax engine . . . is its owner.":)
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
I think as long as people haven't done anything radical to change them the automotive engines have proven themselves to be quite reliable just like they are in the cars.
It is the associated mechanicals (PSRU, other systems, etc.) that are usually the problem and that is understandable.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I know several builders personally who have had Subaru engines fail on them catastrophically in flight. Not gearboxes...engines. One flew out of my own airport and crashed into trees 50 feet above the ground after loosing power.

But I agree that it is the systems, and the gear boxes in particular, that are most problematic. But when you use a high revving auto conversion the PSRU comes along as part of the deal.

Consider this scenario....you're out flying over hostile tiger country when the PSRU disintegrates without warning. The engine is still running happily but the prop is now just windmilling in the breeze...and you're going down. What do you say to yourself under those circumstances. Do you say: "My God, the gearbox has carked it and I'm going down into the trees, but it's a big plus that my engine is still OK and running". :D
 
Auto conversions may work fine but you need to remember that automobile engines are designed for low-power and not high-power continuous operation. It only takes something like 20 HP to speed a car along at 70 MPH. This is radically different than 100% power for takeoff and say 60-70% continuous power for cruise flight for entire lifespan of aero engine.
 
Piper J3 said:
Auto conversions may work fine but you need to remember that automobile engines are designed for low-power and not high-power continuous operation. It only takes something like 20 HP to speed a car along at 70 MPH. This is radically different than 100% power for takeoff and say 60-70% continuous power for cruise flight for entire lifespan of aero engine.
Click to expand...

This forum always seems to turn up the same comments whenever an alternative engine is discussed. Take a while and read some of the previous discussions on this topic and you'll find that auto makers test the daylights out of their engines, with extensive testing at worst-case conditions, 100% power, maximum temperature etc etc. This concept of auto engines not being up to long-term high power output is pure bumpf.

Now, back to the Viking 130 and the OP's questions. I'm curious to know what Jan is doing for an ECU, and what sensors he is using to trim the fuel/air mixture. Does anybody have any factual information on this topic? I've seen his website and there is absolutely zero real detail information available.
 
Captain Avgas said:
Firstly, I know several builders personally who have had Subaru engines fail on them catastrophically in flight. Not gearboxes...engines. One flew out of my own airport and crashed into trees 50 feet above the ground after loosing power.

But I agree that it is the systems, and the gear boxes in particular, that are most problematic. But when you use a high revving auto conversion the PSRU comes along as part of the deal.

Consider this scenario....you're out flying over hostile tiger country when the PSRU disintegrates without warning. The engine is still running happily but the prop is now just windmilling in the breeze...and you're going down. What do you say to yourself under those circumstances. Do you say: "My God, the gearbox has carked it and I'm going down into the trees, but it's a big plus that my engine is still OK and running". :D
Click to expand...

I think you know exactly what I meant with my post Bob because you admit it your self above.
Sure, it is the engines that occasionally fail.
Even Lycoming engines disintegrate on occasion. If you have that happen do you say : "My engine has carked it and I'm going down into the trees, but it's a big plus that I don't have a gear box because it probably would have happened a long time ago "

The point is (In case you really did miss it, but I doubt it), is that the auto engines used for aircraft conversions are by and large pretty reliable (because they were engineer and produced by a company that did it properly. It is everything else that usually causes the problems, because they usually are not.
 
Last edited:
In justification of my choice of a Viking 110, the same engine is used in the Honda outboard marine motor, running pretty much wide open all the time, no problems there. It is also used in Formula F1 racing, really getting punished at rpm speeds far beyond aviation use, no problems there either. Fly behind one sometimes if you get the chance, more like riding in a Honda than flying behind a "certified" aircraft engine, in fact a little hard to get used to it..
Then there is that pesky PSRU, that is what doomed the P51 Mustang too - wait a minute, I have that wrong - the P51 flew just fine with one:D
 
DonFromTX said:
In justification of my choice of a Viking 110, the same engine is used in the Honda outboard marine motor, running pretty much wide open all the time, no problems there. It is also used in Formula F1 racing, really getting punished at rpm speeds far beyond aviation use, no problems there either. Fly behind one sometimes if you get the chance, more like riding in a Honda than flying behind a "certified" aircraft engine, in fact a little hard to get used to it..
Then there is that pesky PSRU, that is what doomed the P51 Mustang too - wait a minute, I have that wrong - the P51 flew just fine with one:D
Click to expand...

Having an understanding of the dynamic difference an aircraft propeller and a marine propeller have on an engine is required to understand why you cant assume if one works the other will.
Actually, they both can work. Your comment of the P-51 is proof of that.

That does not mean that because it has been done before, that regardless of the design, everyone that does it after will be successful (there unfortunately is proof of that also).
 
Canadian_JOY said:
This forum always seems to turn up the same comments whenever an alternative engine is discussed. Take a while and read some of the previous discussions on this topic and you'll find that auto makers test the daylights out of their engines, with extensive testing at worst-case conditions, 100% power, maximum temperature etc etc. This concept of auto engines not being up to long-term high power output is pure bumpf.

Now, back to the Viking 130 and the OP's questions. I'm curious to know what Jan is doing for an ECU, and what sensors he is using to trim the fuel/air mixture. Does anybody have any factual information on this topic? I've seen his website and there is absolutely zero real detail information available.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.

Jan isn't releasing much info on the DI conversions but I'm thinking he must be using the stock ECU and sensors due to the massive complexity (relative to port injection) and the very high cost of aftermarket DI controllers. Kudos for him to making that work if so, due to the chassis sensor tie-ins and anti-theft interlock stuff on modern ECUs. The only question is how much testing has he done, that's always the big question in these matters.
 
DanH said:
What is the story with the destroyed soft element? Where can we read more about it?
Click to expand...

Yahoo Group- Viking Aircraft Engine. This is an independent group not controlled by Jan although Jan sometimes posts on here it would appear, defending and promoting his packages.
 
Facts v Marketing

As long as ALL factual information concerning the complexity, reliability, safety and economy of an auto/PRU aircraft conversion package is disclosed, I fall into the this is experimental aviation camp. The recurring issue occurs long before the first blade turns. That is issue of vendor honestly in marketing. Once the proverbial koolaid is ingested, the real world issues become irrelevant. There is a growing direct drive Corvair install base coming out of Florida with realistic expectations based on honest, factual marketing. It's too bad that the other one based in FL continues to change their "facts" as often as they change platforms, with no regard for the economic waste by customers that reengine their airplanes or no care for the impact on the families of those killed due to the failure of their products.
 
Last edited:
Engine from the wreckers ?

If you buy a "new" Viking engine you're actually buying a second hand Honda engine most commonly salvaged from a written-off wreck. Yes, the engine that you are trusting your life to (and maybe the lives of your family and friends) has probably come from an auto wrecker. There's no history available on that engine. Where's the quality control in that?

An aircraft engine is a life support system....it's like a heart pacemaker. When you're over severely inhospitable terrain that engine is keeping you alive minute by minute. You do not want to be flying behind an engine that may have been massively abused by some brainless airhead who has thrashed and trashed his car.

So that's what you get when you buy a Viking engine....a used engine with no pedigree bolted to a PSRU that has probably never been subjected to any significant testing regime by the manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Certainly mostly true, but here are a few points to ponder. You had a choice of a new short block or an engine from a wrecked car. Personally having owned a Honda Fit, it is pretty darned hard to flog it to death in the few thousand miles they have on them, you can find out how many on yours from CarFax. I tried to see how it sounded at 5500 rpm, no dice, the car ECU is programmed to prevent it from exceeding 5000 rpm. Also has an upset switch so it cannot run upside down either. I felt that a few miles being broken in and tested was preferable to a new block that might have been assembled with defects.
The PSRU is definitely suspect, but after hundreds of them have performed well, I trust it. This is not some paper results of a paid lab, but actual people like you and I flying them.
They are not for everyone. If you are not comfortable with the word Experimental, probably better do something different. Isn't it nice that we have such choices?

Captain Avgas said:
If you buy a "new" Viking engine you're actually buying a second hand Honda engine most commonly salvaged from a written-off wreck. Yes, the engine that you are trusting your life to (and maybe the lives of your family and friends) has probably come from an auto wrecker. There's no history available on that engine. Where's the quality control in that?

An aircraft engine is a life support system....it's like a heart pacemaker. When you're over severely inhospitable terrain that engine is keeping you alive minute by minute. You do not want to be flying behind an engine that may have been massively abused by some brainless airhead who has thrashed and trashed his car.

So that's what you get when you buy a Viking engine....a used engine with no pedigree bolted to a PSRU that has probably never been subjected to any significant testing regime by the manufacturer.
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
They are not for everyone. If you are not comfortable with the word Experimental, probably better do something different. Isn't it nice that we have such choices?
Click to expand...

Put that flag away. There is nothing "experimental" about buying an engine package.

Folks who design and fabricate, the ones who break new ground, develop new ideas, and prove out new things....they are experimenters.

Folks who buy packages are customers, with every right to expect performance matching the claims of the seller, notably high reliability.
 
Still running

I rarely enter into these types of conversations as they generally end up being a battle of opinions. However, I have time on this Sunday morning and want to comment that I agree with both Don and Scott's comments here. I have personal knowledge of a Corvair engine running in Zenith 601XL - and running well since 2007. I know this because I built it. It now belongs to a friend and has over a 1000 hours on it without any real issue, (other than the airframe issue the FAA set out to resolve in 2010...other subject).

The reality is that there are component failures in both certified and experimental engines - I know, I own a 1975 Beechcraft Baron that eats my lunch on a routine basis. Ultimately, this is experimental aviation and some experiments don't go well. But that doesn't mean you stop; a good experimenter figures out what went wrong, adjusts the formula and tries it again. With airplanes, this is the basis for Phase 1 operations and staying near an airfield in the event a failure occurs.

I believe the issue, especially with the RV-12, is that there is a majority camp that doesn't want to experiment, but rather build a highly reliable and safe airplane as an amateur - and that is the point of E-LSA. But there's still a contingent, myself included, that want to experiment with the design and still be free to talk about what we're doing and share our experiences with others and learn from them - enter VAF.

I'm building my RV-12 as E-AB and am installing a UL350 engine. I studied many available engines before I decided on this one and was very much for the Viking engine; ultimately, Jan was the deciding factor me as he was defensive and wouldn't answer my questions - and being the engineer that I am, I need answers. I think he has great ideas, but he's his own worst enemy.

The whole PRSU debate is somewhat pointless as the concept of high speed engines turning slow props through gearing has been proven for decades (Don, the P51 is a good one indeed); but so have direct drive engines. The difference is in the implementation; sometimes a good design is improperly installed and sometimes a bad design is well installed. There's simply too many variables to make such broad statements, such as "car engines don't belong in aviation".

Separately, the Austro AE330 engine, used in the new Diamond DA62, currently has a TBO of 1800 hours, but they have applied for 3000 hours to the EASA, which is pending. But that aside, what bearing does TBO have on experimental engines anyway? UL Power doesn't even list a TBO in my engine manual - and after talking with them, their basis is simple: most engines don't get flown more than 100 hours per year anyway, so the engine should be overhauled on condition. Leaks, due to age hardened seals, will tend to occur long before their cylinders and bearings wear out. What's more, TBO doesn't apply to part 91 operators anyway, so it's irrelavent (I'm surprised at the amount of private pilots who believe TBO applies to them). Sarcastically, how's that TBO on your car? A 2000 hour TBO is about the same as saying "overhaul your car engine when it gets to 100,000 miles". And that's silly; I have nearly twice that on my old Ford Expedition and it's running well - mostly due to good maintenance, but also a good design and construction. Automobiles and airplanes both rely on physics and engineering; good designs, and good constructions of those designs, combined with good maintenance make for long lasting vehicles.

As far as the Viking 130 goes, I say "have at it". It looks like a good package and hopefully Jan has the gearbox design worked out now.
 
DonFromTX said:
The PSRU is definitely suspect, but after hundreds of them have performed well, I trust it.
Click to expand...

Don,
Plural hundreds means at least 200 flying. Do you know that for a fact or is that just info that Jan publicizes?

Seems quite exaggerated, but I am genuinely interested in the answer.
 
rongawer said:
I rarely enter into these types of conversations as they generally end up being a battle of opinions. However, I have time on this Sunday morning and want to comment that I agree with both Don and Scott's comments here. I have personal knowledge of a Corvair engine running in Zenith 601XL - and running well since 2007. I know this because I built it. It now belongs to a friend and has over a 1000 hours on it without any real issue, (other than the airframe issue the FAA set out to resolve in 2010...other subject).

The reality is that there are component failures in both certified and experimental engines - I know, I own a 1975 Beechcraft Baron that eats my lunch on a routine basis. Ultimately, this is experimental aviation and some experiments don't go well. But that doesn't mean you stop; a good experimenter figures out what went wrong, adjusts the formula and tries it again. With airplanes, this is the basis for Phase 1 operations and staying near an airfield in the event a failure occurs.

I believe the issue, especially with the RV-12, is that there is a majority camp that doesn't want to experiment, but rather build a highly reliable and safe airplane as an amateur - and that is the point of E-LSA. But there's still a contingent, myself included, that want to experiment with the design and still be free to talk about what we're doing and share our experiences with others and learn from them - enter VAF.

I'm building my RV-12 as E-AB and am installing a UL350 engine. I studied many available engines before I decided on this one and was very much for the Viking engine; ultimately, Jan was the deciding factor me as he was defensive and wouldn't answer my questions - and being the engineer that I am, I need answers. I think he has great ideas, but he's his own worst enemy.

The whole PRSU debate is somewhat pointless as the concept of high speed engines turning slow props through gearing has been proven for decades (Don, the P51 is a good one indeed); but so have direct drive engines. The difference is in the implementation; sometimes a good design is improperly installed and sometimes a bad design is well installed. There's simply too many variables to make such broad statements, such as "car engines don't belong in aviation".

Separately, the Austro AE330 engine, used in the new Diamond DA62, currently has a TBO of 1800 hours, but they have applied for 3000 hours to the EASA, which is pending. But that aside, what bearing does TBO have on experimental engines anyway? UL Power doesn't even list a TBO in my engine manual - and after talking with them, their basis is simple: most engines don't get flown more than 100 hours per year anyway, so the engine should be overhauled on condition. Leaks, due to age hardened seals, will tend to occur long before their cylinders and bearings wear out. What's more, TBO doesn't apply to part 91 operators anyway, so it's irrelavent (I'm surprised at the amount of private pilots who believe TBO applies to them). Sarcastically, how's that TBO on your car? A 2000 hour TBO is about the same as saying "overhaul your car engine when it gets to 100,000 miles". And that's silly; I have nearly twice that on my old Ford Expedition and it's running well - mostly due to good maintenance, but also a good design and construction. Automobiles and airplanes both rely on physics and engineering; good designs, and good constructions of those designs, combined with good maintenance make for long lasting vehicles.

As far as the Viking 130 goes, I say "have at it". It looks like a good package and hopefully Jan has the gearbox design worked out now.
Click to expand...

All very good points Ron but I disagree with the last line.

When a designer / retail seller of an engine installation package advertises it as an equivalent replacement....

Quote from Vikings web site when comparing their engine installation to a Rotax 912.... (since this is the RV-12 forum that seems the most appropriate one to compare too).
This engine is low on power
It is a very complex engine
It is expensive
The Viking 130 would beat the engine in all areas.

The customer should not have to be hopeful that all the design work has been properly done.

If Jan advertised his engine packages as a way to save a lot of money by taking a risk and being a bit more of an experimenter, I personally would have no negative opinion of how he runs his business. But he promotes his packages as more reliable, more fuel efficient, providing better performance, than a Rotax 912 (and all of the other engine options a person can choose from) and all of that for a lot less money!
 
DanH said:
Put that flag away. There is nothing "experimental" about buying an engine package.

Folks who design and fabricate, the ones who break new ground, develop new ideas, and prove out new things....they are experimenters.

Folks who buy packages are customers, with every right to expect performance matching the claims of the seller, notably high reliability.
Click to expand...

Dan has hit the nail on the head with his comments.

If I hear one more silly bugger invoke the spirit of the Wright Brothers or "experimentation" to justify their penny-pinching decision to buy a cheap and dodgy auto-conversion package from some backyard manufacturer....well, I reckon I'm gonna throw up. :rolleyes:
 
My basis for "fact" is fuzzy. I have to use others claims and photos that they are flying, etc.
Some of the distortion you probably see is the low number of Vans flying with Vikings and we could speculate on why that is. I am personally aware of only 13 RV12s flying with a Viking and have visited and/or flown in some of them, the highest number of Vikings flying are in the Searey, 701, 750, Cruzer and 601 models, largely I feel because of attitude of the company selling the kits. Also many Vikings are flying in other countries as well, like a crop duster in Russia, an RV9 in South America, and many more including his Cessna 150 kit. I feel quite comfortable saying "hundreds". I guess one could run an FAA database check with some result of USA registered Viking planes..
Always interesting to read the comments when the subject comes up, I never see it as arguments, just different views from violent opposition to acceptance, often with nothing more than a personal preference or a story someone told them..
I just did a Viking engine check of FAA database, they are showing 110 in the USA alone, but not sure how up to date that is, since mine is still showing with no engine. That is the same database that shows only 105 RV12s registered in the USA, which I don't believe either.
.
rvbuilder2002 said:
Don,
Plural hundreds means at least 200 flying. Do you know that for a fact or is that just info that Jan publicizes?

Seems quite exaggerated, but I am genuinely interested in the answer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
I just did a Viking engine check of FAA database, they are showing 110 in the USA alone, but not sure how up to date that is, since mine is still showing with no engine.
Click to expand...

Hmmm..... I just attempted the same search and even though I can find Viking in the list of recognized engines the only data that comes up in a search is just saying that the engine is 110 HP, not there there are 110 airplanes registered with that engine.
 
aviationdb.net shows 55 aircraft with "viking" engines, 7 of which are -12's. Could not find a way on the FAA site to search by engine type, only to look up the engine reference #.

Chris
 
YellowJacket RV9 said:
aviationdb.net shows 55 aircraft with "viking" engines, 7 of which are -12's. Could not find a way on the FAA site to search by engine type, only to look up the engine reference #.

Chris
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris!

That shows 6 RV-12's registered with a Viking engine. Closer to the number I was guessing based on info I have seen in the past.
There must be some error though because Don's Airforce 1 is not listed. Maybe it is too new and hasn't made it into the database yet?
 
I'm not clear if Don's plane has flown yet? Are aircraft counted in the database before they have all the paperwork for first flight completed?
 
rv6ejguy said:
I'm not clear if Don's plane has flown yet? Are aircraft counted in the database before they have all the paperwork for first flight completed?
Click to expand...

Here in the U.S., the database is just based on registered aircraft.

If it has been registered very far in advance of certification, an aircraft can be in the database for a long time even if it hasn't had an airworthiness certificate issued yet.

This is why it is not a good idea to register very much before certification.
The database is public record. State agency's are constantly comparing their own database to the federal one for taxation purposes.
Even if all you own is an Emp. kit, if you registered it they will attempt to make you pay taxes on it.
 
The ENGINE data is only added to the database when the airworthiness certificate is issued I am sure. Mine has been registered for years, but the AW has not yet been added, was only issued last week. This is about as flaky as the 105 RV12s registered. You caught me on that one Scott, I glanced and thought it said 110, it did not. There are Viking 110, 130, 150 and 170 hp flying, FAA has no place for that to be pulled up either. A friend with an identical to mine RV12/Viking flew almost a year ago, was at Osh last year, still does not show up because apparently the DAR has not sent the info in to FAA I guess.

rvbuilder2002 said:
Here in the U.S., the database is just based on registered aircraft.

If it has been registered very far in advance of certification, an aircraft can be in the database for a long time even if it hasn't had an airworthiness certificate issued yet.

This is why it is not a good idea to register very much before certification.
The database is public record. State agency's are constantly comparing their own database to the federal one for taxation purposes.
Even if all you own is an Emp. kit, if you registered it they will attempt to make you pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...
 
DanH said:
Put that flag away. There is nothing "experimental" about buying an engine package.

.......

Folks who buy packages are customers, with every right to expect performance matching the claims of the seller, notably high reliability.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true in an ideal world, but I don't believe it. Anybody who expects a Viking or a Rotec radial or a Corvair or any of the other non-certified engines to have the same reliability as a Lycoming or continental are deluding themselves. They don't have the years of testing and service history or quality control behind them. At least that's how I see it. Maybe the issue is that some vendors target na?ve customers and make exaggerated claims.

But how can you expect, as a customer, to have certified levels of reliability from some guy in his garage? It's not just torsional loads on a PSRU - there are 100 other things to test and verify that the garage guy will never have the resources to do. Should he then not state that it is a reliable tested product - yes. But marketing always means accentuate the positive and that's what they do.

All you can do is watch how things go with other customers, ask yourself if you have the technical judgment to determine if it is a good product and accept a higher level of risk.
 
DonFromTX said:
This is about as flaky as the 105 RV12s registered.
Click to expand...

I just did a search and it comes up as 461 total.
The 105 is only the total of the bottom category (there are 4 categories, each with its own total)

If the search is altered to not list Van's Aircraft as the make (as is don for E-LSA) the total is 527.
This includes all of the Amateur built RV-12's.

In all likelihood these aren't all flying yet, but it is possible since Van's has been notified of first flights for 490.
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
apparently the DAR has not sent the info in to FAA I guess.
Click to expand...

The DAR must turn in the paperwork to the MIDO/FSDO within 7 days of issuance. The FAA is not "noted" for their expedience of posting, and even then the data on their website may or may NOT be accurate.

Another note; if you are searching by "model", many people building as EAB don't use "RV-12" as the model.
 
Searey's with Vikings

I know nothing of the other planes mentioned flying flawlessly with The Viking engines, but I do have a little insight on the Searey that was mentioned first In the list of planes that have them. I owned and helped build Searey #1. I cannot claim to be the designer as that title goes to Kerry Richter and Paige Lynette. However I did assist 100% on the build and flight testing. I flew that plane with a rotax 582 then a Rotax 618 then an AMW 115 and finally a Rotax 912 (80 hp version). I have flown a searey with the Viking 110 albeit for about 2 minutes. I took off, turned crosswind, downwind , then short base to final and then landed. Wasn't interested in any further flight. I felt like a test pilot and wasn't comfortable. The engine did run smooth but did not produce near the thrust of the 912s (100 hp version) which is most common on the Searey's. The owner of that plane has since removed the engine, paid another 20,000$ and installed a Rotax 912s. This was 4 years ago.

After watching this thread I called the owner of Searey to ask how many Searey's are flying Vikings now that a poster has made a claim of many Vikings in Searey's. To his recollection, of the many kits sold, only 6 have or have had Vikings. He could not name a single happy customer that has the Viking engine. Searey thrust tested the engine on the plane and was as Owner quoted, " barely equal to 80 hp 912. The weight as installed ready to fly was 32 pounds heavier than equivalent 912 set up. This added Aft weight required the searey to ballast the nose of the plane an additional 22 pounds. This added 54 pounds to a plane that already mostly flys at gross weight with 2 aboard. I am making no claims to the Vikings safety, only to the performance as to the searey that I flew and a reliable source, the searey manufacturer owner.

Don, I truly hope your set up works and have many safe years of flying.
 
It's no secret that the Viking 110s had some problems- it was heavy, late ECUs, cold start, lack of power (at least 2 intake manifold iterations were tried after the first Dog's breakfast attempt), ECUs again (take 2), drive failures (already noted) ECUs yet again (take 3) and another ill conceived turbo version failure (shades of Jan's earlier Subaru EZ30 turbo failures). All of these would be ok if they were experienced (and corrected) during the testing phase before release into the marketplace but only the latter was.

Instead, customers were the ones experiencing the issues and had to pay for the upgrades to rectify the problems. It simply points again to a lack of proper testing before release and a lack of good treatment on Jan's part to pick up the tab for fixing at least the most fundamental issues. To be fair, almost all engine packages can have problems, even Lycomings as we've seen, but when an engine won't even start in cool weather or produces way less than advertised hp, those are the types of things which should be caught and fixed during initial testing.

I think others have pointed out correctly that the Viking was being marketed as an all around better alternative to the Rotax 912 where clearly the first 110s were not. This was another case of advertising hype without enough true facts put in.

I've worked with Jan. He's a smart, innovative guy with tremendous vision, energy and gumption. His weakness is that he doesn't learn so well from past experience sometimes in some areas.

The question today though is if he's learned and tested the 130 models enough so that these engines would make a good choice for an RV12? That may be hard to say at this time since users are reluctant to post their experiences (positive or negative) due to the controversial nature of Jan and his past products and of Jan's reaction and control (banning from forums etc.). Many people flying these engines may indeed be very happy with the overall Viking experience but we may never know that. The happy ones just continue to fly them without saying much.

I'd be one to wait and see a bit longer on the 130 and try to talk to actual 130 users with a few hundred hours of flight time before I put my money down.

Jan has a great concept here again. Can he get it all right this time around from a performance, reliability and customer service standpoint?
 
Last edited:
Hey Mike,

Aren't you glad you asked?
;-)

I do have to say, when a person continues to make 'mistakes' and continues to use 'marketing' to convince more people to give him more money for additional 'fully developed' products that don't work, well, at some point, he's just a thief.
I've met them in all walks of life. Fortunately, they aren't that common in aviation. Which means that they should be easier to spot, and we should be smarter than we sometimes are when we see them.

Charlie
 
Not really

Not really Charlie because no one answered my original post. Those that have posted publicly replied back things I already know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top