What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Viking engine

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

skydiverlv

Well Known Member
It is official now. Sent deposit in for the Viking engine to power my RV12.
Never thought I would deviate from plans and go EAB but now I can also
add the improvements that others have done after certification during my build.
Ordered a Moeler fuel gauge also. Finish kit will soon be delivered soon and when it cools down I can get back to building.
Ron and DonfromTX keep me posted on your progress.
 
If this works out for you Viking owners, the first 500 hours are practically free flying. I just wondered how many gallons of 100LL $14k could buy at the outrageous (we ain't seen nothing yet) price of $5.80/gallon. Turns out you get around 482 hours of gas at 5 gal/hr. consumption.
Let me know how it goes with this engine, I sure would love to hear that it's performing great.
 
Don,

I am way behind you so it is not anytime soon I have order the engine but I am very interested in it. I read up on the Viking engine and it sounds good. So the price difference is $14K?

What about maintenance? I don't have your experience level

Peter
 
Experience level? Heck I have not even SEEN one yet. After all, it is an internal combustion engine, they are everywhere!
The bottom line for me was about $13.5 savings, but then you have to buy some wire and tubing, small stuff, so I just call it 13k. If you get ahead of the game, you can save more by not buying the gascolator, fuel pump, engine cowlings, fuel flow gadget, and oil check door from Vans. I have all that for sale if someone wants spares or is going Rotax EAB.
 
The 12 is a great platform for this EXP Honda motor. If you need to land of field, you have the slow approach speed built in. And the you just slide off the wings and trailer the plane back to the airport.

I sure hope this motor works out. If so, I might build a 12. Plus, Rotax needs it's expensive sassy little A$$ kicked.
 
DonFromTX said:
Experience level? Heck I have not even SEEN one yet. After all, it is an internal combustion engine, they are everywhere!
The bottom line for me was about $13.5 savings, but then you have to buy some wire and tubing, small stuff, so I just call it 13k. If you get ahead of the game, you can save more by not buying the gascolator, fuel pump, engine cowlings, fuel flow gadget, and oil check door from Vans. I have all that for sale if someone wants spares or is going Rotax EAB.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to start an engine choice war.... just point out that cost savings is never a sure thing.
There are many RV builders who purchased alternative engines because of the perceived cost savings over a lycoming. All of that cost savings evaporated when because of disappointment in performance or reliability (or both) they later removed the alternative engine to install a lycoming in its place.

I am not against alternative engines and the new advancements that innovation will provide. This industry badly needs some less expensive engines. But, I would recommend people use caution considering the fact that this engine hasn't even flown in an RV-12 yet.

After working in this industry for 18 years, one thing I have learned is, that for every great idea that looked good on paper, and after testing went on to prove it was good, there are just as many ideas that looked good on paper and are now nothing more than a bad memory.


I guess you could refer to me as the guy standing on the sidelines cheering for a victory, but not willing to give someone his own money to find out if it will happen......
 
I was not attempting to talk people into the Viking because of its lower cost, I was just answering the question that was asked. I would have chosen the Viking even if the cost were the same.
I suppose there is a need for people to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at an idea as well as a need for those who want to be part of something that appears to be an alternate to the current use engine that has had its teething problems as well.
I have been a tractor mechanic, an auto mechanic, and an aircraft mechanic, and I am enough of a dreamer to believe that there is a large void in aircraft engine quality, dependability, and durability. Despite the naysayers there are lots of alternative engine powered aircraft out there, most are doing just fine thank you.
 
DonFromTX said:
I have been a tractor mechanic, an auto mechanic, and an aircraft mechanic, and I am enough of a dreamer to believe that there is a large void in aircraft engine quality, dependability, and durability. Despite the naysayers there are lots of alternative engine powered aircraft out there, most are doing just fine thank you.
Click to expand...

You'll have to prove that one....

Considering aircraft engines power airplanes, statistically they're very dependable.........as well as durable. I have yet to see, alternative engines, that serve the purpose better, with less problems. If a typical aircraft engine was less than statistically dependable, I do believe that most of us would just as soon, stay on the ground.

More power to the Viking, if it all works well. I have no problem with that.
I just wouldn't make claims that alternatives are better suited.

L.Adamson
 
DonFromTX said:
I suppose there is a need for people to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at an idea as well as a need for those who want to be part of something that appears to be an alternate to the current use engine that has had its teething problems as well.
Click to expand...

As I said in my post Don "not meaning to start a war (or throw rocks).
Just promoting the idea of proper testing of performance and durability before the masses line up with there check books open.
 
All power to you Don, every good idea needs a trailblazer. I'm a fair way from engine time but will watch your experience with great interest.

While the Viking looks like a very good thing I'm cautious enough to want to see evidence of in-the-air performance and reliability before I put down the hard-earned, much less leave the ground with it up front.

:)

Erik
 
Alternate Engine

DonFromTX said:
I .

I am enough of a dreamer to believe that there is a large void in aircraft engine quality, dependability, and durability.
Click to expand...

Don thanks for keeping Experimental in Experimental Aircraft.
This is the Only way to see if there is a better choice.

Good luck

I will also try an Alternate Engine.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
...
I guess you could refer to me as the guy standing on the sidelines cheering for a victory, but not willing to give someone his own money to find out if it will happen......
Click to expand...
I'm with you Scott!

I've seen the installation on a flying aircraft and while it looks like a good package, only flight time will tell if this is a winner.

I'm sure Lycoming and Continental had a lot of teething problems when they first introduced their opposed engines (or any new engine for that matter). Why would we expect a modified auto engine to be any different? I just hope the issues are minor and can be resolved quickly and inexpensively.
 
Good on 'ya, Don ...

... as we say in Australia. The Viking looks like a very promising engine, and I hope it will provide some much needed competition for the Rotax. Time will tell, but we'll all be following your progress with great interest.
 
Rotax

Not to discourage the Viking experiment...we are all experimental fans and I admire the effort that has gone into what so far looks very promising. What confuses me I guess is the reasoning I hear for a purchase. If the buyers were "gearheads" and truly wanted to understand how it works, enjoy taking it apart etc..and want to be part of its advancement I could understand. But to buy it simply because its cheaper is confusing. Rotax 912ULS is an aircraft engine and is priced accordingly...look at new Lycomings or Continentals (and then take the falling dollar into account.)

As others have said, "good on ya" for being the pioneers and I will look foward to the interesting and detailed reports to follow. And yes, thank you for keeping experimental "experimental".

Pete
 
Unless things have changed or I have my facts wrong, the RV12 Rotax engine is NOT an aircraft engine, but a non aircraft engine sold for air use. Obviously the parts not good enough for their certified engine go over to the non aircraft engine assembly line for installation on RV12's.
.
Peterk said:
Rotax 912ULS is an aircraft engine and is priced accordingly
As others have said, "good on ya" for being the pioneers and I will look foward to the interesting and detailed reports to follow. And yes, thank you for keeping experimental "experimental".
Pete
Click to expand...
 
I think the motor to beat Lycoming for reliability will be......................


ELECTRIC!!
 
L.Adamson said:
You'll have to prove that one....

Considering aircraft engines power airplanes, statistically they're very dependable.........as well as durable....

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Do you know of any place i can find statistics on engine problems, like for the lycoming 320 and 360s, maybe in fleet usage?
 
Reliability specs.....from where?

yeah, wouldn't that be great, to know which components are the most likely to fail, at what interval, and rank by whether life-threatening failure mode or not etc.

A couple guys did exactly this for a flight by Beaver to the north pole. I don't know where they got the records either, but they had a lot of data. Basically, they found that a P&W 300-hours after overhaul had run out of teething problems, and would go another 500+ with only minor failures. They shipped a spare cylinder and some other parts to repair stations along their route as a hedge against major failures.
From what I recall, the MTBF scenario planning was a success.....but....
with our Lyc's, especially in the A/B world, there are alot of different FWF carb, FI, and accessory combinations that may result in less than useful statistics.
 
DonFromTX said:
Unless things have changed or I have my facts wrong, the RV12 Rotax engine is NOT an aircraft engine, but a non aircraft engine sold for air use. Obviously the parts not good enough for their certified engine go over to the non aircraft engine assembly line for installation on RV12's.
.
Click to expand...
NOT an aircraft engine? What? That's like saying the ECi and Superior engines are NOT aircraft engines.

The only difference between the ?certified? and ?uncertified? versions of the 912 is the paperwork, as I understand it. The parts are interchangeable. Yes, Rotax does sell these "uncertified" engines for aircraft use. Heck, they are used in "certified" LSA's.

And yes, this engine was designed from the start as an aircraft engine.

Some of the smaller Rotax engines started life in other applications but not the 912.

The Honda engine used in the Viking conversion is used in both cars and boats. It is the boat application that is most interesting because their duty cycles are similar to that of an aircraft.

The issue with any automotive conversion is the MTBF of the supporting components such as the PRU, water pump, ECU, etc. Only time will tell how these work out on the Viking engine. I for one, hopes this works out.
 
As this motor is also based on the Honda 90 HP outboard marine engine I would think the reliability statics would be comparable to that as the operating at sustained high output would be close to aircraft use. I think Honda's have a good reputation on the water. (I know, it's not the same)
 
These discussions always intrigue me. It seems that at some point in the thread, it almost always gets down to the idea that for one choice to be "good," the other has to be "bad."

I suspect the truth of the matter is nearly always somewhere in the middle. In other words, each engine has its good qualities, each has its bad. For example, it is plainly obvious that the Rotax costs more. I assume that to be because of the ceramic lined cylinders and other design features put in place to support the reliability and longevity desired in an aircraft engine. Hence a 2,000 TBO. I doubt that Rotax has an $18,000 profit margin built into each engine, or that they needlessly ran up the manufacturing costs by hand forging the crankshaft out of unicorn tusks.

Sure, the Honda is initially cheaper, mostly because of economies of scale, but almost nearly as certainly because it was developed using a different design criteria. Sure, the core will be cheap to replace, and this makes sense in an outboard motor that is trivially simple to replace as compared to an installed aircraft engine. Some people are more than willing to remove an engine every few years and replace it, others hope to put that event off for as long as possible. And with Honda's reputation for quality, it's possible that time will prove that the Honda too can go 2,000 hours.

Neither of these options are inherently good or bad, they are simply different approaches to the same goal. I celebrate the freedom that allows us to each decide which approach we prefer, and the respect that we have for other's decision even when we wouldn't make the same decision ourselves.
 
You took the words out of my mouth, it is indeed wonderful that we can choose our powerplant, and generally discuss the choices calmly.
Remember the Rotax 912 started life as a 1200 hrs TBO engine, then it changed to 1500 and is now 2000.
Some of my personal dislikes of Rotax was that Vans nor LEAF nor the importer could tell me truthfully what the warranty was, that made me sit back and reconsider it! A warranty where you buy a replacement for the broken part, then wait and dicker with them for reimbursment was not my idea of really standing behind a product either. Spending $500 for a 1920's technology fuel pump stinks as well and it is hard for me to believe it costs them nearly that to produce. I think everyone agrees that we have the PERCEPTION that it and replacement part are overpriced.
 
Just to play the devils' advocate on this subject. This Honda is a used engine out of wrecked car. Turned into aircraft engine by a company with what some reports say has a checkered past. How much would a used 912 out of a wrecked airplane cost? Plus why does Honda Marine rate this engine at 90HP? They make a 115HP outboard but it's much larger and heaver than the 90HP.
 
Those are valid and appreciated points. I cannot answer all the questions, but I for one would rather have an engine that had a couple thousand miles on it, eliminates the ones put together on a hung over Monday morning and someone forgot to tighten the rod bolts. That goes for a Rotax as well.
 
A couple more points.
1. We consider the price from Vans for the Rotax engine kit of $28,730, but that is much more than just an engine. I see anyone can buy a new 912 ULS for $22,700 today, but you need motor mounts, exhaust, propellor, etc, etc.
2. The price for a fuel pump for the Viking is not $500 like a Rotax, but only $25each! It has two for redundancy too, if one does quit, just flick a switch and the other one comes online!
 
Well..... with the Viking engine you do not know if it has a a few thousand miles or tens of thousands of miles. The Rotax engines are run at the factory and tested before shipping. On what I would guess are some very sophisticated pieces of equipment.
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
Unless things have changed or I have my facts wrong, the RV12 Rotax engine is NOT an aircraft engine, but a non aircraft engine sold for air use. Obviously the parts not good enough for their certified engine go over to the non aircraft engine assembly line for installation on RV12's.
.
Click to expand...

Interesting statements not based on one fig of truth....

The 912S and 912ULS engines are built on the same production line. The certified engines are (IIRC) ground run for 2 hours and the uncertified 1 hour.

There is a also a certified engine process where every 10th engine or so is stripped down for inspection.

The parts are identical. When we order parts for our certified engines in the Tecnams we put a 'c' after the part number and the part is supplied with Form One paperwork (like an 8130). The price is 10% more across the board for certified parts. The parts themselves do not have a 'c' after them - and that's everything from oil filters and oil tank drain gaskets.

People can attempt to rubbish the Rotax 912 as much as they want but the fact is that it is a well proven aircraft engine. It may not be cheap but personally I would want something well proven rather than cheap....

It would be good to see other powerplants appear - like the diesel options here in Euroland. But performance and reliability reputations take a long time to arrive - one reason the diesel options aren't the force they might be.

The Viking engine looks a like a neat engine. Time will tell if it's up to the job or another development of a non-aero engine that objects to running at 75% power all day long. Something that proven aero engines can cope with and few others can.
 
aerofurb said:
Interesting statements not based on one fig of truth....

The 912S and 912ULS engines are built on the same production line. The certified engines are (IIRC) ground run for 2 hours and the uncertified 1 hour.

There is a also a certified engine process where every 10th engine or so is stripped down for inspection.

The parts are identical. When we order parts for our certified engines in the Tecnams we put a 'c' after the part number and the part is supplied with Form One paperwork (like an 8130). The price is 10% more across the board for certified parts. The parts themselves do not have a 'c' after them - and that's everything from oil filters and oil tank drain gaskets.

People can attempt to rubbish the Rotax 912 as much as they want but the fact is that it is a well proven aircraft engine. It may not be cheap but personally I would want something well proven rather than cheap....

It would be good to see other powerplants appear - like the diesel options here in Euroland. But performance and reliability reputations take a long time to arrive - one reason the diesel options aren't the force they might be.

The Viking engine looks a like a neat engine. Time will tell if it's up to the job or another development of a non-aero engine that objects to running at 75% power all day long. Something that proven aero engines can cope with and few others can.
Click to expand...

I think you guys are misinterpreting what he said, not that the 912 is not built in an airplane engine type factory, but that because it is liquid cooled and has a psru it is not a traditional airplane engine.
 
Danny7 said:
I think you guys are misinterpreting what he said, not that the 912 is not built in an airplane engine type factory, but that because it is liquid cooled and has a psru it is not a traditional airplane engine.
Click to expand...

Is the Rolls Royce Merlin a traditional aircraft engine?
It is liquid cooled and has a PSRU.
 
For Aerofurb: More good information, thanks for telling us that. Assuming it is factual, it is strange to the non engine manufacturer like myself, to make two engines, same parts, except charge more when it goes into a certified engine. A puzzle it is. One would think it more simple to just make certified engines period. My information, which may be wrong, was that when the mike on a piston showed it out of certified specs, off it went into the non cert pile. Same with cylinder bores and crank journals. This could be a major headache for rebuilders, no way to tell the difference if a crank came from a cert or non cert engine?
For Danny7: The PSRU etc has nothing to do with it, I was referring to the fact that the 912ULS is NOT a certified aircraft engine, but an engine that some people put on aircraft, something that gets lost in the discussion a lot of the time. In that respect only, it is the same as the Viking, or the AeroVee, or an engine out of your neighbors motorcycle.
 
DonFromTX said:
Unless things have changed or I have my facts wrong, the RV12 Rotax engine is NOT an aircraft engine, but a non aircraft engine sold for air use. Obviously the parts not good enough for their certified engine go over to the non aircraft engine assembly line for installation on RV12's.
.
Click to expand...

Don, you are digging a pretty deep hole here (and using heresay and convoluted logic as a shovel....). ;)

You might want to just be content with being a Viking supporter. We look forward to your flying reports. :)
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
For Aerofurb: More good information, thanks for telling us that. Assuming it is factual, it is strange to the non engine manufacturer like myself, to make two engines, same parts, except charge more when it goes into a certified engine. A puzzle it is. One would think it more simple to just make certified engines period. My information, which may be wrong, was that when the mike on a piston showed it out of certified specs, off it went into the non cert pile. Same with cylinder bores and crank journals. This could be a major headache for rebuilders, no way to tell the difference if a crank came from a cert or non cert engine?
For Danny7: The PSRU etc has nothing to do with it, I was referring to the fact that the 912ULS is NOT a certified aircraft engine, but an engine that some people put on aircraft, something that gets lost in the discussion a lot of the time. In that respect only, it is the same as the Viking, or the AeroVee, or an engine out of your neighbors motorcycle.
Click to expand...

I went to the (Austrian) Rotax factory last year and the facts are those gleaned on the guided tour through all the production lines (not just the aircraft powerplant section which is remote from the other BRP engine production areas).

As others have said, the 912ULS being a non-certified aircraft engine means little in its ability to perform as an aircraft engine - just like the 'experimental' Lycoming clones.

In Europe, the 912 has a fantastic reputation as THE 'light' aircraft engine - and that isn't based on any 'because it's made in Europe' beliefs (as might be found elsewhere in the world), it is based on simple fact.

Incidentally, the Jabiru is not considered to be in the same league as the 912 either.

I wish the Viking project all the best - and to you development engineers out there in the field with these engines on the front of their RV-12s....! ;)
 
I don't get it?

The Viking is not an "Alternative" engine? What make you think so?
Possibly in the 12, since it's engine was already chosen, but it is not an alternative light sport engine. It is equal to every other light sport engine, as far as qualifying for this title. In the past, an engine using pars derived from existing engines, were referred to as "conversion engines". Today, every light sport engine use a considerable amount of parts from other engines, and are all referred to as "aircraft engines".


Crankshafts, pistons, connecting rods, wrist pins, piston rings, oil pumps, fuel pumps, carburetors, fuel injectors, Intake and exhaust valves, coolers, etc. are usually all from somewhere else.

[Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by the owner of the forums. Non-advertisers are not allowed to use the forums as a promotional tool. Answering a specific, technical question however is allowed. dr]



Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny7 said:
Mel said:
Is the Rolls Royce Merlin a traditional aircraft engine?
It is liquid cooled and has a PSRU.
Click to expand...

yeah but its not really current production... Or even in significant use
Click to expand...

I guess the 70,000+ Allison V-1710 produced weren't significant then.

The only reason we have air cooled four, six, and a few eight cylinder direct drive engines is because they are cheap to manufacture compared to the complex engines of WW II that pulled around large airplanes at high speeds when a rich Uncle was paying for the fuel and maintenance.
 
That is a tough one...

rvbuilder2002 said:
As I said in my post Don "not meaning to start a war (or throw rocks).
Just promoting the idea of proper testing of performance and durability before the masses line up with there check books open.
Click to expand...


[Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by the owner of the forums. Non-advertisers are not allowed to use the forums as a promotional tool. Answering a specific, technical question is allowed. dr]

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think....

[Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by the owner of the forums. Non-advertisers are not allowed to use the forums as a promotional tool. Answering a specific, technical question is allowed. dr]


Jan

Peterk said:
Not to discourage the Viking experiment...we are all experimental fans and I admire the effort that has gone into what so far looks very promising. What confuses me I guess is the reasoning I hear for a purchase. If the buyers were "gearheads" and truly wanted to understand how it works, enjoy taking it apart etc..and want to be part of its advancement I could understand. But to buy it simply because its cheaper is confusing. Rotax 912ULS is an aircraft engine and is priced accordingly...look at new Lycomings or Continentals (and then take the falling dollar into account.)

As others have said, "good on ya" for being the pioneers and I will look foward to the interesting and detailed reports to follow. And yes, thank you for keeping experimental "experimental".

Pete
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you will find...

[Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by the owner of the forums. Non advertisers cannot use the forums as a promotional tool. Answering a specific, technical question is allowed. dr]


Jan

rampilot said:
Don, Larry (and anyone else who has ordered one), when do you expect delivery of the Viking engine?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Delivery times

rampilot said:
Don, Larry (and anyone else who has ordered one), when do you expect delivery of the Viking engine?
Click to expand...

The Viking can be built in a very short time. Money is always the problem. with unlimited financial backing, the parts fly together :)

We do the best we can. [Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by me. Non advertisers cannot use the forums as a promotional tool. Dr]

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think...

Jan,

Some may do research prior to purchase and I would join your recommendation. My original concern was the number of builders on this site expressing their reasoning as frustration with vendor info on price increases. I was confused that an aircraft builder would use that as solid reasoning.
I agree with you Jan, do the research. A small amount of research on the 912ULS would have revealed the true differences between the S and the ULS. I wish you all the best with your creative approach to the future. Good luck!

Pete
 
And then the answer...

rschy said:
Just to play the devils' advocate on this subject. This Honda is a used engine out of wrecked car. Turned into aircraft engine by a company with what some reports say has a checkered past. How much would a used 912 out of a wrecked airplane cost? Plus why does Honda Marine rate this engine at 90HP? They make a 115HP outboard but it's much larger and heaver than the 90HP.
Click to expand...



These are not wrecked engines. They come from damaged cars.


[Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by the owner of the forums. Non advertisers cannot use the forums as a promotional tool. Answering a specific, technical question is allowed. dr]

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why...

rschy said:
Well..... with the Viking engine you do not know if it has a a few thousand miles or tens of thousands of miles. The Rotax engines are run at the factory and tested before shipping. On what I would guess are some very sophisticated pieces of equipment.
Click to expand...

[Text here that was promotional in nature was removed by the owner of the forums. Non advertisers cannot use the forums as a promotional tool. Answering a specific, technical question is of course allowed - and encouraged! dr]

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you are right, I better shut up while I can. I was not even interested in the RV12 until those chaps from Africa flew a plane around the world on a Rotax, that made a believer out of me. If someone flys a Viking around the world, I will become a believer in them too. I would not even try that in my Cont powered plane!

Sam Buchanan said:
Don, you are digging a pretty deep hole here (and using heresay and convoluted logic as a shovel....). ;)

You might want to just be content with being a Viking supporter. We look forward to your flying reports. :)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top