Not only sport-pilot
You must also do this when flying under the authority of any medical certificate.
You must also do this when flying under the authority of any medical certificate.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
With so many powerplants to choose from?
- Thread starter ifixf15
- Start date
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Or not!.This is a forum for ELSA 12's, censored to keep it that way, and as it should be since they are the advertisers that pay the bills for Doug.
Just to expound on your comments Tom, it is no rumor on the UL, Brenda and Al have flown their UL 12 to Osh for the last two years now from SW Missouri. The Honda Fit has been flying since 2011, and is currently installed in over 14 different makes of planes, all over the world, with hundreds of hours so far, not one failure.
As of 2012, over 40,000 912's have been sold and they have been around at least 20 years. In view of these facts, your comparison is baseless, especially when you consider the history of prior endeavors by Eggenfellner.
All of this being said, I wish all of you the best of luck with your alternative engines and hope they perform flawlessly for you all. Perhaps you should wait until Mr. Eggenfellner sells 30 or 40 thousand of them before you announce that the Viking is better?
BTW, the UL is a very easy aircraft engine to warm up to! It shows a lot of promise.
ifixf15
Active Member
Don, that is not entirely correct or even fair. This is just a small section of this excellent resource. Almost all of the ads lining the left side of my display are encouraging me to step outside of the E-LSA standard. Several -12 drivers encourage alternate engines and others, probably most prefer to stick with the plans as drawn. Pretty predictable, but a few comments that provoked some thought. I did notice that several builders of -6's, -7's, and -10's discouraged building an EAB as it will have a disastrous effect on any resale value. The irony of those statements were not lost on me, and I hope everyone else caught it as well.
I will be tracking your progress. Be careful out there!
ifixf15
Active Member
Better
Although I am only vaguely familiar with with Mr. Eggenfellner's past work, I hope that he is more like Jim Bede, a capable engineer but poor businessman, than Bernie Madoff. Time will make that very apparent. Early adopters are necessary and I do hope that he sells many engines and the Viking Engine is a commercial success. It would be a good thing for the entire industry. I also hope that UL Power, Jabiru, Great Plains, and others do well and that there is a corresponding proliferation of Vans, Rans, Sonex's, Zenith's, Glassair's etc. I am a little puzzled by Don's choice of a word as subjective as 'Better.' Which is better, the Ford Escort, the BMW 760, the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow, or the Bugatti Veyron? If sales figures are the arbiter of 'better' than the Escort is many times over a better car than the Veyron. I think a more fitting term would be acceptable. In every engine installation we are balancing an acceptable level of performance at a reasonable cost in time and money. Everyone's risk aversion level is different and each will move to a position that they feel comfortable in. While I am keeping an eye on the Viking and believe that it has promise, I want to see considerably more real-time hours in real-time planes before committing to one. One last thing. You know, there was a time when the Rotax was the 'Alternative' engine. The next year or so should be interesting.
Although I am only vaguely familiar with with Mr. Eggenfellner's past work, I hope that he is more like Jim Bede, a capable engineer but poor businessman, than Bernie Madoff. Time will make that very apparent. Early adopters are necessary and I do hope that he sells many engines and the Viking Engine is a commercial success. It would be a good thing for the entire industry. I also hope that UL Power, Jabiru, Great Plains, and others do well and that there is a corresponding proliferation of Vans, Rans, Sonex's, Zenith's, Glassair's etc. I am a little puzzled by Don's choice of a word as subjective as 'Better.' Which is better, the Ford Escort, the BMW 760, the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow, or the Bugatti Veyron? If sales figures are the arbiter of 'better' than the Escort is many times over a better car than the Veyron. I think a more fitting term would be acceptable. In every engine installation we are balancing an acceptable level of performance at a reasonable cost in time and money. Everyone's risk aversion level is different and each will move to a position that they feel comfortable in. While I am keeping an eye on the Viking and believe that it has promise, I want to see considerably more real-time hours in real-time planes before committing to one. One last thing. You know, there was a time when the Rotax was the 'Alternative' engine. The next year or so should be interesting.
N941WR
Legacy Member
14 airplanes flying 40 hours each is not the same as one airplane flying 560 hours (14*40).
Because of Mr. Eggenfellner's history with auto conversions, I climbed all over the first flying example I ran across. Or more correctly, the first one that landed at my former home airport shortly after they came out. The owner was ecstatic about the engine and the performance he was seeing.
Having just performed a search on this engine, I couldn't find any long term reports. Heck, even a 100 or 200 hour report would be nice.
It is my hope that this conversion works and works well!
joedallas
Well Known Member
Rotax / Jabiru
Rotax has passed the test of time ?
I give Rotax about 80% compared to Lycoming and Continental Engines
I like the Jabiru 3300 to put up a good fight to the Rotax
My View
Rotax has passed the test of time ?
I give Rotax about 80% compared to Lycoming and Continental Engines
I like the Jabiru 3300 to put up a good fight to the Rotax
My View
Yes Joe, I believe it has. Constantly improved, 2000 hr. TBO, 40,000+ produced, some might see the point arguable, that's fine, I don't.
I know the 3300 will outperform the 912 (not apples to apples), I am very interested in seeing the Jab outlast the 912. I hope it does.
joedallas
Well Known Member
JoeM
Active Member
Tom,
I'm looking forward to see what you decide on. I am currently leaning towards the -12 with Jab or UL. I don't see why so many are against going E-AB, I would rather have a plane with my own personal touches that set it apart from the others. Also being budget restricted I could choose alternate avionics, maybe older used Dynon or just standard gauges.
I'm looking forward to see what you decide on. I am currently leaning towards the -12 with Jab or UL. I don't see why so many are against going E-AB, I would rather have a plane with my own personal touches that set it apart from the others. Also being budget restricted I could choose alternate avionics, maybe older used Dynon or just standard gauges.
N941WR
Legacy Member
It isn't that people have something against the -12 as an E-AB as much as they feel they have made the correct decision.
As for the alternate engine option, many of us have seen a number of engines come on to the market only to disappear along with large sums of money.
The thing that I have never understood about the new engine companies is why don't they sell their first X-number of engines at a greatly reduced price? This would get their engines into the marketplace and help them build time and experience.
What we have today are companies / individuals who come up with a better mousetrap and sell them at a price very close to the proven designs. The problem is that the new mousetraps often have teething issues which can and do often sink the companies. (The Egg Subaru engine is just one example.) The worst part about these "new" engines is that it is often up to the builder to sort through the issues at their own expense and often that expense includes dumping the new mousetrap and replacing it with a traditional engine. In the end, the builder ends up spending more, a lot more, than if they had started with the designer's recommendation.
For example, look at the Jabir engines. A lot of people had to perform top overhauls due to cooling issues. I know, I know; everyone keeps saying those have been addressed but no one has reimbursed the early adopters.
ifixf15
Active Member
Joe,
I'm looking forward to see what I decide too!! I really am not attempting to 'Salt the mine' for Viking, Jabiru, or anyone else. To be completely honest the engine that intrigues me the most is the AeroVee Turbo. Exhale everybody. While it has an appealing price, the electrons are severly lacking, and it is more VaporWare-ish than the Viking. Will there be ANY flying examples in the near future? Not likely. In an RV-12? Even less likely. I do like the idea of an engine kit to go along with the aircraft kit and I do have experience with the flat Boxer style engines in both VW's and A&P class (exhale again guys) so that is not outside my comfort zone.
On the avionics front, I could build a straight E-LSA, get the pink slip and then break out the hole saw and start my modifications. I've done many avionics upgrades on aircraft and I would rather install the bits and bobs that I like to begin with and do the 40 hour fly off. As everyone will attest Avionics change rapidly so that is often the last thing purchased. Eliminating all (or most) fuses and wiring the aircraft with the Vertical Power VP-X is something I would really like to do. Also, I keep weighing VAL's remote mounted VHF against the Garmin GNC255. Will I need the extra panel space or an ILS? I am hoping not to ever need a Fire Extinguisher or an escape axe, but I will probably carry both.
I hope that the Viking does exceptionally well. The Jab's and Rotax's already do. The UL Power guys are right on their heels. This is primarily a mental exercise at the moment, and look on the bright side, if I don't pick wisely I won't be able to say that I wasn't warned, will I?
Cheers
Tom
P.S. I like the Avatar, but it is a bit hard to see the tail flashes. If it was the 318th there would be Mt. Rainer in the background, so, Minot, Otis? With the MD address I will go out on a limb and say 48FIS.
Last edited:
It could very easily become a dollars to dollars comparison. I don't see any after market heads available for the 912? Apparently there is a need for cooler heads on the Jab? It is a great performer, I will give it that. Is it ready for the flight schools???
txaviator
Well Known Member
According to the main Jabiru website (Australia), it says that the Jabiru's are flying in many flight schools around the world. Just to clarify- and again, I am not flying yet- but the Jabiru RV-12's that are flying, are not reporting any cooling issues. Pete at JabUSA has designed and included some very specific plenums that mate to the engine. They direct airflow directly to the cylinders and in some spots they have 'dams' installed to direct more air to given areas. In addition, there are two Naca ducts that must be installed into the sides of the cowling.
So in summary, I'm thinking the cooling issues are things of the past. No flying Jabiru RV-12 is reporting issues. But even more engine specific, there are numerous actual Jabiru-branded aircraft being delivered each month/year. I don't see how they could keep delivering factory aircraft to customers if there was still a known cooling issue. Just my .02-cents
joedallas
Well Known Member
Jabiru will be a good choice of many builders
From www.aviationsaftymagazine.com
The Jabiru 2200 and 3300
The engines closest in configuration to the Continental and Lycoming engines known, loved and loathed by thousands of pilots come from Australian manufacturer Jabiru.
Both the 85-horse 2200, a four, and the 120-horse 3300, a six, are horizontally opposed direct-drive engines?like a "traditional" Lycoming or Continental?but with much of the same sophistication of the HKS and Rotax mills.
For example, both Jabirus employ integral dual transistorized mags for ignition, an integral alternator and a single altitude-compensating carburetor feeding all cylinders. Fuel burn for the 2200 is just under 4 gph and under 7 gph for the 3300. Both are light
Oren's 3300 is performing beautifully
I think the Jabiru will be a good choice of many builders
It is what I will Use
Ditto To Gary
From www.aviationsaftymagazine.com
The Jabiru 2200 and 3300
The engines closest in configuration to the Continental and Lycoming engines known, loved and loathed by thousands of pilots come from Australian manufacturer Jabiru.
Both the 85-horse 2200, a four, and the 120-horse 3300, a six, are horizontally opposed direct-drive engines?like a "traditional" Lycoming or Continental?but with much of the same sophistication of the HKS and Rotax mills.
For example, both Jabirus employ integral dual transistorized mags for ignition, an integral alternator and a single altitude-compensating carburetor feeding all cylinders. Fuel burn for the 2200 is just under 4 gph and under 7 gph for the 3300. Both are light
Oren's 3300 is performing beautifully
I think the Jabiru will be a good choice of many builders
It is what I will Use
Ditto To Gary
According to the main Jabiru website (Australia), it says that the Jabiru's are flying in many flight schools around the world. Just to clarify- and again, I am not flying yet- but the Jabiru RV-12's that are flying, are not reporting any cooling issues. Pete at JabUSA has designed and included some very specific plenums that mate to the engine. They direct airflow directly to the cylinders and in some spots they have 'dams' installed to direct more air to given areas. In addition, there are two Naca ducts that must be installed into the sides of the cowling.
So in summary, I'm thinking the cooling issues are things of the past. No flying Jabiru RV-12 is reporting issues. But even more engine specific, there are numerous actual Jabiru-branded aircraft being delivered each month/year. I don't see how they could keep delivering factory aircraft to customers if there was still a known cooling issue. Just my .02-cents
Tony Spicer
Well Known Member
Bill,
Personal experience with the Jab overheating?
Been looking for those ads you referenced, but no joy.
Tony
Tony Spicer
Well Known Member
Michael,
I'm most happy to trade url's with you:
http://www.liquidcooledairpower.com/cj-overview.shtml
Just because somebody chose to make liquid cooled heads for the O-360 and O-540, do you suppose that means those engines had cooling problems?
Tony
jab engine
jab engines cant be that bad as at my local airfield out of about 16 jabarus only about 6 of them have had engine failures ranging from flywheels coming off, broken through bolts, dropped valves , total siezures,
2 that had to have most of their barrels replaced due to ovalness and excessive wear after less than 450 hours ,
although a few of them have even made it to 1000 hours but they seem to be the early models and strangely ones used for training
jab engines cant be that bad as at my local airfield out of about 16 jabarus only about 6 of them have had engine failures ranging from flywheels coming off, broken through bolts, dropped valves , total siezures,
2 that had to have most of their barrels replaced due to ovalness and excessive wear after less than 450 hours ,
although a few of them have even made it to 1000 hours but they seem to be the early models and strangely ones used for training
Tony Spicer
Well Known Member
Yep, all true. But did you know that the jabaru and Jabiru are different engines? The jabaru is a Chinese ripoff made from recycled Tsingtao beer cans. Good beer, bad engines. Best to steer clear.
Tony
RFSchaller
Well Known Member
I thought the Chinese version was the JabILu.
although i am flying a plane i built with a jab 3300 i have been keeping daily tabs on the viking. in the past month vik. announced they would soon have an altitude compensating turbo version. a few days ago this prototype , in a zenith 701 flew fl. to waco tx., averaging 110 mph. it is on its way to copperstate. i think ya gotta give eggenfellner a little credit on this. he is out there trying! 10 hrs. doesn't mean much but you have to start somewhere.
no , i have no interest in a turbo but naturally aspirated honda, you bet.
no , i have no interest in a turbo but naturally aspirated honda, you bet.
Barry_Barry
Member
I agree with you 100% and I also have that same decoder ring.
When the plane was certified - If you can call it that, the speed limit was assigned. If you do your flight testing with a climb prop and no wheel pants you may not see the 120 Kts. The DAR will NOT be flying with you. He is not allowed. And you are NOT allowed to take up passengers until you get the plane signed off. SO, my magic decoder ring say go for it.
Sarge - What I would NOT go for is a Rotax engine. Join a few experimental / LSA sites and just read ALL the issues/problems that people are reporting with Rotax engines. Also do a bit of research on Service Bulletins (SB) and Service Letters (SL) for Rotax - The standing (not running) joke is buy a Rotax and join the AD of the month club. Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
What engine would I use? An O-200. Maybe even an IO-200.
99% of all A&P at any airport you fly to will know the O-200, parts will be available. ALL the AD's have been taken care of so there are no surprises.
I am looking for an RV-12 w/O-200. It is my retirement dream machine. I currently fly a Grumman AA5 and RV-6 so transition is a non-issue. If you know of one PLEASE let me know.
Best of luck with your project.
Barry
When the plane was certified - If you can call it that, the speed limit was assigned. If you do your flight testing with a climb prop and no wheel pants you may not see the 120 Kts. The DAR will NOT be flying with you. He is not allowed. And you are NOT allowed to take up passengers until you get the plane signed off. SO, my magic decoder ring say go for it.
Sarge - What I would NOT go for is a Rotax engine. Join a few experimental / LSA sites and just read ALL the issues/problems that people are reporting with Rotax engines. Also do a bit of research on Service Bulletins (SB) and Service Letters (SL) for Rotax - The standing (not running) joke is buy a Rotax and join the AD of the month club. Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
What engine would I use? An O-200. Maybe even an IO-200.
99% of all A&P at any airport you fly to will know the O-200, parts will be available. ALL the AD's have been taken care of so there are no surprises.
I am looking for an RV-12 w/O-200. It is my retirement dream machine. I currently fly a Grumman AA5 and RV-6 so transition is a non-issue. If you know of one PLEASE let me know.
Best of luck with your project.
Barry
KALEWIS
Well Known Member
Show me an engine or airplane that has never ever had an AD/SB and I'll show you a unicorn. Really. I have one. I'm glad sb's are issued. That means you have factory support and not "factory" shutdown when an issue arises. These engine conversations make me laugh because 90% of ANY engine problem is operator and or maintainer error. Fuel flow issues including lack of fuel in the tank is a high factor in any engine stoppage. Read some NTSB reports. Viking, jabiru, UL, are all viable options. However, time tested... Ehhh. Not really in the big picture. Will Viking be supported 10 years from now? I have no idea. Will Rotax? Chances are very good. I would love if the RV-12 was designed for an o-200. But it wasn't. Is it possible, yes with lots of reworking and loss of useful load. It has been done. I don't know the end numbers on it for WB but I bet it's heavy.
RV12 Viking
I now have over 180 hrs on my RV12 Viking and would have more except it was grounded for five months with a cracked center spar which I reported to Vans engineers. One of the critics on this site said it was probably caused by my heavy Honda engine. Most of my flying trips are cross country flights. I have worked close with Jan for the past four years and tested various improvements. I have never had a problem with the gear box, computers, engine, or injection system. I recently tested the new two bladed Sensenich prop. and found it to be an improvement. They are now converting to this prop. I usually fly along side my friend with his RV12. Lately his plane has been down with a fuel pump problem, which was replaced at no charge by Lockwood, a fuel pressure sender, oil pressure sender, and a soft start installation. I see Rotax now has a S/B on 10% of there crank shafts. Why doesn't someone start a post that starts with "what problems have you had lately with your 912 Rotax".
Ron Russ EABRV12Viking
I now have over 180 hrs on my RV12 Viking and would have more except it was grounded for five months with a cracked center spar which I reported to Vans engineers. One of the critics on this site said it was probably caused by my heavy Honda engine. Most of my flying trips are cross country flights. I have worked close with Jan for the past four years and tested various improvements. I have never had a problem with the gear box, computers, engine, or injection system. I recently tested the new two bladed Sensenich prop. and found it to be an improvement. They are now converting to this prop. I usually fly along side my friend with his RV12. Lately his plane has been down with a fuel pump problem, which was replaced at no charge by Lockwood, a fuel pressure sender, oil pressure sender, and a soft start installation. I see Rotax now has a S/B on 10% of there crank shafts. Why doesn't someone start a post that starts with "what problems have you had lately with your 912 Rotax".
Ron Russ EABRV12Viking
txaviator
Well Known Member
Looks like Kyle just started the thread you asked about.
ifixf15
Active Member
IO-200
I have heard the O-200 being discussed, but from what I have seen to date it is usually dismissed due to weight. I am also trying to shy away from the $200 exhaust valves certified engines are famous for. I did a little comparison shopping and an exhaust valve for an O-200 looks to be between $100-$125. Still not cheap. But that gives me an idea for another data point. I think I will call around and price some basic components such as Valves, Jugs, alternators, etc from Rotax, Jab, & UL. Again more data points.
Since I will be the mechanic I should not have to rely on local A&P's too much, but there is always the possibility of getting stuck in some little village here in Alaska waiting on parts. Probably not as much of an issue with a TCM. Prior to my original post I had not really considered the UL Power offerings, but I am taking a closer look and liking what I am seeing so far. They are still fairly new and it will be good to see how some of the early adopters fare.
Thanks for the input.
I have heard the O-200 being discussed, but from what I have seen to date it is usually dismissed due to weight. I am also trying to shy away from the $200 exhaust valves certified engines are famous for. I did a little comparison shopping and an exhaust valve for an O-200 looks to be between $100-$125. Still not cheap. But that gives me an idea for another data point. I think I will call around and price some basic components such as Valves, Jugs, alternators, etc from Rotax, Jab, & UL. Again more data points.
Since I will be the mechanic I should not have to rely on local A&P's too much, but there is always the possibility of getting stuck in some little village here in Alaska waiting on parts. Probably not as much of an issue with a TCM. Prior to my original post I had not really considered the UL Power offerings, but I am taking a closer look and liking what I am seeing so far. They are still fairly new and it will be good to see how some of the early adopters fare.
Thanks for the input.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
John that is simply not allowed by Doug, primarily because they are not an advertiser I was removed from the forum for talking about "those engines", and was only allowed back on if I agreed to not mention them again.
There are other forums where the engine is discussed in depth, so most of us just lurk and watch here instead of participating much when engines are mentioned, since posts are removed. I did fly with Ron Russ (Avenger named poster) a few weeks ago, and will be able to compare when I fly yours in the near future for transition training.
{sure Don - just like this thread has been removed - right? You really seem to have it in for the VOLUNTEER moderators, even though about .001% of posts are ever touched. And I could have removed your post - but didn't. PD}
There are other forums where the engine is discussed in depth, so most of us just lurk and watch here instead of participating much when engines are mentioned, since posts are removed. I did fly with Ron Russ (Avenger named poster) a few weeks ago, and will be able to compare when I fly yours in the near future for transition training.
Now how about we start a thread dedicated to the Viking engine where one can ask any question he would like no matter what it is and no one would feel threaten or offended?
{sure Don - just like this thread has been removed - right? You really seem to have it in for the VOLUNTEER moderators, even though about .001% of posts are ever touched. And I could have removed your post - but didn't. PD}
Last edited by a moderator:
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
{sure Don - just like this thread has been removed - right? You really seem to have it in for the VOLUNTEER moderators, even though about .001% of posts are ever touched. And I could have removed your post - but didn't. PD}[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I have the utmost respect and admiration for Doug and the moderators, you included! Not an easy job, always getting flak I suppose, I would not want it under any circumstances. Overall the job is necessary and makes the forum much more enjoyable for us all.
Most people however ASSUME that the lack of praise for anything not a VAF advertiser indicates poor product, and the removal of posts make it seem more that way, the advertisers are very happy about that as well of course. I see many totally false claims happily allowed, as long as it is a false claim against a non-advertiser. I have learned very well when to keep my mouth shut (well almost always), and just don't even bother to mention that the claim is false. An inquiring mind will find out the truth anyway.
My only beef is that this is done WITHOUT the forum participants knowledge, thereby distorting their actual information and knowledge about a product. Doug and I have discussed this and have agreed to disagree on the subject of censorship.
On the contrary, I have the utmost respect and admiration for Doug and the moderators, you included! Not an easy job, always getting flak I suppose, I would not want it under any circumstances. Overall the job is necessary and makes the forum much more enjoyable for us all.
Most people however ASSUME that the lack of praise for anything not a VAF advertiser indicates poor product, and the removal of posts make it seem more that way, the advertisers are very happy about that as well of course. I see many totally false claims happily allowed, as long as it is a false claim against a non-advertiser. I have learned very well when to keep my mouth shut (well almost always), and just don't even bother to mention that the claim is false. An inquiring mind will find out the truth anyway.
My only beef is that this is done WITHOUT the forum participants knowledge, thereby distorting their actual information and knowledge about a product. Doug and I have discussed this and have agreed to disagree on the subject of censorship.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
Don, I have been a moderator on this forum since the day it was created and have never.....ever.....been instructed to "censor" posts in the manner you are describing. In my opinion your claims are completely invalid. I have no problems with your choice of engine for your RV-12, but I think your enthusiasm for your engine is clouding your objectivity in regard to how this forum is moderated.
We eagerly await field reports once your -12 is flying.
Last edited:
KALEWIS
Well Known Member
sarahfly13
Member
Engines
Hi all,
I've never posted, but I wanted to chime in here...
I spent quite a bit of time researching this subject, and I think there's no right answer for everyone. For those with little experience or engineering knowledge, or those who just want to get flying... Stick with the Rotax and Van's FWF. There's no question that is the most proven path. As an engineer, I enjoy building and creating. I wanted my own panel, so I knew I would be going EAB. Therefore, going with an alternate engine was an option.
I think all of these engines (Rotax, UL, Viking, and Jabiru) are pretty decent engines. The Rotax definitely wins in terms of units installed in flying machines, but that doesn't make the others worse in terms of design or perhaps even safety. All have their pros and cons, and any of these could probably be made to work with the RV-12 airframe.
For me, I think nearly $30,000 is a lot for 100hp + FWF. The Viking seemed like a reasonable design, and I like the philosophy of trying to make building and flying more accessible, or we may yet see our sport fade away in time, so I was willing to run an alternate engine in my EAB.
In looking at all the alternate engines, my requirements were this... I wanted to see some engines build some time, including one or more in a RV-12. I didn't want to be in the middle of a development process. I wanted a decent FWF package and some documentation to guide the way. I also wanted to make sure the engine had gone through several production runs to make sure the details were pretty well refined.
Sarah
RV-12
90% done. 90% to go.
Hi all,
I've never posted, but I wanted to chime in here...
I spent quite a bit of time researching this subject, and I think there's no right answer for everyone. For those with little experience or engineering knowledge, or those who just want to get flying... Stick with the Rotax and Van's FWF. There's no question that is the most proven path. As an engineer, I enjoy building and creating. I wanted my own panel, so I knew I would be going EAB. Therefore, going with an alternate engine was an option.
I think all of these engines (Rotax, UL, Viking, and Jabiru) are pretty decent engines. The Rotax definitely wins in terms of units installed in flying machines, but that doesn't make the others worse in terms of design or perhaps even safety. All have their pros and cons, and any of these could probably be made to work with the RV-12 airframe.
For me, I think nearly $30,000 is a lot for 100hp + FWF. The Viking seemed like a reasonable design, and I like the philosophy of trying to make building and flying more accessible, or we may yet see our sport fade away in time, so I was willing to run an alternate engine in my EAB.
In looking at all the alternate engines, my requirements were this... I wanted to see some engines build some time, including one or more in a RV-12. I didn't want to be in the middle of a development process. I wanted a decent FWF package and some documentation to guide the way. I also wanted to make sure the engine had gone through several production runs to make sure the details were pretty well refined.
Sarah
RV-12
90% done. 90% to go.
Bill_In_Diamondhead
I'm New Here
Alternate Engines
Say what you like, but there is no way the Viking Engine will add a full year to your build. If you take Viking out of the issue, Honda makes a bullet proof awesome engine. It not only is running in Formula Cars, Honda's 90 HP Outboard Motor (at high rpm constantly) and in thousands of Honda Fit automobiles, but already flying in more than a few aircraft. It's not just the cost of the Rotax engine that must be considered, but how about the $40 Rotax carburetor gaskets. 98% of all Viking Engine parts can be purchased at NAPA or a Honda Auto Dealership. How much money will that save you?
I have not made the final decision on my engine, but I am leaning toward the Viking Engine. I use to work for Honda as a mechanic and all Honda engines are second to none. There are definite advantages to building a AB-LSA.
Bill
Say what you like, but there is no way the Viking Engine will add a full year to your build. If you take Viking out of the issue, Honda makes a bullet proof awesome engine. It not only is running in Formula Cars, Honda's 90 HP Outboard Motor (at high rpm constantly) and in thousands of Honda Fit automobiles, but already flying in more than a few aircraft. It's not just the cost of the Rotax engine that must be considered, but how about the $40 Rotax carburetor gaskets. 98% of all Viking Engine parts can be purchased at NAPA or a Honda Auto Dealership. How much money will that save you?
I have not made the final decision on my engine, but I am leaning toward the Viking Engine. I use to work for Honda as a mechanic and all Honda engines are second to none. There are definite advantages to building a AB-LSA.
Bill
I think it should be remembered that the USD$28k (not USD£30k...) is the complete firewall forward package. How much is the complete firewall forward package for the alternative engines?
The real problem is spoken of in the linked article by KALEWIS - auto engines spend (and are designed to spend) most of their life at 20% power, aircraft engines 65-75% power. The Viking is based on an auto engine - not a racing car or outboard engine. Honda haven't designed the 'Viking aircraft engine' - a third party takes a Honda auto engine and turns it into what they call, not what Honda designed it as, an aircraft engine.
Good luck to those that want to go the alternative route - that is your choice for whatever reason. But, don't rubbish the well proven Rotax to justify that decision....
The real problem is spoken of in the linked article by KALEWIS - auto engines spend (and are designed to spend) most of their life at 20% power, aircraft engines 65-75% power. The Viking is based on an auto engine - not a racing car or outboard engine. Honda haven't designed the 'Viking aircraft engine' - a third party takes a Honda auto engine and turns it into what they call, not what Honda designed it as, an aircraft engine.
Good luck to those that want to go the alternative route - that is your choice for whatever reason. But, don't rubbish the well proven Rotax to justify that decision....
Last edited:
Jesse
Well Known Member
I think it should be remembered that the USD$28k (not USD?30k...) is the complete firewall forward package. How much is the complete firewall forward package for the alternative engines?
The real problem is spoken of in the linked article by KALEWIS - auto engines spend (and are designed to spend) most of their life at 20% power, aircraft engines 65-75% power. The Viking is based on an auto engine - not a racing car or outboard engine. Honda haven't designed the 'Viking aircraft engine' - a third party takes a Honda auto engine and turns it into what they call, not what Honda designed it as, an aircraft engine.
Good luck to those that want to go the alternative route - that is your choice for whatever reason. But, don't rubbish the well proven Rotax to justify that decision....
I agree, for the most part. Some auto engines can handle higher power for longer periods of time, but the Rotax can run 2,000 hrs at 5,500rpm and has done that thousands and thousands of times. Sure, there are rotax engines with failures, but the percentage of failures is very small. Vans picked an engine that they knew they could stand behind.
I have skimmed this whole thread and found all of the back-and-forth quite entertaining.
As for the EAB vs E-LSA discussion, I would definitely recommend E-LSA. It is my understanding hat as long as you get certificated "exactly" like Van's S-LSA sample, then you can make any changes that you want. That may preclude type of engine or other things like that, but most things can be changed, including adding lights, changing instruments, etc. It is an experimental aircraft. I honestly don't see a great deal of benefit of going EAB unless you just MUST have a different engine or start out with a bunch of mods.
All in all, it's your money, so spend it how you want. If it were mine, I would put in a Rotax and build an E-LSA.
viking engine costing
people are still comparing the cost of a brand new rotax engine and firewall forward kit against a used second hand engine out of a crashed or wrecked or written off car
if you compared the price of a viking engine and firewall forward package against a used rotax engine there would be very little difference
people are still comparing the cost of a brand new rotax engine and firewall forward kit against a used second hand engine out of a crashed or wrecked or written off car
if you compared the price of a viking engine and firewall forward package against a used rotax engine there would be very little difference
ifixf15
Active Member
KALEWIS, a very good article which once again shows us the high bar that any alternative engine must hurdle. I did find one statement in the article interesting. "Reading between the lines, perhaps he?s concerned about the FAA?s certification burden on the engine manufacturers. I completely agree with the sentiment, but there are some areas where we really do need bulletproof equipment." My translation, "Thank goodness we have such a benevolent organization saving us from ourselves. Industry could not possibly be trusted with the impossible task of producing safe, reliable, and efficient engines on their own." In every quantifiable sense today's engines, whether automobile, boat, motercycle, or weed eater are better than those produced 30-40 years ago. With one notable exception. General aviation aircraft engines. What would Continental and Lycoming have been able to produce if they had been allowed to? How many other manufacturers might have entered the aviation market had they been allowed to innovate and create? We will never know, but at least we can rest easy knowing that the government is here and they are here to help us.
Tom
ifixf15
Active Member
True, however you cannot build a E-LSA RV-12 unless you purchase a new Rotax from Van's.
Tom
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Nobody has ever left the ground in an RV12 ELSA, unless it had a "used second hand" engine, nor would they want to. It is called "breaking it in". I just thought of a correction, all ELSA engines are actually "fourth hand" engines (manufacturer, importer, Vans, and then the installer)
