VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


  #11  
Old 02-09-2012, 06:05 AM
Geico266's Avatar
Geico266 Geico266 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Huskerland, USA
Posts: 5,794
Default

Here is a quote from Ron Russ posted on the Viking Engine site;

"Before you read this prop test information about my Viking RV-12, I thought I would inject my impression of the Viking engine. Take-off is out of this world. Climb is over 1,000 fpm. You have to be in this plane to experience the thrill of flying behind the Viking engine.

I had a chance to fly the Viking RV N97HV for about four hours the past two days. Warp Drive sent me a high taper prop for testing. It is a 68" diameter ground adjustable. I started with 15 degrees pitch and takeoff roll was a little over 200 ft. Average, 4 way ground speed, was 136.5 mph at an rpm of 5,410 / 4000 ft msl. What an engine."

Ron Russ
__________________
RV-8 : In the hangar
RV-10 : In the hangar
RV-12 : Sold
RV-15 : High Wing E-LSA On Order, w/ Removable Door Option.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-09-2012, 07:09 AM
Avenger V Avenger V is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 55
Default VIKING PERFORMANCE

Your not comparing apples to apples. An aluminum RV 12 verses a fibre glass boat weighting 1,300 lbs. is no comparison. There was a lot of weight added to the Sea Ray after the engine was installed. If you want to see my RV12 Viking perform you should have been at Sebring. Ron Russ 60 hours and enjoying every minute.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geico266 View Post
Another thread prompted me to ask a question of those who have installed the Viking engine.

Ron Russ posted a speed of 136.5 MPH (verified w/ 4 way GPS) in the RV-12, climb rate of 1,000 fpm, and 200' take offs on the Viking web site.

An unconfirmed report from a Sea Ray says the performance was that of an 80 HP engine and 30 pounds over a 912s and the engine was replaced.

Real numbers please?

Last edited by rv7boy : 02-09-2012 at 08:00 AM. Reason: Wording
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-09-2012, 07:45 AM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 4,704
Default

Quote:
Your not comparing apples to apples. An aluminum RV 12 verses a fibre glass boat weighting 1,300 lbs. is no comparison.
A fly-off with a pair of RV-12's should be easy to arrange.... Rotax vs Viking.

Ballast for pilot weight difference. Pick a wide runway, side-by-side at departure with a race to some agreed altitude, then on the same flight a top speed dash. Perhaps go three times, allowing each party to make prop pitch adjustments if desired.

Apples to apples. How about it Ron?
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-09-2012, 12:38 PM
Geico266's Avatar
Geico266 Geico266 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Huskerland, USA
Posts: 5,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger V View Post
Your not comparing apples to apples. An aluminum RV 12 verses a fibre glass boat weighting 1,300 lbs. is no comparison. There was a lot of weight added to the Sea Ray after the engine was installed. If you want to see my RV12 Viking perform you should have been at Sebring. Ron Russ 60 hours and enjoying every minute.
Ron, I was not comparing your plane to the Searay, I was stating the performace results as you posted them. I am glad you are happy with your engine. Competition is a good thing, I would like to find out more about it. I am just asking a questions about your performance numbers and aircraft weight. How much does your plane weight?

This is not a trap, this is time for you to let us know about your obvious success with the Viking engine. You have a flying RV-12 with an alternative engine on it, and that is very cool. That is what experimental is all about.
__________________
RV-8 : In the hangar
RV-10 : In the hangar
RV-12 : Sold
RV-15 : High Wing E-LSA On Order, w/ Removable Door Option.

Last edited by Geico266 : 02-09-2012 at 08:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-19-2012, 07:28 AM
Ola Ola is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankh View Post
A well equipped Lycoming is a very efficient motor..especially when run LOP, I'm not aware of any car engines who's fuel management systems allow for LOP running.

Frank
Many car engines can run lean. Volkswagen's FSI engines can run as far as 40:1 in low load conditions. But cars can't do WOT LOP, which is very efficient - low pumping losses, set power with the amount of fuel. Unless it's a diesel of course.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-19-2012, 08:00 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 2,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Many car engines can run lean. Volkswagen's FSI engines can run as far as 40:1 in low load conditions. But cars can't do WOT LOP, which is very efficient - low pumping losses, set power with the amount of fuel. Unless it's a diesel of course.
To my knowledge, auto engines never run at a TRUE 40:1 AFR as this is outside the range of charge ignition possibilities even using stratified charge technology. Modern auto engines often run well lean of stoichiometric (14.7 AFR) at low loads below 25% power. First tested by Honda about 15 years ago now- 17 to almost 20 to 1 AFR is common today using wideband O2 sensor feedback and targeted AFRs in the ECU mapping. Many auto engines will run at stoichiometric until about 50% power.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, Marcotte M-300, IVO, RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW- 388 hrs. on the Hobbs, new ventral rad installed, new systems and mods
Twin Turbo Subaru EG33, Marcotte M-300, MT, RV10- stalled by life and work.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-19-2012, 10:00 AM
SeaRey Tom SeaRey Tom is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Minneola, Florida
Posts: 1
Default Viking performance on Searey LSX

I'm the guy with with the first Viking on a Searey LSX. I also had an RV-12 kit that I intended to complete with a Viking engine.

I worked with Jan Eggenfellner for about 9 months and even brought my kit to his shop and allowed him to design and install the Viking/Honda mounts and wiring harness on my plane. I had great expectations for the success of the engine and made several efforts to get Jan to work more closely with the Searey factory engineers to enhance the process. He did come to the Searey factory while my plane was being completed there and discussed issues with Searey personnel, but ultimately he did things his way.

From the first flight it was obvious the engine made the plane SERIOUSLY aft C.G., to the point that I had to fly with 30 lbs. ballast in the nose and full nose down trim to fly straight and level. When I landed on the water it was necessary to immediately push the stick forward to keep the plane from bouncing back into the air. The same was true for grass strip landings. The engine with necessary accessories weighs 25 to 30 pounds more than a Rotax 914. That weight is primarily aft C.G. on a Searey. Jan Eggenfellner wanted me to raise the engine, move it forward on the root tube 3 inches and use a prop spacer. The Searey factory advised against these changes, saying they would not satisfactorily solve the problem.

A thrust test during the build process, at the Searey factory, and before installation of the wings, windshield, canopies and everything else that obstructs air flow to the prop, showed 475 lbs. of thrust; however after the plane was completed and flying, several different degrees of prop pitch were tested and the best thrust developed under nearly identical conditions (at the factory) produced only 425 lbs. thrust. An 80 hp Rotax, on a Searey, was tested immediately after my test an developed 435 lbs. thrust.

I never flew with more than myself (174lbs.) and 12 gallons of gas in the plane and never achieved satisfactory climb out performance. Average was around 500 fpm. The Searey is heavy (998 lbs. empty) and has lots of drag.

I also had several occasions when the engine "burped" and the last one when it ran very rough for long enough that I had to engage the back-up ECU to stay in the air. Three times Eggenfellner flew over and adjusted the ECU by connecting his laptop computer. Each time he said it was not a big deal and not to worry about it. Well, I did worry about it and the last time he adjusted the ECU was the last time I flew the plane with the Viking Engine.

Eggenfellner had a long list of changes he wanted to make to my newly completed plane to continue his R & D process, but I'm not a test pilot and it was apparent that the R & D was going to be an extended process and turn my show plane into something I would no longer be proud to show.

With all that in mind I decided it was in my best interests to return the engine and install a Rotax 914. Eggenfellner did an about-face, from friend to enemy; refused to refund my money (contradicting his advertising and our agreement) and even attempted to obstruct my efforts to sell the engine, by telling a potential buyer it needed $2000 in upgrades and they would be better of to buy an new one. I explained my reasons to Jan and suggested that not living up to his promises was bad for business, but he became irate and said I didn't deserve a refund. Luckily for me, the buyer bought it for $8000, in hopes that he could get it upgraded. My loss was over $4000 and I had to sell my 90% completed RV-12 kit to get $$$ for the Rotax 914.

That pretty much sums up my experience with Viking Aircraft.

I'm completing the installation of the Rotax 914 and look forward to flying my Searey with the tried and true engine for which it was designed.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-19-2012, 10:22 AM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cameron Park Ca "o61"
Posts: 10,760
Default Welcome to VAF!!!!

Tom, welcome to the good ship VAF

Good to have you aboard, thanks for the first hand report.

Sorry to hear of the troubles you had
__________________
Mike Starkey
Rv-10, N210LM.
VAF 909
EAA 512


Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."

Last edited by Mike S : 02-19-2012 at 10:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-19-2012, 12:46 PM
rdoerr01 rdoerr01 is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 87
Default I can relate!

I had the exact same experience when I had his 4 cyl Subaru package on my RV-9A. The engine quit on me at 3,000 MSL (2,000 AGL) and I didn't make it back to the airport. Jan came to Kansas to look at it and a day later the vapor lock in the fuel system that happen was still there, so the engine would not restart until the pressure in the fuel rail was released. The engine then started but Jan said all I needed was a new Engine mount for about $800 and a new prop flange. All in all the parts would be around $2,000. At that point he was willing to sell me the parts, but when I decided to just sell the whole engine package, he tried the same tactics to discourage the new buyer and also refused to sell him the parts. Because of this I ended up selling the package for $2,000 less because Jan would not sell him the parts. This is a terrible way to gain customer support and I'm amazed this guy still has any kind of business.


Thanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaRey Tom View Post
Eggenfellner had a long list of changes he wanted to make to my newly completed plane to continue his R & D process, but I'm not a test pilot and it was apparent that the R & D was going to be an extended process and turn my show plane into something I would no longer be proud to show.

With all that in mind I decided it was in my best interests to return the engine and install a Rotax 914. Eggenfellner did an about-face, from friend to enemy; refused to refund my money (contradicting his advertising and our agreement) and even attempted to obstruct my efforts to sell the engine, by telling a potential buyer it needed $2000 in upgrades and they would be better of to buy an new one. I explained my reasons to Jan and suggested that not living up to his promises was bad for business, but he became irate and said I didn't deserve a refund. Luckily for me, the buyer bought it for $8000, in hopes that he could get it upgraded. My loss was over $4000 and I had to sell my 90% completed RV-12 kit to get $$$ for the Rotax 914.

That pretty much sums up my experience with Viking Aircraft.

I'm completing the installation of the Rotax 914 and look forward to flying my Searey with the tried and true engine for which it was designed.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-19-2012, 02:30 PM
frankh's Avatar
frankh frankh is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Posts: 3,546
Default

I remember discussing the fuel system on the Egenfellner package on their forum many times because I was very concerned at the potential for vapour lock.

I even redesigned the system on paper for a forum critique, Jan dismissed the idea without discussion.

As an experienced engineer with many years of designing such systems I was a little surprised at his attitude.

I believe I counted three vapor lock induced crashes before I was banned from the forums.

Inciently, I then installed my design on my RV with a Lycoming and no mechanical fuel pump. This is what is still running faultessly today after 500 hours.

Frank
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.