VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #31  
Old 01-06-2016, 01:23 PM
12vaitor 12vaitor is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
John,
If you are willing, I would be very interested in you expanding on this in a bit more detail.
It seems that price point and completeness of the install kit is the marketing focus. Particularly for the RV-12.
Scott,
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. In my case it comes down to the level of quality that I am willing to bet my life on. As an example, I wanted my firewall completely sealed so the standard direction to cut a big hole in the firewall to pass a DB37 harness connector was not acceptable. I traced and documented every wire in the engine harness, then cut it and wired it to a MIL-Circular connector on the firewall. I did not want the oil cooler on the firewall, I wanted it on the engine which ment engineering and fabricating custom brackets for a new oil cooler. I also redesigned the dual battery electrical power distribution as the original specified wire gauges and fuse ratings were not properly matched. BTW, I did not use any of the standard Van's RV-12 electrical system, so this was not a big deal to add on. I did not like the fit of the cowl so lots of glasswork, cutting and sanding later I have something I like (might have gone overboard with the hidden oil door). I also did a lot of work on the fuel system as I do not like rubber hoses, plastic fuel filters, or the recommended component locations. I built a removable dual fuel pump module that fits in the tunnel between the rudder cables and had Tom S fabricate SS Teflon hoses with AN fittings for anything that is not a hard line. The fuel tank required a mod to change the location of the bypass return line from the filler pipe to the intake sump area. I ran a test with 4 gallons of fuel iin the tank (top of the internal baffle) and found those 46 psi FI fuel pumps will suck the sump dry faster than the openings in the baffles will refill it. (and I have no intention of installing the "wing" tanks).

You are also on your own for plumbing and mounting a pitot/AOA, which is not a minor task with already built wings. Same for battery mounting and the coolant overflow tank mount. I knew almost all of the above going in from the research I did, so I do not look at it as a negative.

Overall I have no problem with the engine itself, the PSRU, or the engine mounting. All of the parts are top qualify, fit well, and are beautifully machined and finished. I have to admit I could not resist powder coating the aluminum intake, valve cover and coolant piping in candy apple red to go with the gold anodizing on the PSRU and accessory/mount bracket. Weight and CG numbers look fine, just hitting the forward limit with me and 4 gallons of fuel remaining.

Time wise, for me it easily added two years over what the Rotax RV-12 FWF would have taken. Dollar wise, what's two years of not flying your airplane worth (not to mention spam can rentals in the mean time). Cost savings is not what motivated me to go this route, if I were just going for a cheap RV-12 I would not have put an IFD-540 in the panel. Would I do it again? Yes, because I enjoyed every minute of solving the problems and building MY RV. When people give me a puzzled look and ask why am I building my own plane, I simply tell them "because I can". I think the goal of of lowering the cost of the FWF package is laudable, I have no issues with the technology or quality, and I have my own standards to filter the "good enough" details needed to make it all airworthy for me.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-06-2016, 05:49 PM
Jordan1976 Jordan1976 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 159
Default

The rigid part of the system you need to worry about isn't so much the air or water, it's the actual moment of inertia of the propeller. As each cylinder hits the power stroke, it accelerates the mass connected to it, and then that mass carries the engine to the next power stroke. Yes, the mass of the air or water matter somewhat, but nowhere as much as the rigidly attached prop.

The moment of inertia is the square of the length of the prop. So you can see that a water propeller will have an order of magnitude less inertia than an air propeller for the same HP, since water props are so much smaller due to the higher density of water.

A 4 cylinder engine hits about 375% of mean torque on the power stroke and goes down to -100% during compression. This means that if you have a 100 HP engine at 5,000 RPM, you would expect that you have a 100 lb/ft torque engine. This is true on average, but instantaneously, you could have up to 375 lb/ft, and as low as -100 lb/ft. When you have gears in the system, they have to deal with these pulses. Design a gear set for 150 lb/ft and it will fail right away. You actually need to design for 400lb/ft, and then you need to deal with the fact that there are torque reversals, so your material gets fully cycled, which significantly increases fatigue in most materials. This is what a damper is trying to reduce in a PSRU - it's trying to add enough compliance to the system so that the torque peaks and valleys are lower.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-06-2016, 08:04 PM
mturnerb mturnerb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostRider32 View Post
I'm not a Viking owner but plan on starting my -12 this spring/summer and the Viking, Jabiru and UL Power are the three I'm looking at. This is my take on the Jan Eggenfeller controversy.

There is no doubt that Jan Eggenfeller had issues with his Subaru conversions and there is a article written by Jan on his site that explains it. I actually read it a few days ago but can't find it now. I've never been a fan of his website..... In short, he simply explains that the crash of 2009 did him in. He admits to "losing everything" and according to him, "paid people back" until "there was nothing left". Whether you believe the statement or not is every persons choice.

Fast forward a few years, it appears that he has developed a engine/gearbox for small aircraft. It appears that he took a well made and known variable, "the Honda engine" and mated it with a gearbox to drive a propeller. So, to me the engine itself isn't the greatest concern but the gearbox and it's reliability would be what I would be most interested in.

There are a limited number of samples, a little over 260 so far per Jan's numbers, to draw a conclusion on. One of those samples is Casey Lyons. I don't know Casey personally but here is his review of one of the original Viking engines. He installed the engine on May 28, 2012 and as of July 20, 2013, he had 125 hours on it. I read somewhere recently that Casey is now close to 500 hours.

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd66...SonexPirep.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd66...eviewPirep.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd66...mbersPirep.pdf

http://vikingaircraftengines.ning.co...ing-sonex-info

From the limited test sample of this plane and others, it appears that the engine/gearbox combination is working well. There are numerous planes now flying with the Viking. RV-12's, Zenith 601, 650, 701 and 750, Rans, a RV-9a is getting ready to fly, etc..... Of all of these that are on the internet and youtube, I have yet to see anything negative about the current line of Vikings except that it didn't work as well in a Searey floatplane. Everyone else that I've seen seems to be happy with their plane/Viking combo.

Most of the time, when Jan Eggenfeller's name is mentioned, it is usually about the Subaru debacle and not the 8 years later Viking version. There appear to be 2 main camps of people on Jan Eggenfeller, those who will never forget the past and those who are looking forward to the future with the hope that this is a viable engine.

There is no doubt that people lost money with the Subaru failure and if Jan lost everything as well, what do people expect? How many other small and large companies failed during 2009? At some point, the now has to be looked at instead of dwelling on a decade ago.

Now, I will fully agree that a study of Jan's past would be prudent for anyone considering a Viking but at the same time, look at what is being done now and make a decision when considering both. There are more and more people flying with the Viking that are extremely happy. You can join the Viking forum site and talk to them personally. Some will take you up in their planes. The data and videos are available for anyone to see. Youtube Viking RV-12 or Viking CH-650, listen to what the actual owners say. The reality is that if this ends up being a viable engine, we all will eventually reap the rewards.
Understanding that this is an alternative engines forum, and duly noting that I don't have a dog in this fight any more, and that the above is all well thought out: given the experiences of others in the past why would anyone trust their lives with a conversion by this outfit, when Rotax and other alternatives have a proven track record? Admittedly some annoying issues dealing with Rotax, but I'd rather trust Van's engineering knowledge and reputation than the dubious track record you already alluded to. Regarding the "2 camps" - my personal experience is that past results are a pretty good way to start predicting future performance.

http://jdfinley.com/what-happened-to...rcraft-engine/

http://www.meyette.us/engine.htm

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?p=630769

I spent some time before buying my RV-12 considering a build using the Viking engine - but the internet research above (plus much more not shared) sufficiently scared me away from this route. Also, look at the resale track record of aircraft powered by engines converted by this outfit - in a word, dismal.
__________________
Turner Billingsley

RV-14A built/sold N14VB
RV-10 in progress as of May 2020

https://tbrv10.blogspot.com/
https://turnerb14a.blogspot.com/

Last edited by mturnerb : 01-06-2016 at 08:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-07-2016, 08:42 AM
GhostRider32 GhostRider32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Paris, Tx
Posts: 93
Default

To each his own, I hope Viking is extremely successful. I also hope that other manufacturers are as well.

Looking at Jan's past is prudent, as is talking to those who have successfully been using the new engine for 5 years.

It's interesting how people are, as a whole. In the 1970's-1980's, GM, Ford, and Chrysler all made some lemons that should have never been sold. They didn't make a few, they made hundreds of thousands. Some were absolutely terrible to the point that after the third transmission blew, some people would leave the transmission shop after getting it fixed and hope that it would make it to the dealer so they could trade it in on the same brand. Yet very few people now consider the junk of that era to be indicative of what they buy now. Very few people refuse to buy a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler now because of the junk they sold then. They realize that Ford, Chevy and Chrysler all learned from their mistakes and started making better products.

There are some people who will never, ever buy a Viking for any reason, even if they had 100,000 successful engines flying. Some of these same people will buy a Lycoming or Continental without a second thought even after the cam issues they had and even though there were reports of some engines that were not warrantied even though they had very few hours, they were simply past the warranty period. For some reason, an engine company that has been around for almost 100 years making virtually the same engine is given a pass when they have a defect and should have known better, but a new company that is trying to make another option is forever vilified by a failure.

There are some people who will look at the cost/hp comparison of the Viking vs. Rotax, see 5 years of successful operations among various users and buy instantly. There are others who love what they have regardless of brand and will never look at anything else.

I still believe we all stand to benefit if not only Viking but other small companies are successful. Getting more people into GA is a goal we should all strive for since far more leave than enter GA. The total cost of an airplane is simply too expensive for 99% of the population and any company that can bring a successful product to the table and help lower the cost of entry into the field should be welcomed.

To me, the people who should be most thankful of a much cheaper engine alternative should be Vans, Zenith, Sonex, Rans, etc.... A reliable $10,000 engine will simply sell more airframes. I can say with absolute certainty that if the only option for a light sport aircraft like the RV-12 was the Rotax, I would have quit considering building an airplane long ago but because there is the option of cheaper engines like the Viking or Jabiru 2200 available, I will be ordering a RV-12 late Spring.

Finally, the biggest difference between a successful $10,000 engine and a successful $28,000 engine, $18,000 which just happens to be more than enough to rig a RV-12 with all of the electronic items one could want or it's enough to cover the entire RV-3B airframe that my son will eventually want after the RV-12 is flying.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-07-2016, 10:50 AM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostRider32 View Post

It's interesting how people are, as a whole. In the 1970's-1980's, GM, Ford, and Chrysler all made some lemons that should have never been sold. They didn't make a few, they made hundreds of thousands. Some were absolutely terrible to the point that after the third transmission blew, some people would leave the transmission shop after getting it fixed and hope that it would make it to the dealer so they could trade it in on the same brand. Yet very few people now consider the junk of that era to be indicative of what they buy now. Very few people refuse to buy a Ford, Chevy or Chrysler now because of the junk they sold then. They realize that Ford, Chevy and Chrysler all learned from their mistakes and started making better products.
In contrast.... none of those company's disappeared over night, only to resurface under a different name pretending the past never happened.

BTW, I too am hopeful that Viking is successful. It would be very good for experimental aviation as a whole.
But, I am also a realist.... so you will not see me contributing any of my hard earned money to participate in the R&D program of this engine.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")

Last edited by rvbuilder2002 : 01-07-2016 at 10:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-07-2016, 10:52 AM
Dgamble's Avatar
Dgamble Dgamble is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 845
Default One quibble

Very insightful post, but...

"a successful $28,000 engine" - you're overstating the cost of the Rotax engine.

The Van's engine kit also includes the propeller, engine mount, etc. Those aren't all cheap things.

There could also be a question of scalability regarding the Viking engine:

"Viking has a steady supply of 3 month old Honda engines. These are close to new but has been in cars for testing or in slightly damaged cars where repairs to the chassis were found not to be economical."

There's something to be said for buying from a manufacturer than can make as many as they would like. That is, of course, a trade-off the informed builder/buyer will make individually, which is the really neat thing about the Experimental category.
__________________
Dave Gamble
Grove City, OH

RV-6 N466PG Purchased already flying - SOLD!

The Book: The PapaGolf Chronicles

Built RV-12
http://www.schmetterlingaviation.com

The Book: Being written.

The above web blogs and any links provided thereto are not instructional or advisory in nature. They merely seek to share my experiences in building and flying Van's RV airplanes.

Last edited by Dgamble : 01-07-2016 at 10:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-07-2016, 11:07 AM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostRider32 View Post
Finally, the biggest difference between a successful $10,000 engine and a successful $28,000 engine, $18,000 which just happens to be more than enough to rig a RV-12 with all of the electronic items one could want or it's enough to cover the entire RV-3B airframe that my son will eventually want after the RV-12 is flying.
It looks like Dave beat me to it.....

I think the actual cost of the Viking engine and install kit is now on the order of $18000 (correct me if I am wrong).
I am not sure how complete that is compared to the Rotax power plant kit for the RV-12 which literally comes with every single thing needed to fly the airplane except for coolant (and fuel). Even oil is included.

I don't think the Viking comes with a prop., spinner, etc., etc.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-07-2016, 11:54 AM
GhostRider32 GhostRider32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Paris, Tx
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dgamble View Post
Very insightful post, but...

"a successful $28,000 engine" - you're overstating the cost of the Rotax engine.
Straight from Vans site:

POWERPLANT KIT (Due to the competitive nature of items contained in Powerplant Kits, credit cards can only be
accepted for the initial 25% deposit. At least 75% of the Powerplant Kit payment MUST be paid by cash, check, money order
or bank transfer.)

$27,750.00
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-07-2016, 12:05 PM
GhostRider32 GhostRider32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Paris, Tx
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
It looks like Dave beat me to it.....

I think the actual cost of the Viking engine and install kit is now on the order of $18000 (correct me if I am wrong).
I am not sure how complete that is compared to the Rotax power plant kit for the RV-12 which literally comes with every single thing needed to fly the airplane except for coolant (and fuel). Even oil is included.

I don't think the Viking comes with a prop., spinner, etc., etc.
It doesn't, if I implied it did, I did not mean too. The FWF kit from Viking is listed on their site at $5,920. Add that to the 110hp $9,995 engine and you're to $16,000 for prop, spinner, mount, etc....

$28,000 - $16,000 is still $12,000, no matter how you slice it.....

I realize that Van's, Sonex and others has a vested interest in selling engines themselves but the fact is that if the price of GA doesn't come down, it will eventually, for most people, die.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-07-2016, 12:26 PM
Jerry Cochran's Avatar
Jerry Cochran Jerry Cochran is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sherwood, Oregon
Posts: 981
Default Hours?

Does Eggenfellnr encourage his folks to keep track of their engine hours and report same back for the world to see? If he can show good reports then that would be a plus for biz. Does he? If not why not?

Jerry
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 08:00 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.