RV-12 with Honda/Viking Engine Flown

[nucleus]

I'd sooner fly my 6 to the moon than buy a firewall forward package from Jan Eggenfellner.

This new venture looks a lot like the old one... Pretty anodized pieces on an engine worth "about $500-1,000" - as before he changes the exhaust and intake but still uses the factory dyno charts - no dyno testing!

Compare this "Viking Aircraft Engines" chart:


To this Honda Fit chart:


I really doubt these highly tuned engines make factory power levels without a tuned intake and exhaust.

Those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Eggenfellner's prior firewall forward venture, search VAF or go here and click on "engine."

My intent is not to bash, I think alternative engines are great.

However, I do think that Mr. Eggenfellner has a history of selling untested packages that don't make the stated power. He also doesn't seem to ever dyno his packages; as demonstrated above, he relies on the auto manufacturer HP curves.

I recommend lots of caution and due diligence when seeking an alternative engine installation.

More than a handful of builders, some here on VAF, have ended up spending more time and money on the alternative engine only to end up switching back the "standard" engine in the end.


Hans

[funflying]

Good point Mike! (post#19)

[rvator51]

That Viking engine sure is a good looking installation though.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

The interpretation you present is not consistent with the Carbon Cub kit. From their web site -

"The builder is legal to fly the Carbon Cub EX as a "Light Sport" pilot as long as the kit is certified at a maximum weight of 1,320 lbs. Our kit was tested to ASTM standards at a gross weight of 1,865 lbs. If you decide to set the gross weight at 1,865 lbs, you will not be allowed to fly as a "Light Sport" pilot; and you will need a medical and a private pilots license."

This airplane, which I saw at OSH, had a placard on the instrument panel limiting power to 80 HP in order to comply with LSA max speed rules. It is powered by a Lycoming 180 HP engine and is restricted to 5 minutes at take off power. After 5 minutes, it has rpm restrictions to meet the letter of the rule on speed. I do not believe the LSA rules preclude what Carbon Cub is doing to meet max speed rules or they would not be doing it.

If this air plane is approved by the FAA for LSA, the precedent has been set. Pulling the power back with any engine, as per a placard limiting HP, is one way to meet the max speed requirments.

My opinion is that they are pushing the limit of the rule. This shouldn't be an issue decided by a bunch of lawyers arguing over what the words say, instead of what they mean.

Part of the issue is that in the reg's, in one place it states maximum power, and in another it states max. RPM. So which is right? Is it correct to pick the one you like best?

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by DonFromTX

And if you "forget" to pull back on the throttle for the whole trip, you have not violated even one bit the LSA rules.

I have seen you post this numerous times before Don, and I believe it is totally wrong.

I don't know where you got this idea, but I would like to see the portion of the rules that make you think this way.

If you mean to imply that since the airplane has met the letter of the law and has a data plate and placards that list an engine RPM limit for continuous operation, but there is know legal requirement for any pilot to abide by those limitations, that he can legally run the engine at higher power. I understand the logic because after all, the pilot knows that the engine is the exact same one that doesn't have the lower RPM limitation (wink, wink), so there is no problem running it faster. My opinion is that this thinking is totally stretching the rules.

I guess you, like many other people still don't get it... the way the FAA deals with non compliance of rules, is to make more rules.
I feel that playing games with this type of thing, in the long run will hurt everybody.

We dodged a bullet when the new E-AB rules were being drafted (precipitated because of too many people stretching the rules), why should we think that a review of the LSA rules wont be next?

[LifeofReiley]

Originally Posted by nucleus

I'd sooner fly my 6 to the moon than buy a firewall forward package from Jan Eggenfellner.

You are a very wise grasshopper!!

[Sam Buchanan]

This is the third thread on this subject, the first two ended badly.

It might be a good time to reread the forum rules concerning civility. Expression of opinions is fine if done in a civil manner. We don't need a thread that in any way resembles the warfare we have seen in the past few days on another site that ended up reflecting very badly on that forum's residents.

[dick seiders]

I have to say one thing and that is every time the Viking chat comes up for a 12 it becomes very controversial. My two cents are interpreting rules to increase advantage over that intended can lead to restrictive changes. A good example is all the talk in D.C. about ridding the tax rules of the exceptions that have rendered the tax system unfair to many. The FAA moves like molasses in January, but they will move eventually if they feel the LSA rules are being stretched too far, and that would be unpleasent for all of us.
Dick Seiders

[DonFromTX]

You should know by now I love playing devils advocate Scott, and am simply exploring how people are stretching the rules.. I have never encouraged or suggested I would do or even want to do these things, but we must I believe understand what is really going on. The 180hp cub and the LSA RV9a's that are selling, are as far out as it can get I think, and I agree we are asking for some "interpretation" of the rules soon with this going on. As I have said numerous times, what I want is a legal LSA that goes 119.99 knots under the letter of the law.
On the other hand, those that believe that if you get over 120 knots during let down for landing you busted a rule are a ways off from the intent as well.

.

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

I have seen you post this numerous times before Don, and I believe it is totally wrong.

I don't know where you got this idea, but I would like to see the portion of the rules that make you think this way.

If you mean to imply that since the airplane has met the letter of the law and has a data plate and placards that list an engine RPM limit for continuous operation, but there is know legal requirement for any pilot to abide by those limitations, that he can legally run the engine at higher power. I understand the logic because after all, the pilot knows that the engine is the exact same one that doesn't have the lower RPM limitation (wink, wink), so there is no problem running it faster. My opinion is that this thinking is totally stretching the rules.

I guess you, like many other people still don't get it... the way the FAA deals with non compliance of rules, is to make more rules.
I feel that playing games with this type of thing, in the long run will hurt everybody.

We dodged a bullet when the new E-AB rules were being drafted (precipitated because of too many people stretching the rules), why should we think that a review of the LSA rules wont be next?

[Mich48041]

No aircraft are registered as LSA. An aircraft can meet the LSA requirements as defined by the FAA no matter how it has been registered, whether it be Type Certificated or E-AB or E-LSA or S-LSA.
I do not think that the FAA approves an airplane as meeting the LSA definition. It is up to the pilot who is flying under Sport Pilot rules to prove that her airplane meets the LSA definition.
Like Mel said,

it would be up to you to prove compliance with light-sport parameters.

A sport pilot who bends the rules might get away with it for a long time. But if the FAA ever investigates him for some other infraction, they might check the radar tapes and notice how fast he was going. Or they might weigh the plane and discover that it was being operated over the 1320 pound weight limit. When dealing with the FAA, a pilot is NOT innocent until proven guilty. Instead, the pilot is guilty as charged unless he can prove otherwise.
The Viking engine might not give the RV-12 better performance than the Rotax; and bending the rules will not be an issue. Testing will tell. I hope that the Viking Engine turns out to be successful in the RV-12 and other aircraft.
Joe Gores