|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

10-27-2013, 12:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 288
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifixf15
Don't forget the Harrier, another excellent British design!!
|
.....that we gave to you and then bought it back then sold them back to you for a bargain price. We know how to make money!
Apologies for the thread drift....
Back on track - have the 'alternatives' come up with real world weights for their 12s? And also performance figures, fuel burn.
Engines now used I think are at least: Rotax, Jabiru (x2?), UL, O-235, Viking.
__________________
Jerry Parr
England
Ex RV-12
Loving Rotax....
|

10-27-2013, 12:32 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Feria Texas
Posts: 3,822
|
|
I have no financial interest in Viking nor am I married to anyone that is, but it seems like I am always ?defending? them. There are numerous misconceptions voiced in this thread, so I wish to correct some of them now. There are many Vikings flying in many different planes, none have experienced the failures that some believe will happen. A turbo Viking just flew a CH750 from Florida to Arizona in two days, two persons aboard.
The biggest misconception is that the engine will certainly fail, since in a car it runs at lower power and rpm. However the same engine is used in Formula F racing (even has the exact same number stamped on it as my Fit car and Viking engine has on them). It runs entire races at 6 to 8 thousand rpm with no difficulties, I don?t find the ?other? aircraft engines competing in these areas.. The same L15A7 engine is used in outboards, Honda specs say it is to be run at 5300 to 6300 rpm. Honda brags that these engines are of ?Legendary quality based on the Honda Fit L15A7 engine.? Those who say those are entirely different engines need to look closer. Enough about RPM, we run the Viking engine at 5000 to 5500 rpm typically, there have been no failures, wear at the 500-800 hrs checks show no wear evident.
Second is the ?limited production? fear. The Honda Fit is produced in 10 plants in 8 countries, with the total number way back in July 2010 at 3.5 MILLION units, far more than any of the other choices for the RV12..
|

10-27-2013, 03:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Delta Junction, AK
Posts: 68
|
|
Let's ask
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerofurb
Back on track - have the 'alternatives' come up with real world weights for their 12s? And also performance figures, fuel burn.
Engines now used I think are at least: Rotax, Jabiru (x2?), UL, O-235, Viking.
|
That is a very good question. Let's ask everyone. I will start a thread asking for real-world numbers for the alternative engines.
Tom
__________________
Tom
MSgt, USAF, Ret
N318RV Reserved
Gathering tools
Dues paid
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand Binary and those who don't.
|

10-27-2013, 04:09 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Delta Junction, AK
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerofurb
Back on track - have the 'alternatives' come up with real world weights for their 12s? And also performance figures, fuel burn.
Engines now used I think are at least: Rotax, Jabiru (x2?), UL, O-235, Viking.
|
New Thread posted. We shall see soon who responds. There should be a good number of Jabiru 2200's I would think. There are only a few Jabiru 3300 and UL's that have spoken up and hopefully a growing number of Vikings. I have not heard of any O-200's or O-235's, but hopefully if there are they will respond.
Tom
__________________
Tom
MSgt, USAF, Ret
N318RV Reserved
Gathering tools
Dues paid
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand Binary and those who don't.
|

10-27-2013, 04:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 288
|
|
O-235 RV-12
__________________
Jerry Parr
England
Ex RV-12
Loving Rotax....
|

10-27-2013, 05:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Elkton, Md.
Posts: 1,652
|
|
[quote=DonFromTX;820263] It runs entire races at 6 to 8 thousand rpm with no difficulties, I don?t find the ?other? aircraft engines competing in these areas.. [/QUOTE
Could it be because they (Jab, Rotax, UL, etc.) are aircraft engines?
__________________
Wag Aero Sport Trainer built,sold and wrecked
N588DF RV12 #336 built, sold and alive and well in New York
N73DF RV12 #244 built, sold and alive and well in Florida
N91 RV RV9 I wish I could say I built this one! Mark Santoleri hit the ball out of the park on this gem.
Currently restoring a 1978 Citabria GCBC
|

10-27-2013, 06:21 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 3,778
|
|
How about a Subaru FWF? Should be a bunch of them laying around in hangars across the country you can get for almost FREE.  I believe they were abandoned.
__________________
Reiley
Retired N622DR - Serial #V7A1467
VAF# 671
Repeat Offender / Race 007
Friend of the RV-1
|

10-27-2013, 06:42 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: X35 - Ocala, FL
Posts: 3,679
|
|
They make millions of Honda Fit engines, yes. They run high rpm's, yes. Getting those rpm's to the prop through the PSRU is the trick. Rotax has that figured out in a way that works and has proven itself. I think it is not as much the engine that should be discussed, but the process of turning fuel into prop rpm's efficiently and dependably, especially in the Rotax vs Viking debate, but the direct drive engines mentioned really can fit in this category too.
I have a. Friend with a Zenith 701 that will be flying to and from Haiti in it. I couldn't, in good conscience, recommend that he do so with the VW engine he was running. He is putting in a Rotax 80 HP engine. Would you do that with a Jabiru, UL, Viking, etc? I wouldn't.
__________________
Jesse Saint
|

10-27-2013, 11:49 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Delta Junction, AK
Posts: 68
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerofurb
|
Good news, hopefully he will post his numbers.
Tom
__________________
Tom
MSgt, USAF, Ret
N318RV Reserved
Gathering tools
Dues paid
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand Binary and those who don't.
|

11-15-2013, 09:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
|
|
It has been informative and amusing reading this thread.
One should not lose sight of what the horsepower being delivered to the propeller @ 2700 rpm is versus weight and TBO in this debate.
Whilst I think the UL power is probably the best contender when compared with the Rotax, one would have to choose the 130 hp variant to have an engine giving an honest 100 hp at 2700 rpm. The Jabiru 3300 also only delivers its rated hp at a much higher rpm value than 2700. Both installations are going to be heavier than the Rotax and if one factors in the TBO, hourly running costs will be lower and mean that the Rotax in the long term will be an economical choice with less hassle and downtime.
Once upon a time I was interested in installing an Eggenfellner Subaru in my
RV-7 and I'm glad I didn't. All who did learned the hard way that the motors never produced the horsepower claimed and ended up being much more expensive than promised. The FWF installations ended up adding in excess of 100lbs to the gross weights not to mention a host of other problems such as overheating etc. The "195" hp Egg-Subaru was outperformed by a 160 hp Lycoming in the same airframe. I'm not saying the Honda installations he's purveying are in the same category but I would caution all to be careful and do your homework objectively before making your decision. A Honda engine may be wonderful in the cars they build but in a plane......????
Of all the engines mentioned in this debate, I think only the UL Power comes close to the Rotax and presents a serious alternative. I like the idea of doing away with the reduction gearbox. It would be nice if the folks who've installed this engine publish their real world numbers. I would be equally interested to hear the Jabiru 3300 numbers. I would be surprised if they came up substantially better than the Rotax.
Whilst I'm not enamored by the sound the Rotax makes, I've spent many hours behind them and I'm convinced of their reliability. I started flying general aviation aircraft again about 15 years ago after spending many years on airliners. Not knowing the Rotax then, I made my enquiries and was surprised to hear that people running flight schools swore by them as the chances of making TBO on a Rotax was better than on the Lycomings and Continentals. That says something about an aircraft engine suffering the abuse of a training environment.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM.
|