What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Installing Viking alternate engine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not so

The Viking is based on Honda engine parts. These are identical parts used by Honda in their Formula Ford racing engine Fit conversion. It is also similar to the earlier Outboard "Fit" engine, rated for 5800 rpm. The Rotax 912 does not have the only licence to operate at elevated rpm for extended time periods. The Viking has a custom designed dual ECU (engine computer), integrated cowl / radiator / oil cooler, cooling system, aircraft quality exhaust and muffler and a host of "Aircraft" and not automotive quality parts. It will be used by the entire light aircraft community. it has been welcomed by manufacturers of trikes, powered parachutes, homebuilts, and will be certified for factory built LSA aircraft.


Jan


Jerry Cochran said:
Like the bulletproof Subaru engine, I am sure that the Fit engine is superb and I would not hesitate to have either one... In their respective cars, that is. That is what they have been engineered for. As others, especially Scott, have pointed out here and this will be redundant, but... It's all about aircraft requirements if one uses these engines. That is, the need for a great ,
PSRU, a great ignition system, a great cooling system. So one sing the praises of the Fit engine all day long, but the devil is in the details here for sure. I'm sure Jan will weigh in here and update us on these factors.
Click to expand...
 
FAA Certified?

Wow, That is a really big bite. Getting FAA certification for factory built airplanes.
 
Last edited:
The airplane referenced is our 12, not Ron's, for the numbers you are referring too. The 130 lb nosewheel weight is as accurate as we could get it. I imagine it will go up about 10lb when everything is said and done, but the airplane is sitting complete, without paint. Keep in mind the Viking is 4" further aft than the Rotax. It has little to do with the 178lb, and more to do with location.

Jan


Jetguy said:
Jan a few questions.

Are you going to host any forms on the engine at OSH?

The all up "nose wheel weight" on my RV12 is 147lbs ready to fly measured with race car scales from Avery tools. On your web site Rons says his RV12 nose wheel weight is 130lbs. This doesn't seem accurate, with a 178 pound weight in you spec.?

Fuel Burn, with my prop set at Vy 75kts of approx 5100 RPM I'm burning 5.2 GPH, What would the fuel burn on the Viking be at 5100 RPM?

Thanks More later
Click to expand...
 
janeggenfellner said:
The airplane referenced is our 12, not Ron's, for the numbers you are referring too. The 130 lb nosewheel weight is as accurate as we could get it. I imagine it will go up about 10lb when everything is said and done, but the airplane is sitting complete, without paint. Keep in mind the Viking is 4" further aft than the Rotax. It has little to do with the 178lb, and more to do with location.

Jan
Click to expand...

How do you put on a heavier engine but end up with a lighter airplane?
 
Turbo Viking

The Subaru engines did eventually get a turbocharger and it was a complex installation with a scavenge pump, etc. Not something I would like to repeat.
However, the Viking is totally different. It has a single exhaust flange, ready for a direct installation of a turbocharger. No complex exhaust, just the turbo on a flange. This would place the turbo at an elevation where gravity feed oil return would be possible. So, simple in comparison. Someone also mentioned a sealed turbo unit being available without oil lines, from Norway I believe? Have to research that. So yes, in a while, we will fly a prototype turbo Viking
Jan


Jerry Cochran said:
Jan,

A hangar neighbor is building a Europa and plans for a Rotax turbo. I sent him your info and his first question was "Will it ever be turboed?" What do you say?

Regards,
Click to expand...
 
Viking Tops

I have flown higher than that in the CH-601 but not sure about the 12. The engine will also loose power with altitude, just like the 912

Jan

diamond said:
Vans lists the performance ceiling of the RV12 w/ Rotax as 13,800. What might the ceiling look like with a Viking?
Click to expand...
 
I am alwys amused by these discussions. I am reminded of a conversation with the Funk twins (yes young guys there WAS an airplane called a Funk, I owned one). They used a Model A Ford CAR engine in a production aircraft, by the way, one that has never had an AD on it! They encountered the same old silly arguements that the Model A Ford engine was "not designed for aircraft use". Some of these are still flying. He also told me that he never had to walk back from a test flight with the A engine, but when they went to the Lycoming, he had to walk home from a test flight nearly every day, using an engine "DESIGNED" for aircraft use!
That was then, and this is now. I prefer an engine that has had estensive engineering to last and perform. I hate Bing carbs, I love fuel injection, I prefer liquid cooling, and in case someone forgot, this is EXPERIMENTAL for a reason.
I am proud to perhaps be the second or third Viking RV12 to fly, I will gladly put myself in the testing stages so that those that are more comfortable with my testing can have one of their own. Some of the happiest RV owners I have known, are flying with a Subaru engine.
Now if I can figure out how to hide an electric variable pitch prop so nobody can tell . . . :D
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
Now if I can figure out how to hide an electric variable pitch prop so nobody can tell . . . :D
Click to expand...

Hi Don,

This is an easy one, you put the "Real Switch", for the FAA's benefit on a bracket just inside the oil check door on the cowl, this makes it a "Ground Adjustable Only" fine electric prop. You can hide the other switch where I have the switch to silence the wing pin warning system. Now if good electric props did not cost so much.

Best regards,
Vern
 
I was ready for you to say you put a hole in the firewall to reach thru and control it.
I saved over $13k by buying the Viking instead of the Rotax, got to spend that money on something to make it go better!
 
Last edited:
Fuel Flow

I am pretty sure i turned down the forums this year because we will be busy at the exibit.

I just flew one hour at 5100 RPM and consumption was exactly 5 gallons. Do you know what MAP you are running? Static RPM?

Jan

Jetguy said:
Jan a few questions.

Are you going to host any forms on the engine at OSH?

The all up "nose wheel weight" on my RV12 is 147lbs ready to fly measured with race car scales from Avery tools. On your web site Rons says his RV12 nose wheel weight is 130lbs. This doesn't seem accurate, with a 178 pound weight in you spec.?

Fuel Burn, with my prop set at Vy 75kts of approx 5100 RPM I'm burning 5.2 GPH, What would the fuel burn on the Viking be at 5100 RPM?

Thanks More later
Click to expand...
 
Weight

I don't think our 12 is lighter. I think it will be about 750 when ready to take air under the wings. It is 700 now but there is always those last little things. Also, we are not so sure the Viking installation is much heavier than Van's Rotax 912 firewall forward.

Jan

RDOG said:
How do you put on a heavier engine but end up with a lighter airplane?
Click to expand...
 
I don't think our 12 is lighter. I think it will be about 750 when ready to take air under the wings. It is 700 now but there is always those last little things. Also, we are not so sure the Viking installation is much heavier than Van's Rotax 912 firewall forward.
Click to expand...
Because of the stats on your web site I Would think it would be heavier but maybe not.
 
janeggenfellner said:
Vikings start out as salvage car engines. There are over five hundred 2010 model year Fit Honda engines in salvage right now. These have mileage from 0 to 30,000. We buy engines where the vehicle was totaled due to a side, rollover or rear end hit, and only with low mileage. A Fit is totaled without much damage, due to it's low purchase price. The engines are completely opened and inspected, before qualifying as a Viking core.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't 30,000 miles equate to somewhere around 700 hours? Do I subtract this from my TBO? Also, would the FAA certify such an engine for a factory built LSA when the exact number of hours on the motor would vary from unit to unit.

I'm also curious to know if the engine has two plugs per cylinder. I realize two plugs aren't needed for such small pistons, but perhaps for safety...?
 
Last edited:
Weights

You are confusing engine weight with firewall forward weight.
Van's cowlings, for instance weigh 10lb for the 2 halves. About 13-15lb complete with the inner shell, glue, hinges and paint. The Viking cowl is 8 lb complete.

Jan

Jetguy said:
Because of the stats on your web site I Would think it would be heavier but maybe not.
Click to expand...
 
Parts used in a Viking

All parts used in a Viking engine are certified to meet new tolerances for our engines. As far as used engines, we have not seen one here with more than 6,000 miles and the norm is 1-3,000 miles.
I don't care if we make certified rebuilt engines or new engines. I prefer to stay with new.
Now, lets just say you did want to subtract hours from an imaginary TBO. Whatever that TBO was, would be an inexpensive time for you. I imagine the 912 to cost half the engine again, for a rebuild. The complete Viking block would be $1,200 + gearbox parts.
Again, these are irrelevant issues. Good questions, but irrelevant to the big picture of keeping aviation alive. There are hundreds (Thousands, world wide) of close to new, mass produced, top quality Honda Fit engines available. They are our ticket to the future of aviation. Engines made only for aviation, are not. They are too expensive and have too many issues that don't get resolved, due to a limited market. Recycling these engines is a perfect way to take advantage of this superior technology for our hobby planes.
Honda has engines with 2 plugs / cylinder. The Fit is not one of them. Too much additional weight with the 4 additional coils, etc. Also, not needed if one ECU can run the 4 existing plugs, and have a backup ECU do the same. If (and you will not) a plug went bad, between yearly changes, you would have a 3 cylinder engine.
Jan


szicree said:
Wouldn't 30,000 miles equate to somewhere around 700 hours? Do I subtract this from my TBO? Also, would the FAA certify such an engine for a factory built LSA when the exact number of hours on the motor would vary from unit to unit.

I'm also curious to know if the engine has two plugs per cyclinder. I realize two plugs aren't needed for such small pistons, but perhaps for safety...?
Click to expand...
 
Rotax Power

So, according to the Rotax info, 5.28 gph and 5100rpm = 90 hp available for climb in the RV-12

The Viking would produce 103hp at the same climb rpm and full throttle, at sealevel and use 7 gph. Then in cruise, the Viking is more efficient, running a 14.2 air fuel ratio.

Jan

Jetguy said:
Id say in climb at Vy 5100 rpm map is 27inchs.
Click to expand...
 
Jan, are you still supporting the Subbie engine packages you sold?

Can you comment on why you think Honda engine is a better substitution for an auto conversion? Why the switch?

I believe there were revisions of the gear box on the Subbie application that owners had to buy in addition to the engine package to stay current. What testing was done on the new gear drive? How many hours?

I believe in the free market place, and competition is healthy for any industry. Good luck with the new engine package. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH.
 
Last edited:
John: The weight of my plane is not accurate with the scales I used. Tony Ts plane weights 786lbs. and his is very similar to mine. Will be getting racing scales soon and have correct weight. Ron
 
Gear drive

I went through a very rough time with the downturn in the economy. Sold everything to stay afloat and turned to the light sport area to follow the obvious trend in the market. The last 4 years at Oshkosh, 90% of new airplane kits sold have been Light Sport types. I have some Subaru engines here that we are still working on. They will take advantage of the Viking development and will use the Viking dual ECU.

The Honda Fit engine is the best choice for light sport. It is a high quality, mass produced, lightweight engine. Subaru engines start at 2.5L. Far to large for the smaller airplanes.

There were only 2 types of reduction drives for the Subaru engines. There was an early unit, based on an automotive transfer case. That unit lasted for years, until the engines got larger and the propellers got heavier. Some updates were offered to these to improve on it, but it was always the same unit. Because the gears, and the housing, was based on existing parts, only so much could be done to improve on it. It was this that lead to the decision of making a new unit. This is the red colored drive you see on Subaru engines now. This one also used transfer case gears, but I designed and had machined a billet housing for it. It was all together much sturdier. It was at that point that I made the tough decision of presenting this safer unit as a "mandatory" update for all Subaru engines, at the cost of making them. This provided a final and safe update to all engines.

The Viking PSRU is all together different. It was designed from the ground up to become a Viking engine drive. The design took place with hired gear tooth expert help. Shafts are designed to incorporate all needed aspects of the drive, as in bearing lands, propeller hub attachment and input shaft splines. It has ample bearing support and has over 250 hrs in service so far. Everything was put into the drive to make it last, the best steel, hardening, gear grinding, shot peening, etc.

All mechanical items have a life span. Because of this the drive was also designed to be easy to service. If can be removed from the engine quickly, it has tapped blind holes for bolts to pry it apart and uses commercially available bearings and seals.

Jan



Geico266 said:
Jan, are you still supporting the Subbie engine packages you sold?

Can you comment on why you think Honda engine is a better substitution for an auto conversion? Why the switch?

I believe there were revisions of the gear box on the Subbie application that owners had to buy in addition to the engine package to stay current. What testing was done on the new gear drive? How many hours?

I believe in the free market place, and competition is healthy for any industry. Good luck with the new engine package. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH.
Click to expand...
 
performance numbers

janeggenfellner said:
So, according to the Rotax info, 5.28 gph and 5100rpm = 90 hp available for climb in the RV-12

The Viking would produce 103hp at the same climb rpm and full throttle, at sealevel and use 7 gph. Then in cruise, the Viking is more efficient, running a 14.2 air fuel ratio.

Jan
Click to expand...
Jan,
It appears you might have a winner with this engine. When are you going to post some hard performance numbers? IE: fuel burn and RPM along with HP and RPM.

Thanks Colin
 
janeggenfellner said:
Honda has engines with 2 plugs / cylinder. The Fit is not one of them. Too much additional weight with the 4 additional coils, etc. Also, not needed if one ECU can run the 4 existing plugs, and have a backup ECU do the same. If (and you will not) a plug went bad, between yearly changes, you would have a 3 cylinder engine.
Jan
Click to expand...

what would be the performance on only 3 cylinders?
It's not the cost/weight that concerns me, it's "can I get down safely, ideally limp to a suitable airport" when a plug goes bad.

I love the idea of this engine, I am seriously considering this as the #1 choice for my -12, but I want safety first.
 
tim walter said:
. . . . . "I am seriously considering this as the #1 choice for my -12, but I want safety first."
Click to expand...

If safety is the primary driver, then I would recommend going with a proven product. The jury is still out on the Viking. Only time will tell whether it's the better choice, all things considered.

I'm still in the planning stages myself. The Viking package is very appealing.
I am very glad Don and another are jumping in first. I will be following their reports closely.

Just my 2?. :D
 
Jerry Cochran said:
This may be simplistic, but wouldn't it be 75% of rated power?
Click to expand...

The dead cylinder becomes an air compressor, adding some resistance, so the loss will be more than 25%.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Last edited:
John Clark said:
The dead cylinder becomes an air compressor, adding some resistance, so the loss will be more than 25%.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

There would probably be significant vibration also, but would the engine still run?
of course I don't expect just to lose 25% power and carry on as normal, but would I have to shut down and immediately land, or could I limp to the nearest airfield?
a rough running engine, giving even 60% power would (reasonably) safely allow for a safe landing at the nearest airfield and is much more preferable than an off airport landing.
Spark plugs do seem to fail with alarming regularity in higher powered aircraft engines, I'm not sure if that is the case in the viking engine or other smaller more modern design engines?
 
Whatever one's current view might be on the Viking engine as it exists today, I think we owe Jan thanks for finding the time to respond to our many questions when - if my hunch is correct - he's busy doing a few other things right now, as well.

And of course, this IS a forum of, by and for Experimental aviation types...so in one way or another, his efforts should prove to be of value to all of us as he climbs the learning curve.

Jack
 
Not a Big Problem

John Clark said:
The dead cylinder becomes an air compressor, adding some resistance, so the loss will be more than 25%.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

True but not totally 90% of the energy used to compress the air on the compression is returned on the power stroke
The power will be close to 70% with little vibration
The only concern is the unburned fuel and cylinder wash down
Land as soon as possible and change oil

My View
 
Wow! what an interesting thread, and evidently very much so to many. For me I like the really thoroughly tried and tested. I don't care to land in a cornfield with 3, or 4 working plugs, or at all for that matter. A friend of mine with an RV4 (which sold me on building a 6A with his enthusiasm) went thru about 7 iterations of a turbo'd Subie including several landings in cornfields before finally giving up and sticking a Lycoming in the thing. End of problems. I do however salute the efforts of those who try to provide more affordable and reliable engines for the industry as we all know costs only (unlike an airplane) go up. Good luck to the designers as well as the flyers. Many of us will be watching with great interest.
Dick Seiders 120093
 
dick seiders said:
Wow! what an interesting thread, and evidently very much so to many. For me I like the really thoroughly tried and tested. Dick Seiders 120093
Click to expand...
When I announced my decision to go Viking, I mentioned that it was the right choice for me, but maybe not for everyone else. Your remark about "thoroughly tried and tested" gave me a rise. There is some very high number of tried and tested Honda engines compared to the very few in comparison Rotax which apparently is still having some teething problems (like a 1920's diaphram fuel pump and dual carbs to keep in sync). I think a lot of the problems come from individuals who don't want to get their fingers dirty on an engine, so they buy a Subaru because it is cheap, then expect the local A&P to keep it running for him. Problem is, the total knowledge that local A&P has about a Subaru is that one once ran over his dog. I have owned and worked on my share of Lycomings and Continentals, not even one of them was as dependable as a few Hondas (and Subaru) I have owned. Coming home a while ago I kicked my four cylinder Kia (10 year, 100,000 mile warranty by the way) in passing gear and as it wound up I thought: "Wouldn't it be super to have an aircraft engine that ran this smooth?"
 
Last edited:
DonFromTX said:
I have owned and worked on my share of Lycomings and Continentals, not even one of them was as dependable as a few Hondas (and Subaru) I have owned. Coming home a while ago I kicked my four cylinder Kia (10 year, 100,000 mile warranty by the way) in passing gear and as it wound up I thought: "Wouldn't it be super to have an aircraft engine that ran this smooth?"
Click to expand...

If only we didn't have to deal with that stinkin' propeller....that thing causes all sorts of problems when it comes to designing aero engines...... ;)
 
Yeah, I think we need to convert the transaxle as well, use that automatic transmission to drive the prop! Would be LSA legal too:D
 
My ,92 Saturn with 227,000 miles is on the third set of plugs and has never had even 1 plug cause a problem. I just pull them at 60,000 and adjust the gap. With todays fuel injection and higher compression engines the plugs stay clean and are virtually a non issue. Also at 196000 miles I had an exhaust valve issue, pulled the engine because I wanted to check the internals and found virtuall no wear and no sludge. Hone marks still well visible and bearings plastigage was good. Slapped a set of rings on, had the head fixed and put her back together. Amzoil or Mobil 1 since new. I have great confidence that the Viking will be reliable as it is similar in design and improved on since
'92. Timing CHAIN instead of belt as the Saturn.




tim walter said:
what would be the performance on only 3 cylinders?
It's not the cost/weight that concerns me, it's "can I get down safely, ideally limp to a suitable airport" when a plug goes bad.

I love the idea of this engine, I am seriously considering this as the #1 choice for my -12, but I want safety first.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
skydiverlv said:
My ,92 Saturn with 227,000 miles is on the third set of plugs and has never had even 1 plug cause a problem. I just pull them at 60,000 and adjust the gap. With todays fuel injection and higher compression engines the plugs stay clean and are virtually a non issue. Also at 196000 miles I had an exhaust valve issue, pulled the engine because I wanted to check the internals and found virtuall no wear and no sludge. Hone marks still well visible and bearings plastigage was good. Slapped a set of rings on, had the head fixed and put her back together. Amzoil or Mobil 1 since new. I have great confidence that the Viking will be reliable. Timing CHAIN instead of belt.
Click to expand...

Try running it at near-full throttle for that long now. There is a reason that race car engines need replacing every season at least as well.
 
When something goes down

I guess you should ask the same about the Rotax. How does it perform if one carburetor jet is clogged or the carburetor falls off the engine? What if the fuel pump let go? Or carb ice set in bad? If one of the many external oil lines ruptures, how much time do I have?

With the Viking, you are down to about 60% power on 3 cylinders. 65% of 110 is 72hp. Plenty to fly an RV-12

You might also consider if you would like a pressed together crank or a single forged one.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24363/aair200700054_001.pdf

Jan



tim walter said:
what would be the performance on only 3 cylinders?
It's not the cost/weight that concerns me, it's "can I get down safely, ideally limp to a suitable airport" when a plug goes bad.

I love the idea of this engine, I am seriously considering this as the #1 choice for my -12, but I want safety first.
Click to expand...
 
History

I don't let much of this out but the lessons have been many and the notion, by an earlier post, that I somehow let others test fly what is made, it totally wrong. I have been in the seat after every change to any engine ever sold. I have 5 off airport landings, 2 flipped over with gasoline all over and braking out through a crushed canopy with a fire extinguisher. If anyone think this endevour is without hazards for me, they are wrong. My first off airport landing was less worrisome on the nerves than the last one. Not that I can't put the airplane somewhere, it is the unforeseen ditch that gets you, once the elevator is useless, and you almost made it.

These events are a few years back now and I am happy to report that the Vikling has been totally faithful since the first flight 265 hrs ago

.

Jan


Jack Tyler said:
Whatever one's current view might be on the Viking engine as it exists today, I think we owe Jan thanks for finding the time to respond to our many questions when - if my hunch is correct - he's busy doing a few other things right now, as well.

And of course, this IS a forum of, by and for Experimental aviation types...so in one way or another, his efforts should prove to be of value to all of us as he climbs the learning curve.

Jack
Click to expand...
 
Erich: The Ford (Pinto) engine used in formula Ford needed work after twenty hours and a major after every year. The Honda 15A Fit engine needed no work after one year on the circuit and is on its second year. The Fit engine runs at about 7000 RPM and shift between 7200 and 7600 all day. I used to race and know a little about racing. This engine has made formula Ford racing economical. Ron
 
What about the other EGGs that are abandoned by the mfg

I am a a bit taken back by the FACT that I know of 2 close friends who have the egg subies installed yet have not flown and never will due to failures of the PSRUs, wastegate controllers, ignitions, overtemp problems, PSRU lubrication issues, just to name the most recent I am personally aware of. The factory help is nonexistent and they were both basically told they did something wrong so they are on their own after paying more than a new lyc would have cost.
The whole fiasco with the -10 that limped into sun n fun then ultimately perished is another example of the frantic efforts to make it look viable long before the egg was tested in an aircraft.
This is not a slam and I am not attacking any company, person or product. Its a factual observation over a period of about 15 years.
 
Never flown

That does happen. Then we have many that love their Subaru engines.
The Subaru was competing with the Lycoming engine. That is a tough match. The Viking is a new product, has lots of experience behind it, and yes, as you say, some learning curves.

If your friends are grounded, it is partially their fault, partially my fault. Thinking that all builders could install and fly the engines we were able to install and fly. The Subaru's you mention also sound as though they were turbocharged, a very complex engine for sure. Lack of help is 100% a lie. My phone is on all the time.

We will push forward with the Viking, using all experiences as something learned. Most of that come down to having an engine as complete as possible, with as few customer parameters as possible. We have achieved that. You can search any product, never mind one as complex as a turbocharged aircraft engine, and find those that are unhappy.

I suggest, for those that have an open mind, to continue to focus on the positive development that is taking place. There will be 100 Viking engines flying in less that 2 years.

Jan
 
Shame on you

[ed. Text here removed and thread closed by Doug Reeves. ]

Severlal sides to every story. Also, I am not blind to what I have learned.

Jan


Rick of Austin said:
I am a a bit taken back by the FACT that I know of 2 close friends who have the egg subies installed yet have not flown and never will due to failures of the PSRUs, wastegate controllers, ignitions, overtemp problems, PSRU lubrication issues, just to name the most recent I am personally aware of. The factory help is nonexistent and they were both basically told they did something wrong so they are on their own after paying more than a new lyc would have cost.
The whole fiasco with the -10 that limped into sun n fun then ultimately perished is another example of the frantic efforts to make it look viable long before the egg was tested in an aircraft.
This is not a slam and I am not attacking any company, person or product. Its a factual observation over a period of about 15 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top