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.

Avenger V

Active Member
I recently picked up my Viking engine from the factory in Florida with my small SUV. Installed on my RV12. Took about four hour to hang without help. I do have an electric fork lift which helps. Jan recommends ordering the installation video which I found very helpful, especially when doing his wiring. I have been keeping a list of things that are needed to finish installation and will be glad to pass this information along to anyone doing an RV12 installation. Believe me this will save tons of time. Most of what's needed comes from Spruce and B&C.
Last week we did a weight and balance and it came out very good. My arm came in at 81.20. Total weight was about 760 lbs. with bathroom scales. I new my plane was heavy as I have every option installed. Auto pilot, light package, wheel pants, heavy paint job with vinyl strips snd seats custom made by Abby at Flight Line. Seats are twice at thick as Vans with confor foam which is really heavy. I wanted to sit higher. Weight is the price you pay for comfort. The Viking engine installation is very clean and simple. All that is left to finish the installation is the cowl which I hope is easier that my RV9. This will probably be the first RV12 Viking flying. Will keep you all informed of progress. Ron Russ

Fisher Avenger V, RV9A, Rv12
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the post, Ron. Your information will surely be as helpful as Joes was for assembling the plane. A slightly heavy build will be acceptable for me as I only weigh 150 clothed and my wife tips the scale at 117. I only yesterday sent my confirmation order back to Vans informing them to eliminate the engine cowling from my finish kit order. I would like to know if anything else needs eliminated.
Up to this time I was on the fence because of ease of assembly going ELSA.
Will take longer this way and will not like the 40hr test period. However I will be much happier with my project. Looking forward to pics and results.
 
So how come the "Angry" face on the thread? Your post reads like your installation worked out pretty well.

Paul
 
Oshkosh 2011?

I hope one of you guys can getting a flying 12 ready by Oshkosh. I'd like to see an actual flying version in a 12 out of Phase 1 while I'm up there . Once I get my 9A done I'd like a 12 as a next project and this engine is looking more attractive as time passes. Especially now that yearly medicals are in my future. I am guessing that building a RV12 as a EAB still would allow it flown in the sport pilot category.
 
Thanks for the post Ron, I am hoping to be the SECOND RV 12 to fly with a Viking (well maybe the third, Jan is working on his already), waiting for my engine now. I would appreciate a copy of your list so I can start accumulating "stuff" to make the conversion.
I have already started taking off the battery bracket, gascolator, etc, tell me more and more! Sure hope to see you at Oshkosh!
 
Last edited:
Angry face in thread

Don't know how I did that but I can't figure out how to remove it and put a happy face in place. Ron

[Done; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the post, Ron. Your information will surely be as helpful as Joes was for assembling the plane. A slightly heavy build will be acceptable for me as I only weigh 150 clothed and my wife tips the scale at 117. I only yesterday sent my confirmation order back to Vans informing them to eliminate the engine cowling from my finish kit order. I would like to know if anything else needs eliminated.
Up to this time I was on the fence because of ease of assembly going ELSA.
Will take longer this way and will not like the 40hr test period. However I will be much happier with my project. Looking forward to pics and results.

You don't need cowl, upper engine mount, fuel flow, fuel pump. These are the money items. Your weight with wife and mine are the same. I'm on the road, but when i return I will send pictures. Ron
 
Just a few questions!

The use of bath room scales is not very accurate, did you weight your 9A this way? I tried to use bath room scales and it didnt work for me, I ended up renting race car scales from Avery tools which worked very well. How much did your nose wheel weight?;)
 
Best of luck with this engine installation.

Over the weekend I happened to run into a guy flying with one on a JustAircraft Escapade and it was a very tidy installation.

About the only question I have with the entire installation was the unpainted stainless steel engine mount.

Stainless Steel has many great properties but one of its drawbacks is that it can crack under load and more so when it is vibrating under load. If it were painted white, I would feel better as any crack that does develop would be easier to spot.
 
Over the weekend I happened to run into a guy flying with one on a JustAircraft Escapade and it was a very tidy installation.

Bill - Any feedback from from him on the Viking engine/performance/install?

Stainless Steel has many great properties but one of its drawbacks is that it can crack under load and more so when it is vibrating under load. If it were painted white, I would feel better as any crack that does develop would be easier to spot.

Just a thought - would powder coating the mount be an option? Or would that be overkill?
 
The use of bath room scales is not very accurate, did you weight your 9A this way? I tried to use bath room scales and it didnt work for me, I ended up renting race car scales from Avery tools which worked very well. How much did your nose wheel weight?;)

John: I'm on a business trip and don't have information with me. I'm going to weight again with racing scales before my DAR inspection.

I used two fat scales (350 lbs.) Walmart-$15.00 and one normal bath scale.
 
Most engine mounts coming from Vans are powder coated.

vans will let you order mounts bare, which is what you need to do if you will modify them any (like for a different engine mount) I don't know how jan is doing the mount for the viking/ rv12, but that is what i've seen on an rv7subaru
 
Past experience with bathroom scales, gave me reason to make sure they are all three the same height. You can put spacers on the low platforms to make the playing field level.
Don't forget to send me your list of conversions items when you get back from your trip Ron.
 
Ron, I'll be following your progress and future flying reports. The installation looks very clean and neat. I had a 912ULS trashed after 70 hours (not on an RV) because of a failed fitting on the hose to the oil pump. The farmer didn't appreciate me plowing his Soy Bean field early. I'll be looking for something more afordable than the 912ULS when it comes time to replace the engine. At least I have my brothers RV-9A to fly.
 
Viking/Eggenfellner?

Looks like Jan Eggenfellner is the head guy at Viking, or am I wrong? If so, is Viking a separate company... or is it a subsidiary of Eggenfellner engines, the Subaru guru?

Just curious, thasall...
 
Looks like Jan Eggenfellner is the head guy at Viking, or am I wrong? If so, is Viking a separate company... or is it a subsidiary of Eggenfellner engines, the Subaru guru?

Just curious, thasall...
Same guy, different engine offering. Don't know his 'corporate structure'.
 
Viking

You don't need cowl, upper engine mount, fuel flow, fuel pump. These are the money items. Your weight with wife and mine are the same. I'm on the road, but when i return I will send pictures. Ron

Looking forward to seeing your Aircraft flying there Ron. I'm thinking of the Viking engine myself so will be interested in the weights & performance when you finaly get airborne! Well Done!
 
Bill - Any feedback from from him on the Viking engine/performance/install?
He said it was heavier than the Jab 2200 it replaced. It was quieter than the old engine and a LOT smoother. Just hearing him taxi up to my hangar you could tell how smooth and quiet it was.

Just a thought - would powder coating the mount be an option? Or would that be overkill?
I don't know if there are metallurgy issues with powder coating stainless steel or not. Maybe someone on the forum can comment on that combination.

You could always paint the stainless steel engine mount white, making any cracks easier to spot, should they develop.
 
No problem powder coating stainless steel, if that's what you want to do.

It doesn't need it.

The main reason for the cracking is that usually stainless comes in an annealed condition, and it has relatively low strength compared to 4130. Welds are stress raisers and the two facts can lead to cracks.

A properly designed stainless steel engine mount will be as durable as 4130 steel, and considerably more expensive.

Dave
 
Quick question that might have been answered in another thread, I'm not a sport pilot so I don't care about the sport pilot limitations. If I built an RV-12 with this engine, and a prop to take advantage of it, what kind of cruise performance can I expect? I'm planning an RV-9A build and will use it for a lot of cross countries, but I also like the RV-12 as well. I don't expect it to be as fast as an RV-9, but somewhere in between would be nice. Just keeping my options open.
 
Quick question that might have been answered in another thread, I'm not a sport pilot so I don't care about the sport pilot limitations. If I built an RV-12 with this engine, and a prop to take advantage of it, what kind of cruise performance can I expect? I'm planning an RV-9A build and will use it for a lot of cross countries, but I also like the RV-12 as well. I don't expect it to be as fast as an RV-9, but somewhere in between would be nice. Just keeping my options open.

Hi,

Like the RV-9 the RV-12 is longer winged and has more drag so the small amount of extra power (10 %) is not going to do a lot more for you. With a cruise prop and wheel pants you should get about 125 kts true at lower altitude and that would be more up higher, if you want to burn the fuel to get the extra power.

Best regards,
Vern
 
Hi,

Like the RV-9 the RV-12 is longer winged and has more drag so the small amount of extra power (10 %) is not going to do a lot more for you. With a cruise prop and wheel pants you should get about 125 kts true at lower altitude and that would be more up higher, if you want to burn the fuel to get the extra power.

Best regards,
Vern

At 75% power? Up at 8000 that would probably be what, 135? That's about right between them. Not too bad. Interested to see how Ron's plane performs. Especially since he has both an RV9-A and an RV-12
 
RV-12 VIKING

Thank you for bringing the Viking to light at this forum Ron. First, about the stainless steel engine mount. We use 316 seamless surgical grade tubing of ample diameter and wall thickness. If you were to research this material, you would learn that it has strength close to 4130 steel. It is a great material, easy to weld, incredibly corrotion resistant and beautiful to look at. If you want to paint it, go ahead, but the beauty of not having it painted is that it will not scratch or rust. You can clamp to it, tighten the engine mounting hardware without cracking the powder coat, etc.

Now, about the reason for the Viking engine. The Viking is not built to be critiziced. It has everything it possible could have as far as quality and completeness, for a ridiculously low price. There is nobody making money building Viking engines. The entire design is based on the idea of revitalize aviation. I read a bunch of stuff in regards to the "aviation system" being broken, as far as aviation is concerned. The real through is that it is not broken, it is too expensive. The love for flying should not be held back due to money. Money is the #1 reason why the RV-12 is not selling in quantities 10 times what it is now. The airframe could be less expensive for sure, but the real obstacle is the overinflated cost of the 912 Rotax engine. The fix is to use a mass produced engine, and have the entire community go behind it. You are not going to have value for your money buying the Rotax. You are not going to have a modern engine. You are not going to have an engine where parts reasonably prized, you will not support the real issue facing aviation where the lack of quantity of airplanes flying, slowly is making the industry obsolete, you will have less power, have a carburated engine, have finicky oil system, noisy gearbox, fast idle speed, rattling start and shutdow, oil, air and water cooling, complex exhaust system, oil leaks, a choke?

The Viking is simplicity itself in comparison. Easy to install, easy to operate, cheep parts, Honda quality engine, built in regulator for the Alternator, only liquid cooling, fuel injection, simple exhaust, simple intake, inline 4 cylinder simplicity, quiet Helical cut gears for the geardrive, completely assembled with no external complicated oil tank, fits the RV-12, has a good looking cowling, plenty of hot coolant for winter heat, etc.

No spell check that I know of on the IPhone, that I know of, but hope for the best

Jan
 
About the Viking RV-12 as a non LSA

The money saved on the engine would go towards an electric MT propeller if you want to accelerate the 12. A variable pitch prop would allow you to take advantage of the potential climb AND maximize the cruising speed. MT is a very good propeller but costly. Two more brands at oskosh this year.

Jan
 
Jan, you forgot to mention 87 Mogas instead of 92 octane, off the shelf oil, filter, spark plugs and I believe the alternator is 40 amp?

Thank you for bringing the Viking to light at this forum Ron. First, about the stainless steel engine mount. We use 316 seamless surgical grade tubing of ample diameter and wall thickness. If you were to research this material, you would learn that it has strength close to 4130 steel. It is a great material, easy to weld, incredibly corrotion resistant and beautiful to look at. If you want to paint it, go ahead, but the beauty of not having it painted is that it will not scratch or rust. You can clamp to it, tighten the engine mounting hardware without cracking the powder coat, etc.

Now, about the reason for the Viking engine. The Viking is not built to be critiziced. It has everything it possible could have as far as quality and completeness, for a ridiculously low price. There is nobody making money building Viking engines. The entire design is based on the idea of revitalize aviation. I read a bunch of stuff in regards to the "aviation system" being broken, as far as aviation is concerned. The real through is that it is not broken, it is too expensive. The love for flying should not be held back due to money. Money is the #1 reason why the RV-12 is not selling in quantities 10 times what it is now. The airframe could be less expensive for sure, but the real obstacle is the overinflated cost of the 912 Rotax engine. The fix is to use a mass produced engine, and have the entire community go behind it. You are not going to have value for your money buying the Rotax. You are not going to have a modern engine. You are not going to have an engine where parts reasonably prized, you will not support the real issue facing aviation where the lack of quantity of airplanes flying, slowly is making the industry obsolete, you will have less power, have a carburated engine, have finicky oil system, noisy gearbox, fast idle speed, rattling start and shutdow, oil, air and water cooling, complex exhaust system, oil leaks, a choke?

The Viking is simplicity itself in comparison. Easy to install, easy to operate, cheep parts, Honda quality engine, built in regulator for the Alternator, only liquid cooling, fuel injection, simple exhaust, simple intake, inline 4 cylinder simplicity, quiet Helical cut gears for the geardrive, completely assembled with no external complicated oil tank, fits the RV-12, has a good looking cowling, plenty of hot coolant for winter heat, etc.

No spell check that I know of on the IPhone, that I know of, but hope for the best

Jan
 
PSRU musings....

Jan,

A problem converting any auto/marine engine for use in an airplane is the PSRU. Props can not be turned at 5800 rpm.

I notice in the specifications, the Viking turns the prop at 2500 when the engine turns at 5800. This converts to a ratio of 2.32:1. This is the ratio of the marine version of this engine which drives the prop in a boat.

Is the Viking the 90 HP Honda marine engine with it built in PSRU?

If so, the PSRU is engineered by Honda and an integral part of the engine. Very interesting and very encouraging, huge technical problem solved by Honda. No more bolt on PSRU's.

If I were going LSA and the PSRU is by Honda, I would be looking at this engine.
 
Last edited:
Viking Engine in an RV-12

I don't plan any changes from the Rotax (wish it was a Lycoming 233 however) but wondered if the Honda basic engine is a used unit from Japan? I know such engines are imported in large quantities into the US but have no idea if the Viking is a new of 'refabricated' unit. Your info?
 
PSRU

I agree with David-aviator, it is the PSRU that is my concern too. In looking at the vikinig engine website, it appears it is a custom built PSRU with "aerospace quality...gears", not a Honda derived unit. Many PSRUs suffer issues from harmonics, loss of lube, etc. I am really interested in the Viking engine, but what will it take to get warm and fuzzy about the PSRU? What tests or analysis can Viking-engines do to convince the skeptics that the PSRU is reliable?
 
What tests or analysis can Viking-engines do to convince the skeptics that the PSRU is reliable?

Chances are pretty good that the first customers that fly with the Viking engine will be doing the longevity and durability testing , just as was the case with the Eggenfellner Subaru conversions (currently on the third generation PSRU design).
I am not saying this as a slam to Jan or the engine. It is simply a fact, when dealing with a small company that doesn't have a huge budget (though IMHO even a small company should invest some extended development time into running an engine in an airplane for at least 500 hrs before releasing it for sale)
There will always be unforeseen problems that pop up regardless of the development effort involved (I.E. Lycoming, Continental, and even Rotax have gone through developmental changes over the years). But, as we have seen in the past, there can be a big difference in the cost to the consumer if an engineering problem comes to the surface, depending on whether you are the customer of a large company or a small one.

My main point is this... make careful consideration when you are about to purchase an aircraft engine in which you will be one of the very first to fly it.
I am not saying it is a stupid idea. But I am saying that regardless of how much better the alternative is on paper, until it has flown in a documented configuration (parts, plans and manual available so that other builders can install theirs exactly the same way and know it will work) and has flow trouble free for 500 hrs (preferably 1000), it can not be compared to a Rotax 912 (which does have 1000's of hours on 1000's of engines)

I imagine that someone could say the same about a new aircraft design such as the RV-12. That it was risky being the very first builders.
I don't think it is a valid comparison. That is one of the reasons the Rotax 912 was chosen... because the basic engine and PSRU were already proven. I do not mean to imply that it is perfect in every way, but it is a know quantity. The rest of the airframe was put through a pretty rigorous certification program that proved the flying qualities and strength requirements. Longevity of the RV-12 airframe is still an unknown, but is still in a totally different category compared to components of an internal combustion engine or PSRU (once again, the reason the 912 was chosen for the RV-12).

Caveat emptor
 
Question not answered yet

The question is: Who designed and built the PSRU?

Hopefully Jan can answer.
 
Last edited:
Devil in Details...

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.
 
PSRU

Not much to be said, beyond the "Billet construction and aerospace quality gear part" It was designed specifically for the Viking engine. It has oversized bearings, oversized gears, sturdy housing and compact design. The input is cushioned with a fail safe rubber damper system (Much like every Rotax, other than the 912/914, but larger) It is easy to install, inspect and rebuild, if needed. As far as a warm feeling of its durability, bring a cup of gear-oil, one 3/16 Allen wrench, a small container and some paper towels to Oshkosh so we can drain one and inspect it. The highest time unit has over 250 hr flight time and is like new. The ratio is perfect for the engine, it has no resonance, etc. The nicest thing about the drive is that you can monitor it's condition through your gearbox oil temp, it also has a sight glass for preflight inspection. The nicest thing about the Viking engine is that a replacement engine block would cost you less than $1.000, if you ever needed one.
 
Viking power

The Viking engine is not just 90 hp, as the earlier model used for the Honda Outboard marine engine. The Viking has enough thrust to compete with the 110 hp Rotax 914 turbo. See half way down on http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/news/News.html

Jan


Jan,

A problem converting any auto/marine engine for use in an airplane is the PSRU. Props can not be turned at 5800 rpm.

I notice in the specifications, the Viking turns the prop at 2500 when the engine turns at 5800. This converts to a ratio of 2.32:1. This is the ratio of the marine version of this engine which drives the prop in a boat.

Is the Viking the 90 HP Honda marine engine with it built in PSRU?

If so, the PSRU is engineered by Honda and an integral part of the engine. Very interesting and very encouraging, huge technical problem solved by Honda. No more bolt on PSRU's.

If I were going LSA and the PSRU is by Honda, I would be looking at this engine.
 
Where do the Viking cores originate from

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. They cost about $1,200 each. Being 2010 or 2011 models, they look and run like new, and we do not accept any engine with damage. The best part of this is that these engines are available to anyone. if you would like to get a spare, just get one. The rest of your Viking engine is put together of parts that can be reused. Even the reduction drive has been designed to be overhauled inexpensively, if ever needed.
Jan


I don't plan any changes from the Rotax (wish it was a Lycoming 233 however) but wondered if the Honda basic engine is a used unit from Japan? I know such engines are imported in large quantities into the US but have no idea if the Viking is a new of 'refabricated' unit. Your info?
 
The Viking background

Well, we also learn with time:) The PSRU for the Viking has a lot of experience behind it, as does the engine. It has already flown for 2 years and just recently did a customer fly one home. Our lead test plane will always have more hours than any customer airplane. For those that think this is another "Auto Conversion" wake up. This is the future of light sport aircraft. It is not by chance that SeaRey are now selling more planes due to the Vikings existence, that KitFox will use the engine OEM, that Aircraft Spruce will have the engine featured in the August catalogue, that we spent over 2 years, 12 hour days, perfecting the Viking Design and that we will have some RV-12's flying as good as the original at substantially reduced cost. The Viking does use Honda Parts, but the Viking is the next generation aircraft engine, not an "auto conversion"
Jan

Chances are pretty good that the first customers that fly with the Viking engine will be doing the longevity and durability testing , just as was the case with the Eggenfellner Subaru conversions (currently on the third generation PSRU design).
I am not saying this as a slam to Jan or the engine. It is simply a fact, when dealing with a small company that doesn't have a huge budget (though IMHO even a small company should invest some extended development time into running an engine in an airplane for at least 500 hrs before releasing it for sale)
There will always be unforeseen problems that pop up regardless of the development effort involved (I.E. Lycoming, Continental, and even Rotax have gone through developmental changes over the years). But, as we have seen in the past, there can be a big difference in the cost to the consumer if an engineering problem comes to the surface, depending on whether you are the customer of a large company or a small one.

My main point is this... make careful consideration when you are about to purchase an aircraft engine in which you will be one of the very first to fly it.
I am not saying it is a stupid idea. But I am saying that regardless of how much better the alternative is on paper, until it has flown in a documented configuration (parts, plans and manual available so that other builders can install theirs exactly the same way and know it will work) and has flow trouble free for 500 hrs (preferably 1000), it can not be compared to a Rotax 912 (which does have 1000's of hours on 1000's of engines)

I imagine that someone could say the same about a new aircraft design such as the RV-12. That it was risky being the very first builders.
I don't think it is a valid comparison. That is one of the reasons the Rotax 912 was chosen... because the basic engine and PSRU were already proven. I do not mean to imply that it is perfect in every way, but it is a know quantity. The rest of the airframe was put through a pretty rigorous certification program that proved the flying qualities and strength requirements. Longevity of the RV-12 airframe is still an unknown, but is still in a totally different category compared to components of an internal combustion engine or PSRU (once again, the reason the 912 was chosen for the RV-12).

Caveat emptor
 
Viking Turbo?

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,
 
Vans lists the performance ceiling of the RV12 w/ Rotax as 13,800. What might the ceiling look like with a Viking?
 
Vans lists the performance ceiling of the RV12 w/ Rotax as 13,800. What might the ceiling look like with a Viking?

What's the point? Seems to me the LSA application is limited to 10,000' unless you live on a taller mountain.

Been there and done that with a super charger.

KISS and have more fun. :)

(These little airplanes are not designed for high altitude flight, no matter what the engine. If one must go high, buy a ticket on SWA.)
 
What's the point? Seems to me the LSA application is limited to 10,000' unless you live on a taller mountain.

Been there and done that with a super charger.

KISS and have more fun. :)

(These little airplanes are not designed for high altitude flight, no matter what the engine. If one must go high, buy a ticket on SWA.)

Because I can get a medical! At that point, I can fly it just like any other plane. I have had the RV-12 up above 13800 without a problem, the Rotax will keep flying for a while over that I suspect.

There is no difference in airframe between high and low altitude flight, so I don't know where that second part comes from... However, getting up a bunch above 10k is great for being able to cruise with winds.
 
Because...

What's the point? Seems to me the LSA application is limited to 10,000' unless you live on a taller mountain.

The friend who has the Europa I referred to wants to go high, man... High! He says the Europa ain't no stinkin' light sport....
 
Just a few questions!

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
 
Up high

There is no difference in airframe between high and low altitude flight, so I don't know where that second part comes from...

Actually Erich, there is a difference in airframe performance in high altitude flight. Our easy to build, stubby little low aspect ratio RV wings aren't the optimal choice at higher altitudes. High aspect ratio wings work much better at altitude on a subsonic aircraft. The U2 is the prime example. I have had my '8' into the flight levels (FL220) and it isn't much fun.

The second part of David's remark is true, that skinny wing on a B737-800 works really well at FL410.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top