What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Viking

Now *that's* an alternative engine.

To quote someone's earlier post,
'Once apon a time Subarus looked good . I hate seeing someone spend countless hours and money on a homebuilt plane only to end up frustrated or killed by using a "Broken Promise Powerplant ".'

Charlie
:rolleyes:
 
Nonsense aside, I think DonFromTX is building one, but it looks like he is a ways off from flying. BTW - He calls it Air Force 1 AF-1, not the RV12.
 
There is a RV on the Viking Site , N666BE . It looks like the owners second RV , crashed his first a few years . ( crash was Canopy related , not engine )
 
Now *that's* an alternative engine.

To quote someone's earlier post,
'Once apon a time Subarus looked good . I hate seeing someone spend countless hours and money on a homebuilt plane only to end up frustrated or killed by using a "Broken Promise Powerplant ".'

Charlie
:rolleyes:

Isn't this called "being a troll?"
 
Isn't this called "being a troll?"

No, being a "troll" implies you just pop in, make a comment and disappear.

While the Viking may be a good engine (I don't really know it's service history.), make sure you know the background of the principles involved. Just as you would if a new wonder engine popped up on the market.
 
Just looking at it from a technology aspect, I like the design and have no problem with the core Honda FIT engine for reliability. I also have three Hondas sitting in the driveway, including an S2000 that has no problem turning 8,000 rpm on a regular basis, so I may have some bias with regard to Honda reliability. Fuel injectors, ignition coils, EFI sensors are all Honda parts. The Viking parts appear to be well made and the mechanical design makes sense to me regarding many alternative engine issues that have been discussed on these forums. I did my homework and determined the risk is manageable for me.

While I have the 110 hp version, I think the real advanced technology is the new 135 hp Viking Honda FIT GDI version being developed. I happen to like GDI and think its use is overdue in aviation. Not sure I would ever need 135 hp in an RV-12, but you could run it derated to keep the top speed in check.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS
 
While not in an RV, a friend replaced a VW with a Viking installation in his Sonex a few years ago. It was the first in a Sonex. I think he and Don have communicated previously. The change was all positive from performance and reliability standpoints. The craft is not a hangar queen. It commuted frequently between NC and NH frequently before relocating.

Troll out...
 
Last edited:
Like 12viator, I'm a big fan of Honda powerplants and have a few million miles driving behind them. My son has a Fit and it has certainly carried on the tradition of powerplant reliability (change the oil, filter and air filter, and drive on!). I haven't got a horse in this race, other than keeping an eye on this engine for a potential build sometime in the indefinite future.

My principle area of concern with the Viking engine remains the non-Honda parts. It would be unfortunate for this community to see another Subaru-like set of challenges encountered by Viking customers, particularly in the area of the prop speed reduction unit. The track record of the company principal is not strong in this particular area of technology, hence my highlighting it as a topic of concern. I know Raven is supposed to be making a reduction unit for the Fit engine so this might be one way of addressing that particular challenge.

No flames here, just an honest search for good, solid information based on real-world operating experience. As such I'm hoping those who have actually run and flown this engine will contribute their lessons learned such that we may benefit from their knowledge. (After all, that's what this forum is about, isn't it?)
 
Last edited:
The Honda FIT does make a good airplane engine. Honda has proven and uses the same engine in their line of 90-100hp outboard boat motors that run at similar rpms for sustained durations.

As far as Viking .......... :rolleyes:

I'm not a fan of Viking trying to use the new GDI engines ... adds unneeded weight and complexity and without the OEM's sophisticated VVT and tune being used I doubt any real efficiency is gained. GDI is great for cars because it allows them to run insanely lean of peak air-fuel mixtures while cruising down the freeway at 20% power. That is not going to work in an airplane cruising along at 75-80% power.
 
I also believe in Subaru just as much as Honda, AGAIN what gives auto conversions a bad rap are people who think they know more than factory. I don't understand why Viking did not use all (reliable) Honda parts. I have 2.5 Subaru installed and running on my RV4 and except for a few small parts that SDS uses, is all stock 03 legacy. 165 HP and Air trikes reduction gear, with underbelly rad and ducting. Hope to have flying this summer..Tom
 
I also believe in Subaru just as much as Honda, AGAIN what gives auto conversions a bad rap are people who think they know more than factory. I don't understand why Viking did not use all (reliable) Honda parts. I have 2.5 Subaru installed and running on my RV4 and except for a few small parts that SDS uses, is all stock 03 legacy. 165 HP and Air trikes reduction gear, with underbelly rad and ducting. Hope to have flying this summer..Tom

The thing that gives auto conversions a bad rap is .....
A. under funded companies that use their customers as their R&D dept
B. well funded companies run by complete idiots and/or crooks

The OEM got the overall geometry of the engine right, but there are places that engines can be enhanced to take the sustained RPM's we throw at them and that the OEM mostly certainly did not design them for.

Things like forged pistons with oil squirters do help
Better crank and rod bearings
Stainless steel and Inconel valves
better MLS head gaskets
lighter aluminum intake

Not that the stock stuff wont work well, but some time and money spent in a few key places employing stuff used by hot rod and endurance race engines for years will make the difference between a 500+hr engine and 1,500+hr engine.
 
The PSRU is the part I'm most interested in, that's what I would consider to be the weak link. What PSRU does it use? The website is incredibly sparse with information.
 
Viking Aircraft Engines

I have been working with Jan and staff at Viking for the last year and they have good to work with,a little slow at times. The 110 engine is getting a new ecu, same as 135 engine uses. The FWF kit and cowling arrived in outstanding condition. Make shure to check out the Honda site for detailed info. on the Fit engine. Lots of detail.
 
PSRU

He uses an in house PSRU.

Yes, and was the Honda engine designed to go thru a reduction gearbox driving a prop? The history of this "manufacturer" goes back a long time to his Subaru
days, leaving a string of failed projects that killed a lot of dreams, bank accounts and worse. "Due diligence" very much called for here...

Sure I guess it is cheaper but in my view a case of "saving too much money"

Nomex fits me ok...
 
The current viking doesn't seem to have the problems the Eggenfellner subaru conversions had. I would be careful about taking the HP and weight claims at face value. The 2.5 liter Subaru conversion was sold with over optimistic numbers.

-Andy
 
Yes, and was the Honda engine designed to go thru a reduction gearbox driving a prop?

I don't know beans about marine outboard engines, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I suspect marine outboards don't turn the prop in the water at full engine RPM but rather the engine output goes through some form of speed reduction gearing to produce an output RPM more amenable to driving a water prop. Following this line of logic would lead one to conclude the FIT engine has a fair bit of in-service experience driving water props at reduced RPM with the engine turning full rated RPM to make full rated HP. This sounds like the kind of 'trial by fire' that we want an aircraft engine design to go through.

In fact, it's this marine application, where we know the throttle tends to be pegged at 100% for most of the life of an engine, that fist twigged me to the robustness of the FIT engine. I've got to think the marine application is at least as much of a reliability challenge as the aviation application.
 
There is more in play than just the engine. For example, look at the thrust bearing in a Lycoming, Continental, or 912 engine. There is a reason they are the size they are. Then go look at the PRSU's in use.
 
I don't know beans about marine outboard engines, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I suspect marine outboards don't turn the prop in the water at full engine RPM but rather the engine output goes through some form of speed reduction gearing to produce an output RPM more amenable to driving a water prop. Following this line of logic would lead one to conclude the FIT engine has a fair bit of in-service experience driving water props at reduced RPM with the engine turning full rated RPM to make full rated HP. This sounds like the kind of 'trial by fire' that we want an aircraft engine design to go through.

In fact, it's this marine application, where we know the throttle tends to be pegged at 100% for most of the life of an engine, that fist twigged me to the robustness of the FIT engine. I've got to think the marine application is at least as much of a reliability challenge as the aviation application.

For the power unit evaluation marine is pretty close, but . . . The prop pretty much turns engine rpm. The foot on most is a 1:1 drive ratio. Water is a pretty good damper, and a 3 foot quill shaft is between the prop and the engine. But what the heck, air is just another fluid? Cool water is more available for cooling for the marine application. How many Honda engineers do TVA work, 20, 50?

Rationalization is not a good argument. Customers participating in an open development (fwf engine) program should do so with full disclosure and understanding what risk they are accepting. Lets get some user data.
 
The PSRU is the part I'm most interested in, that's what I would consider to be the weak link. What PSRU does it use? The website is incredibly sparse with information.

Not sure why, but the forum site has more information than the web site, including the maintenance manual and a number of videos on various installations.

The PSRU input shaft is not directly connected to the engine, there is a viscous coupler between the PSRU and engine crankshaft. There are youtube videos on the PSRU removal and installation if you want to see how it is connected to the engine/flywheel. The PSRU gearset and bearings appear to be fairly robust, I have no engineering data to back that up, however after 5 years there is no news of PSRU failures nor has the design been changed.

I agree with Jerry on Due Diligence, which is both on-going and also applied to every aspect of the FWF installation. If I did not like the way the recommended installation was directed, I fixed it to my satisfaction. I will say this is not for everyone, especially if you do not have the mechanical or engineering background to do it right. It is also not cheaper or faster by any means, however neither of those are factors in why I went the EAB route on my -12.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS
 
It is also not cheaper or faster by any means,

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS

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.
 
Ah - thanks for enlightening me on marine outboards, Bill. Agree the power unit is well proven, but that re-drive still leaves question marks. Your points about full disclosure and participation in an open development program are well made and echo my own concerns. I really feel for the Soobie guys who had early-version re-drives who were told by the manufacturer the drives were not airworthy and had to be scrapped, with the customer bearing the cost. That kind of situation is what gives auto conversions such a black eye.
 
The PSRU input shaft is not directly connected to the engine, there is a viscous coupler between the PSRU and engine crankshaft.

Actually a ring-type rubber coupler, a standard approach to lowering a rotating system's natural frequency. Rotax C and E gearboxes are the best known aviation application; probably 50,000 units worldwide. They can be purchased off the shelf in a wide range of torsional stiffness ratings.
 
What Dan says is very true, the Air Trikes unit is also that way, no solid coupling between engine and redrive....They also very clearly state their unit I good only up to 180 HP . They use big rubber donut similar to what is used on driveshaft of many German cars...They can supply units for almost any engine you want. Tom
 
For the power unit evaluation marine is pretty close, but . . . The prop pretty much turns engine rpm. The foot on most is a 1:1 drive ratio. Water is a pretty good damper, and a 3 foot quill shaft is between the prop and the engine. But what the heck, air is just another fluid? Cool water is more available for cooling for the marine application. How many Honda engineers do TVA work, 20, 50?

Rationalization is not a good argument. Customers participating in an open development (fwf engine) program should do so with full disclosure and understanding what risk they are accepting. Lets get some user data.
Here are the specs pages for Honda's outboard 100 & 115 hp engines:
http://marine.honda.com/outboards/motor-detail/BF100
http://marine.honda.com/outboards/motor-detail/BF115
(click on the 'specifications' tab to see drive ratios)

Don't understand how water is a good damper, since it's at the output end of the system just like air is on an a/c engine. I thought that resonance issues arise from interactions of masses & flexing power transmission bits within the system. Agree that the downshaft could be used as a tuned quill shaft.

NONE of the above should indicate that I would take a risk on Viking products.

Charlie
 
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/GkcexZAd6...dPL*S5OoesEBt7HWdJpcl/Viking110SonexPirep.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd6...cm3NlkfN2fBWo/Viking110AYearinReviewPirep.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd6...7dxpu*pFxubOOej7/OshkoshByTheNumbersPirep.pdf

http://vikingaircraftengines.ning.com/real-world-performance/viking-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.
 
Viking TVA

Water is a pretty good damper...QUOTE]

Not sure about this. When preparing a mass-elastic diagram (this is the input data for the torsional vibration analysis) for marine propulsion systems it is common to add 25% of the mass of the propeller to account for entrained water. This is a bit of a "rule of thumb" but is published in a number of sources and there is very little data that supports any other number. There was never any added damping effect for water in either the mass-elastic or the TVA.
 
Water/Dampener

I know nothing about H2O dampening but do know water is not compressible but air is very much so. Would that have anything to do with outboard motors or airplanes?

How does that dampening work from a high dive? There ya go...IIRC it dampens better than concrete. A little bit.

maybe and actual engineer will weigh in...

Nomex, etc.
 
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
 
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.
 
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/GkcexZAd6...dPL*S5OoesEBt7HWdJpcl/Viking110SonexPirep.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd6...cm3NlkfN2fBWo/Viking110AYearinReviewPirep.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/GkcexZAd6...7dxpu*pFxubOOej7/OshkoshByTheNumbersPirep.pdf

http://vikingaircraftengines.ning.com/real-world-performance/viking-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-the-subaru-aircraft-engine/

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

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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

I think what Daves point was is that comparing $10000 to $28000 isn't apples to apples, because the $28000 is with absolutely everything needed (not just the engine)

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.....

So is anyone that has installed a Viking engine using the available kit willing to report whether the kit came with absolutely everything for the complete installation, and they had to purchase nothing else other than coolant?
 
The data is available. Youtube has numerous videos with current Viking owners and their engines. Anyone can go to their website where it shows all that is included, or one could actually call and talk to those with a RV-12 Viking just as one can call and talk to someone with an RV-12 UL Power or talk to someone with a RV-12 Jabiru. It would be inappropriate to list personal phone numbers without the owners approval but the information is easily obtained.

In this very thread there has been a poster with a Viking RV-12 who stated this:

"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."


The poster then went on to say that he would do it again..... A man with actual experience with the engine said that, not someone who has only heard or read others comments.

To each his own. Safe landings.
 
In this very thread there has been a poster with a Viking RV-12 who stated this:

"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."


The poster then went on to say that he would do it again..... A man with actual experience with the engine said that, not someone who has only heard or read others comments.

To each his own. Safe landings.

Yes and he also said that he redesigned and replaced a lot of parts that he didn't think were up to the quality that he is willing to bet his life on.... (entire post you referred to quoted below). That was the main premise of my question (in the context of comparing the cost of two different FWF kits).... Does the typical customer feel that the Viking kit, as supplied, comes with everything needed to do a good engine installation...I.E. didn't have to (or have the desire too) purchase anything else? That is an important factor if you want to compare the cost of one kit to another.
Note.... this has nothing to do with debating whether the Viking engine is a good option... it is simply looking at what the real world cost differences are without even factoring in additional costs that could come along if any portion of the Viking installation is found to not be able to survive to the same 2000 hr TBO that the Rotax 912 can. BTW, That is not a judgmental statement, it is simple fact.n The people flying Viking engines right now today, are the ones doing the R & D work to determine where the designs weaknesses are (if there are any).

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
 
Viking has been plagued with many of the same problems they had when dealing with the other engines...... just not as bad.

custom intake problems - anyone that knows anything about intake design would shake their head at his original design. Yep, nice long runners, but then they're all smashed together right in front of the throttle body

EFI problems or not shipping with EFI computer at all

Shipping delays in general

Not making claimed power

Still using "used" engines and selling them as new

multiple generations of PSRU revisions

automotive quality engine wiring

Latest vids on youtube now show them using a completely different mounting system for the GDI engine, another generation of gearbox and back to using factory OEM intake.
 
That was the main premise of my question (in the context of comparing the cost of two different FWF kits).... Does the typical customer feel that the Viking kit, as supplied, comes with everything needed to do a good engine installation...I.E. didn't have to (or have the desire too) purchase anything else? That is an important factor if you want to compare the cost of one kit to another.

The dollar costs quoted in various posts are an apples and oranges comparison. Van's is a complete kit with detailed instructions for a standardized installation. Viking provides most of what you need, but you have to figure out (and buy) some items like a pitot static system and roll your own Dynon EMS interface and displays. I have yet to see any two RV-12 Viking installations that look the same, and installing a FWF kit using a video is not quite the same as using drawings similar to what you used for the rest of the RV-12 build.

The people flying Viking engines right now today, are the ones doing the R & D work to determine where the designs weaknesses are (if there are any).

Concur 100%. You will not find any data from Viking on the fuel tank sump being pumped dry once the fuel level goes below the baffle spillover. I just happen to know what kind of volume the bypass sends back to the tank, which prompted the testing and redesign. Glad I did not have to find out about that the hard way while flying at a low fuel state. I will say the RV-12 Rotax is not without its design issues from reading the service bulletins, but you can apply that to ANY aircraft. Keeping it in perspective, even when I am flying a fully certified C-172 I presume the engine is going to quit on take-off, or any time in-flight. That also applies when I fly a rental SLSA RV-12 or my Viking RV-12.

-------
Reese: The discussion would be far more helpful if you would stick to facts you know something about.

  • There is nothing "smashed together" on the intake manifold, it is an equal length runner design with a small plenum on the air control body. Good design for making power at high rpm.
  • No problems on the EFI injectors (standard Honda part) or ECU (there was a software update for improved cold weather starting). There were some reports of improved performance after cleaning the injectors on engines that sat unused for a couple of years.
  • Have you dyno'ed the engine to know it is not making the claimed 110 HP? Honda specs the engine at 117 HP and every Viking RV-12 flying has reported a bit more speed than a 100 HP Rotax RV-12 (I have the same Sensenich prop as the Rotax RV-12, it just turns left instead of right). Not sure how you can do that with less HP than the Rotax.
  • I have never seen a claim that the engine is zero-time "new", it was clear where the engines came from when I purchased mine. The fact that you can get a spare core engine for $1,500 should be a hint this is not a new engine.
  • The only change to the PSRU design in the past four years (as used on my RV-12) was going from self-contained oiling to using engine oil and a return to the engine oil tank. The flywheel/starter ring changed from a machined aluminum design to a steel version. I see no reason to change mine to either modification.
  • Wiring looks to be the standard Honda FIT engine wiring harness for FI, FI sensors, and spark coils. You have to do your own starter, alternator, and engine (oil, water,etc.) sensor wiring. I used aircraft wire purchased from SteinAir. I have seen some automotive wire jobs being used, but that is on the builder.
  • The 135 HP GDI is a different engine than the 110 HP engine. The orientation change may be better from some FWF applications, not sure I would put a 135 HP engine on an RV-12. Looks like they are also working on a turbocharged version at 170 HP. I would think changing the PSRU would be desirable given the HP increases being discussed. BTW, they did not hide the fact that the turbocharged 110 had problems that caused them to drop the design.

I do have a problem with the cavalier attitude about W&B, pushing designs past VME, and presuming both Van's and the aircraft industry in general does not know what they are doing. Sadly, there is a crowd out there that likes playing fast and loose (and not limited to RVs either), and are perfectly willing to risk their lives doing so.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS
 
The dollar costs quoted in various posts are an apples and oranges comparison. Van's is a complete kit with detailed instructions for a standardized installation. Viking provides most of what you need, but you have to figure out (and buy) some items like a pitot static system and roll your own Dynon EMS interface and displays. I have yet to see any two RV-12 Viking installations that look the same, and installing a FWF kit using a video is not quite the same as using drawings similar to what you used for the rest of the RV-12 build.



Concur 100%. You will not find any data from Viking on the fuel tank sump being pumped dry once the fuel level goes below the baffle spillover. I just happen to know what kind of volume the bypass sends back to the tank, which prompted the testing and redesign. Glad I did not have to find out about that the hard way while flying at a low fuel state. I will say the RV-12 Rotax is not without its design issues from reading the service bulletins, but you can apply that to ANY aircraft. Keeping it in perspective, even when I am flying a fully certified C-172 I presume the engine is going to quit on take-off, or any time in-flight. That also applies when I fly a rental SLSA RV-12 or my Viking RV-12.

-------
Reese: The discussion would be far more helpful if you would stick to facts you know something about.

  • There is nothing "smashed together" on the intake manifold, it is an equal length runner design with a small plenum on the air control body. Good design for making power at high rpm.
  • No problems on the EFI injectors (standard Honda part) or ECU (there was a software update for improved cold weather starting). There were some reports of improved performance after cleaning the injectors on engines that sat unused for a couple of years.
  • Have you dyno'ed the engine to know it is not making the claimed 110 HP? Honda specs the engine at 117 HP and every Viking RV-12 flying has reported a bit more speed than a 100 HP Rotax RV-12 (I have the same Sensenich prop as the Rotax RV-12, it just turns left instead of right). Not sure how you can do that with less HP than the Rotax.
  • I have never seen a claim that the engine is zero-time "new", it was clear where the engines came from when I purchased mine. The fact that you can get a spare core engine for $1,500 should be a hint this is not a new engine.
  • The only change to the PSRU design in the past four years (as used on my RV-12) was going from self-contained oiling to using engine oil and a return to the engine oil tank. The flywheel/starter ring changed from a machined aluminum design to a steel version. I see no reason to change mine to either modification.
  • Wiring looks to be the standard Honda FIT engine wiring harness for FI, FI sensors, and spark coils. You have to do your own starter, alternator, and engine (oil, water,etc.) sensor wiring. I used aircraft wire purchased from SteinAir. I have seen some automotive wire jobs being used, but that is on the builder.
  • The 135 HP GDI is a different engine than the 110 HP engine. The orientation change may be better from some FWF applications, not sure I would put a 135 HP engine on an RV-12. Looks like they are also working on a turbocharged version at 170 HP. I would think changing the PSRU would be desirable given the HP increases being discussed. BTW, they did not hide the fact that the turbocharged 110 had problems that caused them to drop the design.

I do have a problem with the cavalier attitude about W&B, pushing designs past VME, and presuming both Van's and the aircraft industry in general does not know what they are doing. Sadly, there is a crowd out there that likes playing fast and loose (and not limited to RVs either), and are perfectly willing to risk their lives doing so.

John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS

Good Post John.

Having been there and back with the Egg Subby, (2 engines, some 400 hours of testing, one wrecked airplane) my take is if Jan had stuck with the H4 and worked out the problems the effort would have been more successful. But he went on to bigger and better things with the H6 looking unrealistically to the RV-10 market and never resolved a basic problem of an inadequately designed PSRU and a cooling concept that was just did not work.

I know how you feel, taking on something new and determined to make it work. Unlike the Subaru effort, sounds like the Viking does indeed produce the power advertised. If guys are getting Vans numbers regularly, that is something most Egg pilots did not. If the Viking cooling system and PSRU are working, excellent.

Congrats on your success, it is fun when it works. :)
 
-------
Reese: The discussion would be far more helpful if you would stick to facts you know something about.

  • There is nothing "smashed together" on the intake manifold, it is an equal length runner design with a small plenum on the air control body. Good design for making power at high rpm.

    equal length long runners have nothing to do with high rpm power and everything to do with low end torque and small plenums with all the intake runners coming together like that is never a good design. Why do you think they had better results after installing the throttle body spacer ? I guarantee if you put that intake on a flow bench that each cylinder is getting a different amount of air, so one is making 23hp and another 22hp ect.

  • No problems on the EFI injectors (standard Honda part) or ECU (there was a software update for improved cold weather starting). There were some reports of improved performance after cleaning the injectors on engines that sat unused for a couple of years.

    I never said anything about the injectors and thank you for confirming that yes they have had on going ECU "updates" ...

  • Have you dyno'ed the engine to know it is not making the claimed 110 HP? Honda specs the engine at 117 HP and every Viking RV-12 flying has reported a bit more speed than a 100 HP Rotax RV-12 (I have the same Sensenich prop as the Rotax RV-12, it just turns left instead of right). Not sure how you can do that with less HP than the Rotax.


    Has ANYONE dyno'd one of these engine ? Including Viking ? I dont doubt it does make more power than the Rotax, since that is actually only a 95hp engine with less cubic inches. I never said anything in comparison to Rotax. I simply doubt their stated numbers. Can you show me a dyno graph and video of the engine in the dyno room ?


  • I have never seen a claim that the engine is zero-time "new", it was clear where the engines came from when I purchased mine. The fact that you can get a spare core engine for $1,500 should be a hint this is not a new engine.

    My point is that they are charging new engine prices for used engines. $10+k for a used engine with a bunch of parts bolted to it is steep. IMHO


  • Wiring looks to be the standard Honda FIT engine wiring harness for FI, FI sensors, and spark coils. You have to do your own starter, alternator, and engine (oil, water,etc.) sensor wiring. I used aircraft wire purchased from SteinAir. I have seen some automotive wire jobs being used, but that is on the builder.

    In my opinion all that should have come pre-wired with aircraft grade wire for the price of the engine. Devil is in the details.


    John Salak
    RV-12 120116
    N896HS



  • Don't get me wrong here. I like auto-conversions. I like the Honda Fit engine in airplanes. I just have some nit picky things I dont like about Vikings particular installs and I think, in my opinion, that you should get a little better product for the price point. If you are happy with yours more power to you !
 
"3 month old"?

"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."

T

And how does one verify the actual time on these engines? Is it Jan's word or is there documentation from others rather than Viking?

Reagan said about the old Russia: "Trust but verify." Goes here as well...
About the same as buying a "Low hours" Lyco

Jerry
 
google the serial number and you will even see a pic of the car it was in.the site also has a place that for about $9 will give the mileage and damage history.
 
Back
Top