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
Isn't this called "being a troll?"
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 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.
He uses an in house PSRU.
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.
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.
It is also not cheaper or faster by any means,
John Salak
RV-12 120116
N896HS
The PSRU input shaft is not directly connected to the engine, there is a viscous coupler between the PSRU and engine crankshaft.
Here are the specs pages for Honda's outboard 100 & 115 hp engines: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very insightful post, but...
"a successful $28,000 engine" - you're overstating the cost of the Rotax engine.
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.
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 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.....
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.
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
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 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).
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
-------
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
"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