What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Viking engine

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Viking can be built in a very short time. Money is always the problem. with unlimited financial backing, the parts fly together :)

We do the best we can. Also, all R&D on the non turbo engine has been completed.

Jan

Jan, I want to personally thank you for trying to make a difference for builders
by offering an alternative design engine to place in their aircraft. I am sure that NONE of the naysayers would put their personal lives on hold, risking their own capitol and doing so in the litigeous society we live in today, to develop and produce a what I percieve to be an equal or better unit with less complexities and ease of maintenance than what is currently available.
 
What is the warranty on the Viking Engine?:confused:
Long answer: "We will fix anything that we are responsible for, for free. We do not cover shipping. It is all dependant on: Was the engine installed correctly, was it operated correctly, did the builder have the right installation instructions, was the right oil used in the engine, and in the reduction drive, was the fuel of the right type, the right hoses and clamps used, did the radiator and oil cooler stay as shipped or if moved, provide the needed cooling / oiling, did the customer run the engine the first time without putting in oil, was the propeller loose, was the quality of the installation aircraft worthy or something you would find on an old lawn mover, or a business jet. There are so many scenarios, we will only stand behind the engines on a case by case basis."

Short answer: it's anyone's guess.
 
In all fairness, I doubt Rotax would give you a new engine if you ran it without oil, left the prop loose, or any of the other restrictions listed. You also forgot this one that Rotax doesn't offer: "The engine has 90% money back guarantee, during the warranty period of one year"
 
What is that warranty again?

That doesn't sound much better than the Rotax warranty. But still doesn't answer the question. Is it 1 year or 2year or 500 hrs or 100 hrs or what?:confused:
 
This thread reminds me of what Yogi Berra said: "Deja Vu all over again"
Not only because the Viking is being very well thrashed over like it was a couple weeks ago, but it seems a replay of events with a Subaru engine during the past decade. The new players sound very much like the Subie guys then on both sides.

I would suggest everyone reread Scott's appraisal, he is talking from a unique perspective and I would say he is an expert. In case you missed it, here it is...

Not meaning to start an engine choice war.... just point out that cost savings is never a sure thing.
There are many RV builders who purchased alternative engines because of the perceived cost savings over a lycoming. All of that cost savings evaporated when because of disappointment in performance or reliability (or both) they later removed the alternative engine to install a lycoming in its place.

I am not against alternative engines and the new advancements that innovation will provide. This industry badly needs some less expensive engines. But, I would recommend people use caution considering the fact that this engine hasn't even flown in an RV-12 yet.

After working in this industry for 18 years, one thing I have learned is, that for every great idea that looked good on paper, and after testing went on to prove it was good, there are just as many ideas that looked good on paper and are now nothing more than a bad memory.

I guess you could refer to me as the guy standing on the sidelines cheering for a victory, but not willing to give someone his own money to find out if it will happen......

.
 
Although I have no disagreement with Scott or his statement, we must realize his paycheck is more secure if everyone buying an RV buys a Rotax or Lycoming - from Vans. I was unaware he has experimented with alternative engines enough to make him an expert on them, in fact it was my understanding that Vans has no desire to experiment with other than these two engines, and I for one am happy with that stance.
Do you have some information contrary to this that would be helpful?
 
Although I have no disagreement with Scott or his statement, we must realize his paycheck is more secure if everyone buying an RV buys a Rotax or Lycoming - from Vans. I was unaware he has experimented with alternative engines enough to make him an expert on them, in fact it was my understanding that Vans has no desire to experiment with other than these two engines, and I for one am happy with that stance.
Do you have some information contrary to this that would be helpful?


Why...yes I do. This is from memory of maybe 5 years ago, but there was a guy from MT that flew his Subaru powered RV down here and Van's did an evaluation of same. Then there were the two airline pilots from CA who built almost identical Rotary powered RV 8's and took them up to Van's for eval. This may even have been in Kitplanes IIRC. Sorry I can't provide documentation as I suspect you'll need, but am sure if you check with Van's or Scott or do a bit of research on your own you will find enlightenment.
If you do talk to them, please report what you find here.

Thanks,
 
Experimental vs Experimental

There appears to be some fuzzy thinking here. All of our aircraft that we build are licensed as Experimental even though they might have the very same componants as a certified aircraft.

There are folks who like to try a different approach and use componants not found in certified aircraft. Great, but they are experimenting with those componants to determine the suitability for use in their aircraft. Some things work and some do not. When you venture away from the well worn path of certified componants you then become the experimentor and the outcome may not be to your liking.

An old EAA guy told me when I got into experimentals to judge componants the following way. When you can go to OSH and see 10 or more of what you are considering putting into your plane and most of the owners are happy with their choice, you have a good chance of being happy with using that componant. If there are not 10 at OSH, you are on your own and the suitability for flight might not be there. You assume a much higher risk for failure.

Choosing an engine/prsu/prop combination that has not been tested by multiple folks over a long time period is defenatly in the high risk catigory

There are very few really new ideas in aviation. Most "new" ideas have been tried several times by others and discarded for one reason or another. Thus they are not new, just recycled rejected ideas, and none of use wants that for our aircraft.

Gary Specketer
Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Multiple offender
 
Last edited:
Not meaning to start an engine choice war.... just point out that cost savings is never a sure thing.
There are many RV builders who purchased alternative engines because of the perceived cost savings over a lycoming. All of that cost savings evaporated when because of disappointment in performance or reliability (or both) they later removed the alternative engine to install a lycoming in its place.

I am not against alternative engines and the new advancements that innovation will provide. This industry badly needs some less expensive engines. But, I would recommend people use caution considering the fact that this engine hasn't even flown in an RV-12 yet.

After working in this industry for 18 years, one thing I have learned is, that for every great idea that looked good on paper, and after testing went on to prove it was good, there are just as many ideas that looked good on paper and are now nothing more than a bad memory.


I guess you could refer to me as the guy standing on the sidelines cheering for a victory, but not willing to give someone his own money to find out if it will happen......

Although I have no disagreement with Scott or his statement, we must realize his paycheck is more secure if everyone buying an RV buys a Rotax or Lycoming - from Vans. I was unaware he has experimented with alternative engines enough to make him an expert on them, in fact it was my understanding that Vans has no desire to experiment with other than these two engines, and I for one am happy with that stance.
Do you have some information contrary to this that would be helpful?

red herring; Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.[1] For example, in mystery fiction, where the identity of a criminal is being sought, an innocent party may be purposefully cast in a guilty light by the author through the employment of deceptive clues, false emphasis, 'loaded' words or other descriptive tricks of the trade. The reader's suspicions are thus misdirected, allowing the true culprit to go (temporarily at least) undetected. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

The comment about Scott's paycheck et al and Vans' refusal to investigate alternative powerplants is indefensible.

Don, you're still shovelin', my friend. :)
 
Last edited:
Don, I applaude your maverick spirit in blazing new ground with your decision to put a Viking in your 12. As I have followed this topic for weeks now, it seems your initial decision to do so was based on some disatisfaction with both Rotax and Vans. Now I feel like you are trying to defend your decision by bashing Rotax. As Sam said, put the shovel away and get on with your project. I think most of us are supportive of your decision to try something new, but probably getting a little tired of the bashing, much of which just isn't firmly based on truth. Move on my good man. You have lots to offer, but just take the high road and move on.
 
Although I have no disagreement with Scott or his statement, we must realize his paycheck is more secure if everyone buying an RV buys a Rotax or Lycoming - from Vans. I was unaware he has experimented with alternative engines enough to make him an expert on them, in fact it was my understanding that Vans has no desire to experiment with other than these two engines, and I for one am happy with that stance.
Do you have some information contrary to this that would be helpful?

While it does not apply to the RV-12 and alternatives................Van and Scott certainly have plenty of information on alternatives that did not live up to expectations when installed on Van's aircraft. In most cases, they were eventually replaced with Lycomings. If nothing else, these cases would certainly be a reason for Scott stating his reservations. There is plenty of info on the net, regarding this subject.

And if the Viking, does prove to be a cheaper and well performing alternative, then I'm sure that minds will change.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
 
You are correct of course, and I want to publicly apologize to Scott for insinuating that his judgement would be tainted by his employment, I had no basis for making that accusation of course, and no reason to believe it was a true statement.
I tend to get sore when I hear untrue blanket statements about other engine choices, but I need to learn to just live with that animosity some possess and let the facts sort themselves out. In the next few years that will happen. This did not just happen to me with the Viking, it is a long held belief that we can make things better for aircraft propulsion. Bash a Rotax? Not quite, I might wind up with one in my RV12 for all I know. I am an equal opportunity hater, I hate SOMETHING about most any engine!
 
A different perspective.....

Although I have no disagreement with Scott or his statement, we must realize his paycheck is more secure if everyone buying an RV buys a Rotax or Lycoming - from Vans.

If the Viking engine installation on an RV-12 ends up becoming the great success that it is being promoted to be, I think it is fare to assume that kit sales of the RV12 would jump.
Since the mark up on engines sold by Van's is quite low (they are the lowest price for a new lycoming or Rotax on the planet), selling a higher volume of kits without a power plant kit would still be very good for business.

This is why I said with total honesty, that I hope the Viking engine development is successful (it would be good for business, and for general aviation as a whole). The key point though, is that it is still in development. Because of that, I feel a responsibility to suggest that people move with caution.
 
...and let the facts sort themselves out. In the next few years that will happen....

Indeed, many factors in engine selection are empirical and easily measured.

  • Total FWF cost in dollars.
  • Weight of the installation.
  • Performance.

There are many other factors to consider, but these are the most easily measurable and have real impact on the project, whereas other factors (i.e. reliability, impact on resale, etc) are a little more difficult to measure effectively.

So in time we should just let the numbers speak for themselves.

I suspect the level of cynacism you're experiencing is from decades of alternative engine providers failing to beat traditional aircraft engines in even two of those areas, much less all three. There are some that come close -- i.e. the Aerovee conversions, however they are heavier and have less HP than the little Rotax.
 
Out of development

Just a correction to the below. The Viking engine is officially out of development. All engines are identical and no more changes are taking place.

Jan



If the Viking engine installation on an RV-12 ends up becoming the great success that it is being promoted to be, I think it is fare to assume that kit sales of the RV12 would jump.
Since the mark up on engines sold by Van's is quite low (they are the lowest price for a new lycoming or Rotax on the planet), selling a higher volume of kits without a power plant kit would still be very good for business.

This is why I said with total honesty, that I hope the Viking engine development is successful (it would be good for business, and for general aviation as a whole). The key point though, is that it is still in development. Because of that, I feel a responsibility to suggest that people move with caution.
 
Just a correction to the below. The Viking engine is officially out of development. All engines are identical and no more changes are taking place.

Jan

Engineering an engine installation is part of the development process (in my mind anyway).
The engine design may be frozen, but every airframe will require different features that in them selves can result in issues over time.

The way I look at it, taking money from people for an engine while implying that it will work perfectly in their airplane, without having even flown it in that model wouldn't be too far from Vans having designed and manufactured kits for the RV-12 but then letting the first customers build the first flying examples and ask them to report back what the performance, handling qualities, and service difficulties were.

That my seem a bit harsh... sorry, that is my opinion.
 
Let's remember that without the early adopters nothing new will come on stream. We should celebrate Jan's efforts and the risks taken by the early installers for the benefits they may bring to us all.

Even an O-320 (or a rotax) was alternative once... Round - that's the proper way to build an aircraft engine!

Dave
 
In all fairness, I doubt Rotax would give you a new engine if you ran it without oil, left the prop loose, or any of the other restrictions listed. You also forgot this one that Rotax doesn't offer: "The engine has 90% money back guarantee, during the warranty period of one year"
I wouldn't say that I forgot anything. I went to the only publicly available source for that information I could find and copied what I found there. I have not been able to find the 90% money back statement on their web site. If it's there, I must have missed it. There was no willful exclusion of that information in my posting. I also saw nothing regarding the warranty on the PSRU either, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Given that this entire topic started over confusion regarding the Rotax warranty, that seems somewhat ironic.

Interestingly, I also spent some time trying to find any statement on the web site as to the salvaged nature of these engines. Had I not read it here, I would, as a man-off-the-street customer, not have known that. I'm not making a judgment for or against the nature of where these engines come from, but it does seem like something a potential customer may want to know, particularly since it seems that the sporadic nature of the supply chain could cause support and availability issues in the future when the demand for a constant stream of engines is higher.

These engines (or engines like them) may very well be the perfect way to bring more people into building and flying RV-12s and that's a good thing, but I'm not comfortable with some of the marketing I've seen. It seems to take very pointed questions to get at what should be easily accessible knowledge. Perhaps that will also improve with time. It's early days yet. The only judgement that I will share is that this appears to me to still be in the caveat emptor phase.

There's nothing wrong with that - it's a fairly normal maturation phase and early adopters usually know what they're getting into. I'm personally of a more conservative nature and think it's great that there are others that are perfectly willing to take on whatever risks and challenges there may be in proving a new product to be a viable alternative. When there are 300 engines flying (as opposed to 300 hours flown) and a few have reached a reasonable TBO, I'll be interested. I'm not an engine guy and therefore I'm willing to pay more for a more stringently proven product. There's nothing right or wrong about either approach - my tastes for experimentation simply happen to lie elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Let's remember that without the early adopters nothing new will come on stream. We should celebrate Jan's efforts and the risks taken by the early installers for the benefits they may bring to us all.

Even an O-320 (or a rotax) was alternative once... Round - that's the proper way to build an aircraft engine!

Dave

True, but my issue with many of these inovative suppliers is that they do not fully inform the buyer exactly what he is in for. The buyer plunks down his money and later finds out exactly how much development is left to be done. That is bait and switch in my opinion. And it has been done to way too many folks way too many times.

If you want an example of how a company should approach this issue, take a look at Jabiru USA. They buy an airframe of the type they want to supply an engine for and do all the development (motor mount, cowl, associated plumbing) before selling to the customer.

Lets be smart folks when looking at large $$$$ purchaces. Don't assume anything. Get everything in writing so you know exactly what you are buying.

Gary Specketer
Tech Counselor/Flight advisor
Multiple offender
 
That was a cut and paste from the Viking web site Dave, click on the "PRODUCTS" tab to see it.
Very well said Dave, as I pointed out when I made the choice, it is NOT for everyone, certainly not at this stage. I guess I get angry when people point out that it is a gamble, an experiment to be more accurate, and that the Viking does not have thousands and thousands of aircraft hours behind it, and if you crash and burn you cannot initiate a lawsuit against some large corporation with deep pockets - yet. I am of course quite aware that none have even flown in an RV12 yet even! These things don't bother me, in fact I feel slighted that probably I will only be the third RV12 to fly with one, I would much rather be the first. Problems that would cause someone with a different personality to pull it off and put it in the corner as a failed experiment, are simply glitches I find exciting to be able to cure to forge ahead towards the final goal of dependable power. I started life as a mechanic in the 1940's, and to my reasoning, this idea is worth experimenting with by me - on my plane.
 
Wow sitting on the sidelines watching this conversation happen is very interesting.

I started building my 12 and am very slowly creeping along due to a major job change and the economy. I have a budget sheet that I built 4 months before I ordered my tools that covers everything down to the screws to put the workshop together, one of the things that hurts is 28K for the FWF.

I sat talking to my wife about that final chunk and how that was going to be a hurdle, then I saw the ad for the Viking engine, I tallied up the expected costs to about 16K complete that is a huge difference. There is the emotional pull.... (oh and fuel injection, an alternator....)

Reality sets in and you see a few have jumped aboard, I mentioned the option to some of my chapter members and was blasted from all sides... "A Car Engine", "wow that's risky", "Jan who? let me tell you about Subaru..."

so for two weeks I have watched this debate rage and I have decided it WILL come down to two things for me, the primary being weight, I see the lightly built 12's coming in around 740, I can live with 760. The secondary being reliability, those that are forging ahead with this will be my guide.

As for Rotax reliability: Personal experience (not meant as bashing but observable phenomenon)

1.) I have read many posts on here about failed carb floats, failed fuel pumps, and loose even missing engine mount bolts (not necessarily engine issue). Net before Viking came along I had my doubts

2.) reliability in other planes with direct experience:
Remos GX - Flown 15 hours -
a. used a quart of oil every 25 (rental)
b. couldn't use radios unless you revved over 2K on ground (generator issue?)
c. unexplained (to me at least) issues with gear box and engine grounded plane more than once while renting it costing me time and money

Evektor Sportstar #1 - flown 30 hours
a. same voltage issue constant low volt alarm while taxiing (not fun to have a garbled radio on the ground at a busy towered airport)
b. sickly performance in the heat (likely prop and adjustment issues but issues none the less)
c. never saw RPM's above 5050, likely contributor to b. though it was in the shop many times and I was told F2F by the mechanic it was adjusted perfectly

Evektor Sportstar #2 - never flown
Why? both times rented it was cancelled last minute due to "maintenance issue - engine"

All of that said it is really little experience but enough to dissuade me greatly from the 912 IF there were another option.

Now for the other emotional side of this, I belong to an organization called the EAA last time I checked the E stood for experimental, this engine is very experimental but also has the ability to change the face of LSA, I am sorry but 12K+ in savings is substantial. This is why the EAA exists, to experiment and take aviation into new directions.

Listening to those argue that it shouldn't be done because it is a car engine and those (or PSRU or whatever) have failed in the past is almost funny considering the type of planes they are building, the whole dang thing is experimental.

Any person on this forum flying anything other than a certified aircraft made the decision to fly something "somewhat" unknown (more or less depending on what you choose) and with potentially more inherent risk than Joe down the street who got handed the keys to his new Cessna, some here (those choosing to install a viking are taking a greater risk than some, that is a choice)

For those building a 12 looking for the "safe" Continental (and maybe soon Lycoming) choice, Cessna is taking orders for the Skycatcher at 120K average price, much less risky...right?

full circle, yes it is experimental but that is the nature of what we do, imagine this conversation:

Passerby December 17th, 1903: "Hey there gents what is that?" Orville: "Why that is an Aeroplane, we are going to fly it!" Passerby: "Are you nuts people can't fly that is too dangerous." Wilbur: " Yeah your right what were we thinking, lets go back to riding bicycles."

I would be stuck riding a train from Phoenix to Toronto tomorrow :D
 
Welcome to the fray Chris!
One thing you will learn about the alternative engine discussion, for some unknown reason, it seems to be the "in" thing to object to them, and made up stories abound. I personally like to get the N number, accident data from NTSB, other pertinent details and judge for myself. Many have reasons they don't confess to, like A&P's that don't have a clue about them, so they object. Some of the reasons are very valid, there have been ill designed personal use of auto engines with problems, we all know of the VW and Corair problems of crankshaft breaking off. Even those problems have eventually been cured.
One does have to ask themselves if it is so bad, why are there so many happy Subaru engines flying for thousands of hours? VW based engines are numerous too. The current crop of Corvairs seems very dependable too.
Personally I LIKE the experimental in EAA.
 
Listening to those argue that it shouldn't be done because it is a car engine and those (or PSRU or whatever) have failed in the past is almost funny considering the type of planes they are building, the whole dang thing is experimental.

A lot of our aircraft, with Vans high on the list, as well as others.............are "experimental" only in the context of regulations.
This is the way I want it. I don't care to suffer numerous engine failures, and off airport landings............just to feel like a real experimental aviator. I want a cross country machine that I can count on. I built the plane to fly on day one, after signoff (which it did)...........and have little interest in tinkering for the next few years. I fly over rugged mountains, and cities. Not just open deserts or plains, with a parachute strapped to my back.

So far, I've got a plane that easily out performs the "auto" conversions in it's class. I haven't had to make endless cowl appendages to keep coolant in check.

Yep...........I'm an experimental classification with proven parts. This way, I can head out across country, with family members aboard, and not a constantly worry if that internal combustion engine in front of me, will keep ticking.

But once again, I'll say it again. I'm making no judgement on the Viking, as there is not enough current info, to make a case, one way or the other.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Source?

One does have to ask themselves if it is so bad, why are there so many happy Subaru engines flying for thousands of hours?

May I respectfully ask what your source is for this statement? Do you mean thousands of "happy hours" individually or fleet? I have no clue how the polling works on VAF, maybe someone who is smarter than I am could put up a poll of Subie owners with a few pertinent questions 1. Are you happy? 2. Would you do it again? 3. Engine hours TT? 4. Type of engine, 2.5, H6, etc? Cruise and top speed? 5. Climb rate? 6. Do you keep up with Lycosaurus type RV's? 7. Who was your vendor ? 8. Was it nose heavy or not? 9. How do you characterize your vendor support? Those type questions would be a great start.

Sorry if this is drift Don, but you brought up Subaru...Subie owners, please weigh in here, you can help this discussion greatly.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the fray Chris!
One thing you will learn about the alternative engine discussion, for some unknown reason, it seems to be the "in" thing to object to them, and made up stories abound. I personally like to get the N number, accident data from NTSB, other pertinent details and judge for myself. Many have reasons they don't confess to, like A&P's that don't have a clue about them, so they object. Some of the reasons are very valid, there have been ill designed personal use of auto engines with problems, we all know of the VW and Corair problems of crankshaft breaking off. Even those problems have eventually been cured.
One does have to ask themselves if it is so bad, why are there so many happy Subaru engines flying for thousands of hours? VW based engines are numerous too. The current crop of Corvairs seems very dependable too.
Personally I LIKE the experimental in EAA.

Hey..... Don the only one making this a fray is you and your "heresay and convoluted logic"!
 
Last edited:
Sure, I should have given some references. One source for me is to simply put "Subaru Powered RV" into Google. Up comes no less than 14,600,000 hits to read. Some good, some bad, but one can find that there are many happy owners in the RV family alone.

May I respectfully ask what your source is for this statement? Do you mean thousands of "happy hours" individually or fleet? I have no clue how the polling works on VAF, maybe someone who is smarter than I am could put up a poll of Subie owners with a few pertinent questions 1. Are you happy? 2. Would you do it again? 3. Engine hours TT? 4. Type of engine, 2.5, H6, etc? Cruise and top speed? 5. Climb rate? 6. Do you keep up with Lycosaurus type RV's? 7. Who was your vendor ? 8. Was it nose heavy or not? 9. How do you characterize your vendor support? Those type questions would be a great start.

Sorry if this is drift Don, but you brought up Subaru...Subie owners, please weigh in here, you can help this discussion greatly.
 
A lot of our aircraft, with Vans high on the list, as well as others.............are "experimental" only in the context of regulations....
L.Adamson --- RV6A

L,

And that is perfect for you, and I agree with you on some points. More importantly I respect your decision.

What is strange though is that there are many who have commented that just don't respect a decision to go the other way; nonetheless, you won't see me over in the 3,4,6,7,8,9,10 forums naysaying their choices either.

If I decide to go with a Viking engine I do so with eyes open to potential issues that you point out, my wallet will definitely be fatter (or the same with a good head start on plane #2), and I will do everything in my power to make my flights safe.

Reading through the posts is almost funny, lot of Google facts thrown out, when in reality it does not matter, fact is the Viking engine is unproven and the first 10 -20 who install it are taking the biggest risk, the only way this debate ends is when at least that many have flown off a TBO and thoroughly documented any (hopefully non-existent) issues.

Until then if I make a decision to go that route I have to be prepared to live with that decision as well.
 
thread closed

Sure, I should have given some references. One source for me is to simply put "Subaru Powered RV" into Google. Up comes no less than 14,600,000 hits to read. Some good, some bad, but one can find that there are many happy owners in the RV family alone.

Wow, 14,600,000? Well, I tried it and Don's number is correct. I found out that some folks have put Subies in VW vans, that they tow Subies behind RVs, that there are several Subaru dealers, and there are some Subie-powered generators out there.

Oh, before the aforementioned subjects took over the Google results after the first three or four pages, there are some links about Subaru-powered aircraft. But since I fly a Lycoming my dog ain't in that hunt. (I do fly a 1/2 VW on my latest project so don't accuse me of being anti-alternative engines...)

It seems Viking, Subaru and a certain engine vendor are radioactive subjects on VAF, and this thread is turning into the drifting argument we have seen so many times before. Very few minds will be changed because there is practically no actual field history on which to base solid data.

So.....before this thread starts running afoul of forum rules of decorum, I am going to close it. Anyone who wants to do a Subie poll or conduct further discussions in that area can begin a new thread......and we'll see how long it survives. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top