Viking Engine

[smoki]

Has anyone used the Viking Engine on the Kitfox SS7? My purpose in asking is not to gain information on the engine, which I have, but to inquire about the results.

[jtpitkin06]

Do a search for "Viking". You'll get a lot of reading material.

JP

[chefwarthog]

Now Viking is offering a turbo version at 130HP.... will like to see that in a SS-7..... My Garage is almost complete... so now narrowing on getting a Kitfox (Kit) shortly with a Viking engine in it.... I really like to see John put one on his Mule, and see from his point of view....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vRfnfkDSb8#

[smoki]

The 130 hp turbo-charged equipped Viking engine utilizes the extra hp over the standard Viking engine (110 hp) for takeoff and climb then its off and back to a standard Viking. Should enhance takeoff performance of the Kitfox SS-7.

I'm all ears Danzer1. Please do enlighten me. I'm aware of JE's past with respect to bankruptcy and the Corvair engine conversion. What are the "apples to apples" performance numbers comparison you are alluding to?

[Danzer1]

You might want to google the owners background before you dive in - Jan Eggenfellner. Look closely at the performance numbers too and make sure you're comparing apples to apples to just about anything else. Pays to be fully aware before forking out a hunk of cash.

[Agfoxflyer]

Can't speak about a Viking on a Kitfox. But a friend has a Viking on his RV-12. He has about 250 hours on it and loves it. He flew side by side with a RV-12 Rotax 912ULS and there wasn't much difference in the performance between the two airplanes. The engine and prop have been tweaked and it performs even better now. He has had good support from Jan. Can't speak about the past, but from what I see, it appears Jan has his act together on this one. But always do your research and decide for yourself.

[Danzer1]

Paul,

Glad you've done your homework. Okay, back to my old self. First he did Subaru conversions, not Corvairs.

Yes the last company had a bankruptcy and at last report there was over $200k of money lost by customers and not repaid. Yes he said he was sorry. But he blamed everyone else including customers, suppliers, economy, change in light sport engine preferences, etc. He never though took accountability himself for the failure, nor did he provide full restitution to those paid customers. You can read much much more elsewhere.

So, as the home work was done, why do you think these engines are only $12 - 13k? (rhetorical question). As you know - they are retrofitted USED Honda Fit engines. Yes, I know plastered all over the Viking web site, it says he designed the engine, it's new (Viking new, not Honda new) etc, etc, etc. But, the core is USED - Viking will not even tell you how far they are broken down, or what is inspected/tested/replaced. So you'd be getting a used "core" with unknown "mileage" and condition with new Viking parts attached.

Yes Viking has redesigned the intake, exhaust, motor mount, ECU and PSRU (gearbox) etc. But it is still a used engine core. Where is that info on the Viking site?

Now, that leads to performance. Those redesigns may or may not be a good thing and we'll probably never know. Why, because Viking has not dyno'd an engine! So, where did they get this chart (middle of page, white chart that says "2.32 gearbox") http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/Specifications.htm

It's a copy of Honda's dyno chart - not their own. Look at the graph increment on the left, it goes from 80 to 93.33 to 106.66 to 120 (not any kind of normal increment) why, because the Honda chart was done in KW (60, 70, 80, 90 KW) not HP. Why show up to 7000 rpm when Viking limits it to 5800 - because the Honda chart goes to 7000. Here's Honda's chart:09fit_pt_3.jpg Look familiar?

So the Honda chart was done with Honda accessories, and I'd bet Honda did a lot of R & D on their tuned racing intake, exhaust, ECU and without a PSRU. All of which was changed (thrown out) by Viking. So how much power/torque does the Viking really make? We'll probably never know. (Same reason I won't buy a Rotec engine - they won't provide their own hard data either, it's all anecdotal evidence - provided by their "R&D Dept" = their customers). Plastered all over both vendors websites.

Add to that the dry weight listed at 178lbs by all reports is "generous" by about 50 lbs. The original Searey, Viking installer swapped his out after only a few hours of use for a 914 (aft cg issues). Sonex and Waiex owners have forward weight issues. Of course you've read all that stuff.

Further, the Viking performance page (tab at top of their home page) comparison 1 is not even between 2 of the SAME aircraft operating at the same conditions and operated at different prop rpm's - neither engine at their optimum torque and with different props at different pitches. A prop can make more of a difference than the engine! How can this be considered a valid comparison.

Comparison #2 is a little better, but neither engine was operated at optimum rpm's (just the ones that made the Viking look better) nor were those props identical.

I could keep going, but do your own homework and be comfortable with your decision, it's your money and your tail hanging up there, not mine.

I must also add, both of the engines mentioned, were contenders for me, and could return to be if the "manufacturers" would provide hard (dyno'd) controlled environment data. I've been told directly (1st hand) by both company owners (in words I won't repeat) - no! Why not, if they are so good?

You get what you pay for (hopefully). Most of all, have fun.

[smoki]

Greg:

Subarus not Corvairs, sorry but it's a minor point.

Thank you for your detailed response. It was informative though I'm inclined to regard much of it as ad hominem conjecture.

Your reference to comparisons of Viking engine performance with that of other engine-airframe matings on the Viking website as lacking an "apples to apples" setup is flawed. You cannot force two different combinations of engine and airframe into identical setups with respect to RPM, prop setting, etc. and expect to have a comparison that has any meaning. Each must be allowed the freedom to be setup in a way that is optimum for each and then compare the results with respect to a specific metric. Keeping the same airframe with different engines would obviously be the preferred way to conduct such a performance comparison when it's the engine that we're most interested in.

Your assumption that none of the comparative examples of performance on the Viking website were operated at their optimum is just that, an assumption. Rhetorically speaking: Why would any kitplane manufacturer with a given engine mounted on the airplane being presented to the public for evaluation of performance (in some cases filming it) not operate his airplane under optimum conditions regardless of what those conditions may be?

If you are concerned about JE of Viking withholding, covering up or presenting misleading information with regard to the Viking engine, its performance and its construction, then you should confront him with it on the Viking public forum where the sunlight of public exposure can have an anti-septic and cleansing effect. It would seem elementary that valid dynamometer test measurements of the Viking engine incorporating its many changes should be done and presented as original data.

With regard to your reference "it's your tail hanging out" it's axiomatic that once we defy gravity regardless of the means by which we do it, we are all hanging it out, some perhaps more than others as a function of the engines we hang on our airplanes. Gravity is the one constant force that always has the final say! Thanks again, and good luck.

[Danzer1]

Paul,

You sent me a PM regarding all of this on Sat. evening. It has not yet shown up in my PM Inbox - it happens here for some weird reason. I've checked all my settings and this at least the 2nd time it's happened. However, I did get an emailed copy of it Sat. evening and spent a good part of my Fathers Day responding to it via personal email (as I don't have the PM). Check your email.

As you've elected to continue this on the public forum, I feel compelled to respond again, here as well for everyone elses perusal. As follows:

It was informative though I'm inclined to regard much of it as ad hominem conjecture.

Excuse me? I have purposefully attempted to minimize the "past issues" and focus on what is currently being done at Viking. If anyone chooses to draw any similarities or comparisons to past efforts - that is their choosing.

Your reference to comparisons of Viking engine performance with that of other engine-airframe matings on the Viking website as lacking an "apples to apples" setup is flawed. You cannot force two different combinations of engine and airframe into identical setups with respect to RPM, prop setting, etc. and expect to have a comparison that has any meaning. Each must be allowed the freedom to be setup in a way that is optimum for each and then compare the results with respect to a specific metric. Keeping the same airframe with different engines would obviously be the preferred way to conduct such a performance comparison when it's the engine that we're most interested in.

Well at least we agree that using the same airframes would be preferred. There are hundreds of Rv-12's out there and yet they used a Zenith for comparison. As for the rest, my info is based on the data provided on the Viking site and thank you for helping me make my point.

Comparison 1 - Zenith 650/UL350is to RV-12/Viking. All 4 stroke normally aspirated aircraft engines generally are most efficient in the 2200 to 2400 rpm range (at the prop). The UL 350is was being operated at 2790 rpm (shown in Vikings picture) the optimum rpm is 2200 - so it was running at 26.8% over optimum with an unidentified prop at 2120 ft altitude.

The Viking was running at 5200 rpm (2241 at the prop) at 3500 ft altitude - given on Vikings site 1/3 down the page. So "freedom" to select the metric in your view should be at "optimum conditions for each" - but they aren't even close. Further at the very bottom of the same RV-12 page where they attempt to verify the claim (in the picture of the glass panel) - the altitude shows 800 ft, not 3500, so who knows what else is correct.

Comparison 2 - CH-750/Jabiru 3300 to CH-750/Viking. Very similar situation. Jabiru at 2800 rpm (clearly shown) Viking at 5100 (2198 at the prop, also clearly shown). Unknown propellers on each.

Your assumption that none of the comparative examples of performance on the Viking website were operated at their optimum is just that, an assumption.

They are not assumptions, see above, the info is clearly shown on the Viking site. I generally avoid assumptions as a retired engineer (it's ingrained, sigh) - you know the euphemism!

If you are concerned about JE of Viking withholding, covering up or presenting misleading information with regard to the Viking engine, its performance and its construction,

Not concerned, I have no interest in pursuing a Viking engine any further. Information presented for those that couldn't, didn't or are to lazy to do their own homework - so that they can follow up as they desire and draw their own conclusions.

then you should confront him with it on the Viking public forum where the sunlight of public exposure can have an anti-septic and cleansing effect.

Thats pretty funny. The only thing anti-septic and cleansing on that site is the OP's moderation of what is allowed to be shown there. If someone has an interest in pursuing a Viking engine, I would encourage them to gather all the data they need to make a comfortable/informed decision, they are free to ask all the questions they want.

It would seem elementary that valid dynamometer test measurements of the Viking engine incorporating its many changes should be done and presented as original data.

I agree, it may be a great modified Honda engine, would be happy to see Viking provide the dyno test run print out.

Have fun, Greg

[Danzer1]

Additional info:

Go to the Viking home page, click on performance, click on the specification page, scroll down to the "2.32 Gearbox" chart. Right click on it, save it to your desktop. Go to your desktop and open the file with anything like Windows Photo Viewer. Zoom in on the red torque line and you can see the remnants of the Honda blue torque line on the chart!. I'm asking you to do this, instead of showing the chart here, so you can see for yourself, no one monkeyed with what Viking is portraying on their site.

Viking did not even make their own graph - it IS Hondas chart! All they did was convert power from KW to HP and torque from Newton Meters to Foot Lbs, and change the torque line from blue to red!

So, the way I see it, there are the following choices:

1. Vikings dyno run exactly matched the performance by Honda with Vikings aftermarket intake, exhaust, ECU and PSRU (to 7000 rpm). Possible, but even "manufacturers" have a hard time exactly duplicating dyno runs twice in a row, no less with major mods.

2. Viking assumes their performance equals Hondas. If so that should be disclosed - IF it is not Vikings own dyno run numbers.

Or 3. Honda used Vikings chart and Viking changed it back to American values.

Also note Viking named the chart picture file "viking-torque-hp". Hmmm

You guys decide.