Viking 130

[R Rinker]

I know chasing the rainbow for a new & improved engine gets tiresome. I haven't got an engine yet for my SS. I was hoping Superior was telling the truth about its Gemini diesel...still waiting.
I was trying to get some info on the Viking 130. I thought Viking had lost it's credibility a while back? I tried to get some information, but it's going to take an evening of dedicated searching, so thought I'd see if anyone here has done any homework on this. I can't find the weight of the engine. The price is half of the popular options, & lots of advancements over the competition. Anybody up on this??

[kenryan]

Personally I think the Viking might be a better match for the stretched airframe, but at least one guy has put a Viking in a regular SuperSTOL. His name is Stan Albright. Jan Eggenfellner can put you in touch with him.

[bluemax]

Robert Trembley put a Viking 110 on a Highlander/Escapade, and Robert Johnson put a Viking 110 on is Highlander. Both of those guys are members on this forum. I think Stan Albright's Highlander is a 110 also?

Viking sent out an email to the members the other day, looking for someone with a crated Viking 110, willing to trade for a Viking 130. By the time I checked with them, 20 other guys had done the same.

[R Rinker]

But...does anyone 'know' anything about this engine..the company...what's the buzz...how much does it weigh? Pro's...Con's..

[kenryan]

But...does anyone 'know' anything about this engine..the company...what's the buzz...how much does it weigh? Pro's...Con's..

The company is basically Jan Eggenfellner. He did Subarus and had some success and some failure. That company went kaput and some people lost money. He has been fighting an uphill battle ever since. But as far as I know, nobody has lost anything since he re-grouped and started offering the Honda Fit conversion. There are a lot of happy Zenith builders flying the Viking 110. I have been by his hangar in Florida three or four times. I like the guy a lot, although he will be the first to admit that sometimes he is his own worst enemy.

The Viking 110, including fuel pumps, hoses, radiators, oil and water all added up comes to 220 pounds. I know this for a fact because my buddy weighed it. So if you believe that it is wise to put a 220 pound engine on the front of a standard SuperSTOL, go for it.

The Viking 130 is the latest iteration and it is based on the newer Honda Fit engine. One big difference is that the 130 is direct injection and so there is no need for a return fuel system. Another thing that makes the 130 different is that there will be fewer changes to the engine, as it comes out of the automobile. This was a tactical decision to allow the engine price to remain low while allowing the company to actually make some money. If you are really interested in these changes, talk to Eggenfellner. I suspect the weight will go up modestly from the weight of the 110, but I'm only guessing.

Some are completely sold on Honda engine but skeptical of the Eggenfellner reduction unit. I have not heard of any problems with the reduction unit.

If I were building a stretch SuperSTOL I would seriously consider the Viking 130 but not for the regular sized model.

[moving2time]

I have been following the Viking 110 engine since Viking started selling them and that installation seems to be a very reliable power plant. They have been installed on many of the most popular kit built aircraft with repeated success. His videos are very helpful with both the installation and operation of the Viking 110. There really isn't much information out there on the Viking 130 yet. About two weeks ago I drove an hour south of me to talk to a guy installing the 130 in his Zenith 750 build. Apparently the engine, as delivered, weighed in at 220 LBS dry and that does not include the radiator or the fuel pumps so it will come in closer to 240 or more pounds ready to fly. The prop reduction gear box on the Viking 110 appears to function well and flying behind the Viking 110 is very smooth compared to any engine I have flown behind. There is video on you tube of numerous people getting out of the factory plane after a test flight that comment on how smooth the engine runs in flight. The Viking 130 prop reduction gear box is basically the same as the 110 except for the modified mounting plate. I understand that the oil system is pumped through the prop reduction gear box to lubricate the gear box which is a change from the Viking 110. I do not know why there is so little posted about the Viking 130 engine except it took Viking a good year or two to build all of the supporting video and documentation that is out there now for the Viking 110 engine. I expect that the documentation will roll out eventually for the Viking 130. The company doesn't have the funding to spend years building and evaluating a new engine. Viking simply bolts the prototype engine on their air frame and then they fly it every day all over the country. You can call the factory and talk to Jan any time. He will talk to anyone interested in flying his engine. I have looked at many of the new hopefuls including the gemini diesel. It seems like all of them are having a hard time getting to production. It isn't hard to find someone nearby that will show you their engine or take you up for a ride. I am just someone interested in a Rotax alternate. I hope Steve gets his Yamaha running soon and shares what he has learned. Infact. How is the yamaha going Steve? Joe B

[R Rinker]

So...if I end up going Rotax, it will have to have oil & coolant thermostats, with associated hoses, heater connections with associated hoses, plus all the hoses & extras on the standard installation and the fluids to fill all those hoses...
Has anyone calculated the actually finished weight of such a Rotax FW forward configuration??
And thanks Joe...appreciate your input..
So, until we have some proven operational data...the Viking equals half the cost, but comes with an unknown gamble on reliability & future expectations. For my remote operations, the "know what the future holds" factor is the really big one..and the choice that has the best data on that would be an O-200!
We all want to believe, so desperately, that there's a more progressive choice, but without going into denial and gambling, I still can't convince myself.
A lot of people say the Rotax is the choice, but everyone I know and many I don't, have an awful lot of problems with it that I can't see as acceptable, and at a premium price tag.
(Really disappointed the Gemini seems to be abandoned)

[av8rps]

I spent a lot of time at Sun N fun a few years back with the guy that put the Viking 110 in his Escapade. He had almost no time on it at that point, but interesting point I observed was his two very large header tanks in the aft baggage area. I found that so interesting because three of us with Highlanders with the original 9 gallon wing tanks were thinking about putting big header tanks in like his, but after doing weight and balance math, with our 912 engines in our Highlanders those big tanks would have made our planes prohibitively tail heavy. So that Viking is obviously a lot heavier than the 912.

Avid Aircraft years ago weighed everything firewall vorward on an Avid 912 Mk 4 (incl cowls, prop, radiator, coolant and oil and exhaust sytem), and it weighed 195 lbs. And I think that was proven pretty accurate. Also a few years back the Kitfox group did an engine and empty weight survey and discovered a typical Subaru powered Kitfox weighs a hundred pounds more than the 912 on the same model Kitfox. I personally think the Viking will be heavier than even the Subaru. But in its defense, it probably makes more hp than most of the small Subarus the Kitfox guys use.

Now don't get me wrong, I too would love an alternative to the 912, as it is a very complex and expensive engine. But as much as people hate them, they outsell everything else combined. Why? Simple...because they work better than anything in their hp class. And yes, they can be hard to work on at times, and even harder to diagnose too. But once you have one and you make the point to learn them well, they really aren't as bad as they sound (and fwiw, I have a 912 Kitfox and a 912 Highlander). So if it were me, and I wanted to save some money, I would just find a deal on a good used 912 and go that route. I'm willing to bet you would never regret it.

But if you just can't bring yourself to do the Rotax, I would go for a hopped up 0-200. They pound the heck out of those things and they seem to hold up pretty well, even pumping 120+ hp out of them. Still heavier than a 912, but I'm pretty sure they will be lighter than the Viking if you make some effort to minimize accessory weights. But hey, remember this is the internet and advice is only worth what you paid for it...

[moving2time]

When planning for the Viking 110 you do need to install a header tank as well as a fuel pump due to the fuel injection which returns unused fuel to the tank. You can go to the wing tanks but it is easier to go to a header tank. It does not need to be a big tank. Some people are using the header tank to add fuel quantity to their aircraft but as you say it impacts both weight and balance. The fuel injected 912 also needs a header tank and a fuel pump so the additional weight is equal in both installations. The Viking 130 does not need a header tank because there is no fuel that needs to return to the fuel supply system. The Viking 110 has had a very reliable track record to date. The big advantage in this engine is the fuel injection and the electronic ignition. The Honda 110 engine is used in the racing world and they run it at insane rpms. The Viking 130 uses direct gas injection. There is no need for a fuel return line. It is essentially the same engine block other than the direct gas injection. Viking let Honda do all the investment in engineering, developement, and proving the engine so the technology invested in these engines is far beyond anything flying. The only unknown is it's application as an aircraft power plant and there is a fair amount of experience in this application being built every day in the Viking 110 engine. I earned my pilot license in a Rotax powered aircraft and since I have been flying there have been two local planes that had engine failure and were forced to land off airport. Those Rotax engines had hundreds of hours on them from both training and rental hours and I would still consider them to be reliable engines. Anything can fail. From all I have read the Viking 110 has a solid record. I expect the 130 will also. We will know more soon. We have also talked about the D-Motor on this site before. I am also following that engine but it has been years and I have heard very little form them. It seems that every new engine gets off to a slow start. The Viking engine has done amazing things considering the time it has been available. I wish some of the other potential engines out there would get their act together so we would really have something to compare. Joe B

[kenryan]

In addition to being used in racing, the earlier Honda Fit engine (the one that the Viking 110 is based on) is also used by Honda for their 70hp and 90hp outboard motors.

[av8rps]

I wasn't clear in my first post that the guy with the Escapade specifically told me that he needed the tanks for weight and balance. But he was also ok with the extra fuel as the big wing tanks weren't out yet. He crashed that plane a few years back and died (not sure what happened), so unfortunately we can't ask him for info (while I only met him that one time, it was truly a loss as he was a prince of a guy).

And yes, the 912 injected and the 914 Rotax also need to return unused fuel back to the fuel system. In my opinion the wing tanks are the best place for that fuel to be returned for any engines that run fuel pumps to recirculate unused fuel, as air is constantly cooling the bigger quantity of fuel in the wing vs the much smaller header tank located on the inside of the cabin that gets no air. Gary's 914 Highlander crash years ago was most likely caused by recirculated hot fuel from the engine compartment going back to the header tank, which just got hotter and hotter the longer the engine ran, ultimately causing fuel vaporization in the engine compartment. Or at least that was what we all concluded at the time (it definitely had fuel vaporization causing engine power surging the longer it ran - I was there when it happened and witnessed the surging / power loss/ crash ).

I agree that the Honda engine is a nice set up, but because of the weight I have never investigated it much. And frankly, I'm not real crazy about engines that require battery voltage to keep them running. And then there were some people having delivery / money issues with the company. That pretty well turned me off of the Viking. Plus I know that one day when I would want to sell a Viking powered airplane, the Rotax is a lot more likely to give me not only a larger list of buyers and probably a quicker sale, but also a better return in dollars. Jan did a really great job with the Viking, but it is still just too unknown /unproven for me. So I'm sticking with the Rotax. Troy and I have had a lot of conversations about engines over the years and he still feels the 912/914 is the best engine for the airframe. I remember at one point in time they thought the Jabiru 3300 or the UL series would be the hot ticket, but neither ever really proved to be better. I do think the Titan 0-340 will be kickass on the extended fuselage Super Stol, but it's gonna be a heavy airplane. Horsepower will somewhat offset that I'm sure, just like it does in the Carbon Cub. But the Carbon Cub has a much bigger wing, so only time will tell how the Super Stol will work out in the long term with the added weight. I personally think it will be crazy for climb, but will lose much of its practicality with load carrying, LSA benefits, range, economy of operation, etc, etc.. One of the best performing Highlanders is still the 914 Rotax, or the modified turbo 912 ULS like Steve Henry has on his last Highlander. But even he admits that for most people, the stock Rotax 912 ULS works best for overall practicality.

But I too am curious how his Yamaha engine and PSRU will work out? I really do hope it works out well for him, and for us as another good option. But I think we are a long ways from knowing that as it is going to take some serious hours of operation before we know anything. I also think there may be some serious potential with some of the other various recreational vehicle engines that put out gobs of power but yet seem pretty bullet proof. I'm just not that interested in all that trial and error or test pilot time or expense that goes with trying all those different engines. So again, I'll stick with what I can just go out and fly, being well tested, minimizing my odds of playing test pilot. Oh, and for the record I have had a Lycoming 0-235 and an 0-360 fail me. Another friend broke a crankshaft over mountains with a freshly overhauled C-90 causing a deadstick landing. Back in the good old days when we mostly used 2 stroke engines on our planes (Avids, Kitfoxes, etc), engine failure was pretty much something you planned for. When my certified airplane buddies used to tease me about flying my Rotax 2 strokes, I would just reply "I fly everything as if it has a 2 stroke Rotax in it, as they can all quit". And honestly, having a 532 Rotax quit in an Avid Flyer is lot easier to handle than my Lycoming powered Lake Amphibian. The lake has a power off descent rate of 4,000 fpm and best glide is 80 mph. So you essentially look straight below you and dive for that spot, hoping you have enough speed to be able to flair. An Avid, Kitfox, or Highlander by comparison is childs play when the engine fails. I could be wrong, but now that we have fleet operational hour numbers on the 912 Rotax, I think it has already established itself as one of the most reliable aircraft engines ever built. I seem to recall Kitplanes (or one of the major magazines) assembling that data a few years back, also stating that there are more 912's sold than all other aircraft engines combined. But again, I'm going off memory so don't quote me on that.

For the guys that truly enjoy experimenting, there are a lot of options to pick from they may enjoy more than the 912 or 914 Rotax. But for me, I'd rather just enjoy using my airplane while feeling that I have a well proven, reliable engine, giving me some peace of mind and minimizing the potential need for me to have to use my extreme piloting skills ( ). Plus, these Highlanders and Super Stols are so capable that you could probably spend the rest of your life just learning all the capabilities of the design, and how to use them to their max. I'd rather do that than tinker with an engine myself. But I do respect those of you out there that want to tinker and experiment, as they are called "Experimental" for a reason. and honestly my hats off to you. It's just not for me anymore. I don't seem to have enough time to fly, much less tinker

[bluemax]

I wasn't clear in my first post that the guy with the Escapade specifically told me that he needed the tanks for weight and balance. But he was also ok with the extra fuel as the big wing tanks weren't out yet. He crashed that plane a few years back and died (not sure what happened), so unfortunately we can't ask him for info (while I only met him that one time, it was truly a loss as he was a prince of a guy).

The guy with the Escapade was Gerald Chamberlain. He was flying to AirVenture (2012) from North Carolina, with a fuel stop at Newark/Heath Airport, KVTA, about 3 miles from my house. I believe he had crossed the Ohio River and got into IMC. A witness said that his engine sputtered and quit, restarted briefly, then quit again. The FAA investigated, but the Ohio State Highway Patrol also investigates. I was able to find out from the investigating trooper that the fuel tanks were empty. I am not sure how many hours Jerry had on his Escapade, but he flew it all the time, and was a great salesman for Viking Aircraft. I saw one report that his engine was a Jabiru, but that is false. It was a Viking HF 110.

[moving2time]

Max, was the conclusion that he simply ran out of gas? One of the advantages of the header tank is that you have a very good indicator of when you are getting low on fuel through the sight tube on the header tank. I was planning on a header tank even if I didn't need a return line from a fuel injected engine just for the safety it provided. With regards to the Rotax, I agree that it is hard to beat the Rotax 912 for reliability. I have personally seen several of them fly all day long in the Flight Design CTLS's that I flew while learning to fly and then rented for several years. That plane could fly circles around the Cessna 150's and 172's on 4 gallons an hour. It was a great airplane and we ran at least two of those engines through 2000 hours. Now I am flying a Cub with what they call a 75 HP Continental and I can barely hit 70 MPH. I can't wait till I get my highlander in the air. Till then I am flying this Cub as much as possible all be it very slowly. Don't get me wrong, i love low and slow, but some times you want to get somewhere and get back and in the Cub it is hard to do. Luckily, Steve is the perfect person to try the Yamaha. Who else could put several hundred hours an an aircraft in a year and with his experience in the Highlander he will be able to give an honest evaluation of the Yamaha engine. By then I hope to be ready for my engine install. Go Steve! personally, I hope he is able to fly it to Oshkosh so I can check out the installation and talk at length about how it has performed. Go Steve. This year will be my first flight to Oshkosh and it will be in a 1946 J3 Cub, very low and very slow!!! BTW, I love these conversations. Keep it going. Joe B

[R Rinker]

As an A&P I really like as much hard data as possible. It's one thing to say any engine can fail, but I like to know why an engine failed. Was it the engine or operator? For instance, with a properly maintained Continental or Lyc, the primary weak point that brings them down is overhauled cylinders with little known history. A cylinder can be overhauled & used on different engines forever until it fails. There are truckloads of cylinders sitting around that, because new ones are expensive, someone will eventually run. My flying has been in the Arctic, Alaska, Bearing Sea to Siberia....and our policy is to run a factory reman with new cylinders, and overhaul the cylinders once, then go to new cylinders if necessary. If you cover your bases with standard maintenance, time proven common sense caution such as time rated replacement for critical components like with helicopters, you can fly over the ice caked ocean or hostile terrain without - sweating out noting that a forced landing would be deadly. Sure, there have been runs of cranks that failed...but this is extremely rare, and when it did happen it got so much attention that it was dealt with in a way that got them out of service in a hurry. The 0-320 H series that had the camshaft fiasco brought down a lot of Cessna's, but every one of them was a "precautionary" landing where the engine didn't quit, it just sounded bad and that's something that will cause panic. Lycoming always maintained that all of those engines would have reached their destination.
I keep hearing how good the Rotax is, but everyone I know running them, and a lot of others I read about, have had issues, many of which took a long time to resolve because they were hard to diagnose & deal with. In short, the operator lost months or a year of flying time & work trying to get it right. A friend of mine took the Rotax factory overhaul training and lost a year of flying trying to get his brand new installation running right. One guy here on the forum couldn't get his gear box working right even after sending it back to the factory - they said it was all fine - and he had to learn how to overhaul it himself...replaced new looking gears till it worked. Some have to thrown away new exhaust components and hire a welder to fabricate something to fit right. Here in Canada, a new Rotax (the cheapest 912) with necessary equipment (exhaust & add on's etc.) costs over $30,000 Canadian!
I understand that I might 'have' to go with Rotax, and I understand that. But I sure want to do my homework and know for sure there's no better alternative before I do.

[bluemax]

Max, was the conclusion that he simply ran out of gas? One of the advantages of the header tank is that you have a very good indicator of when you are getting low on fuel through the sight tube on the header tank. I was planning on a header tank even if I didn't need a return line from a fuel injected engine just for the safety it provided. Joe B

Joe,
The last time I checked on this record, it was not final. The NTSB stated that the wing tanks had a "residual" amount of fuel in the tanks (wing). They also stated that the header tank(s) were EMPTY. It's also stated that the pilot had been flying in IMC for the last 90 nautical miles. Postmortem toxicology revealed that he had Paroxetine and Rosuvastatin in his body, which I was not aware of. All that stuff adds up.