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
