PDA

View Full Version : 912 uls vs Viking HF110



chefwarthog
02-09-2011, 05:46 PM
And why not a Honda injection Vikink HF110 instead of a Rotax 912 ULS???:rolleyes:
Go see for your self at @....and let me know.




http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/Tech.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bj7P7ZihEc

runwayrex
02-12-2011, 09:12 AM
The Viking engine looks very interesting to me too. I wonder how well it will fit inside a round cowl. That big radiator might be a problem. I won't buy an engine unless the Mcbeans have engineered a firewall package for it.

In my search so far, the 912's negative side is the high cost and dual carbs. The Rotec leaks too much oil and there's no liquid for the cabin heat. On the plus side, the Viking has Honda engineering, reliability, liquid cooling, 110 horsepower, and a lower price tag than the other two.

I keep waiting for John or Debra to call me so I can order my new Super Sport!

Rex Phelps

chefwarthog
02-12-2011, 02:54 PM
What I like from the Vikink, is that it seem neat with no mess of pipe and tubing and no cab heating prob. like the 912

Not that the Rotax is not a good engine, but it's tag price is the one of the all Honda Fit and I need just the engine.

If the Kit Fox team make a firewall kit for this engine, I will consider that choice very seriously.:rolleyes:

Look at the pictures......

1SeventyZ
02-12-2011, 03:36 PM
That is seriously cool. Everyone knows that Honda 4 cylinder engines are synonymous with performance and reliability, so to see someone get behind this conversion is great. Part availability for the core should be excellent, but all the auxiliary stuff (heater, exhaust, etc) is questionable and dependent on the success of Viking.

I don't see where the gearbox comes from. Are we to assume it's poached from the marine outboard installation?

chefwarthog
02-12-2011, 05:27 PM
The gearboxs is from Viking with a ratio of 2.33:1
This engine hase the same RPM has the Rotax, with a smaller weigth.

Honda instal this motor in the formula Ford series racing, and in there outbord marine engine, so that why, this mecanical can sustain a hight RPM

I found another video that explain more in detail from Sun&Fun 2010...........

Excuse my english but it make me practise:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdE33L9iH04&feature=related

szicree
02-12-2011, 08:44 PM
I'm sure the Honda core is bomb-proof but that's a very small part of the puzzle. Just about every modern Japanese four-banger will run all day because they've had about 60 years of design refinement. I doubt the same can be said of the gear drive on this conversion. It's not like this is the first auto conversion to come down the pike, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I agree the price looks attractive, but there is a reason: no track record. I'll let somebody else put the first 50,000 hours or so on one of these before I jump in.

chefwarthog
02-13-2011, 10:57 AM
I don't want to do the Deveil's layer, but did the Wright brother in 1903 did there first flight with an automotive engine in aluninium or not. No, I know what you mean ¨szicree¨ but do the Rotax engine is so much reliable. I know that Vikig is not new to modify automotive engine in to aircraft like the Subaru, does any body as realistic fact on those companies?????:confused:

Thanks, Eric

Mnflyer
02-13-2011, 11:13 AM
Hi Eric, No the Wright bros did not use an automotive engine, they designed and built their own engine thus it was the very first aircraft engine solely built for aviation. As for the reliability its very easy to see / read / learn about the Rotax 9 series reliability they have flown tens of thousands of hours, the Viking engine may very well be a good engine at sometime but has no flight record as of yet. Just my $.02

chefwarthog
02-13-2011, 01:02 PM
In Fact the Wright brother did not disegned there own engine, but they turn to Charles Edward Taylor who build an inline motor from aluminium for the Flyer 1.

There is no flight record of the HF 110 yet it is a new engine, but have you info on Viking compagnie?:o

CRAV8R
02-13-2011, 01:07 PM
Google "Eggenfellner" and "Eggenfellner engine problems" for more info on the company behind the engine. They have a pretty long and checkered history with Subaru conversions for RVs and Glastars.

Still, looks intriguing.

Chris Ross
Chicago

Mnflyer
02-13-2011, 03:13 PM
In Fact the Wright brother did not disegned there own engine, but they turn to Charles Edward Taylor who build an inline motor from aluminium for the Flyer 1.

There is no flight record of the HF 110 yet it is a new engine, but have you info on Viking compagnie?:o

I beg to differ the Wrights did indeed design their own engine Mr Taylor worked for the Wrights and did work on the engine and it was not an automotive engine it was designed for the Wright Flyer, and yes iwas inline but laid flat or a flat 4 and used an evaporator vs a carburetor.
http://nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/fly/1903/engine.cfm
http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/eng03.html

chefwarthog
02-13-2011, 07:05 PM
And why not a Honda injection Vikink HF110 instead of a Rotax 912 ULS???:rolleyes:
Go see for your self at @....and let me know.




http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/Tech.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bj7P7ZihEc

Thanks for those links they are very intererting, I leard new facts for me.
dont stop, I need to leard all pertinence fact about Kit Fox before to order my kit.:D

runwayrex
02-14-2011, 06:30 AM
Chef, I just sent you a personal message regarding the facts of the Wright Brothers engine history. They DID design their engine.

Check out the Viking website and Eggenfellner website. He has a history of building aircraft engines from Subaru car engines. Like the others on the site, I am anxious to see an established history with the Honda engine. I like everything I see about this engine so far.

chefwarthog
02-14-2011, 07:31 AM
Thanks for those info Runwayrex, I just fond another video; a engine for you plan at $9900.00 from Oshkosh 2010 show, with a 95% finalize version of the HF 110.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itn90ojD14Q&feature=related

Is any one did see a production version of this engine at Sebring 2011 show? In the mean time have got to go shovel 16 inc of **** that fell in my driveway last night............:(

SkyPirate
02-14-2011, 09:09 AM
I'm sticking with my choice of engines ,..the 2009 2.0 EFI ford focus engine ,..in fact Boeing also thinks this is a good choice ,..they are using 2 of them on their latest recon aircraft,..the only downfall is the reduction ,..other then boeing's own reduction they use on their new bird,..I don't think there are any bolt on gear reductions available ,..so I'm building my own belt reduction.
Stock the engine is 140 hp and weighs a little on the heavy side of 211 lbs,.( with components) but this engine is also used on the ralley race cars so lighter components that are getting track tested are in the makes every day,..
soon I'll be installing mine and I'll shave as much weight as I can off of the "bolt on" components by remanufacturing them lighter to get my core weight below 200 lbs. I say core weight ,..I mean ready to turn key and fly weight.
there are a few motor cycle engine conversions out there as well,..some are using them on trike's and other light sport applications,..there is a guy in Vermont that has a suzuki motor modified for flight ,( sory no link's my computer went thru the ringer and I lost allot of info),..it's pumping 115 hp? or close to that ,..and weighs less then the rotax, with a gear reduction included,..
you just have to be willing to "step out of the box" so to speak, there's allot of other choices as far as power plants go,.. some even use industrial engines to power their aircraft ,.."The Back Yard Flyer" uses an industrial 4 stroke engine with a belt reduction for their aircraft,..this is an ultralight aircraft and doesn't fly the speeds that the kitfox will fly ,..it's just another example of what a little research in choices available are out there and have been applied to powered flight.
A major concern of mine is the new fuels that are being manufactured for GA aircraft engines,..and also talk of making auto gas or the equivelant to mogas more available at airports,..this is also something that has to be concidered in choice of power plant ,..the dead line for a lead free AV gas is fast approaching.

Chase

szicree
02-14-2011, 03:40 PM
Under the FAQ section of the Viking website, I found this:

"Also, and this is important, your engine cost is about $500-1,000, everything else is the expense of the parts made to make it lighter, to have a dual computer, to mount it in such a way that it will fit in an airframe, to cool it and to get the exhaust overboard. So, if you totally trashed your engine, for any reason, you are out $750 and some time to replace it."

Am I to understand that brand new, factory built Honda Fit engines can be purchased for $750?! I have a GREAT deal of trouble believing this. Perhaps the core engine is not brand new. Does anyone know where the source engine comes from?

Squirrelfox
02-14-2011, 04:09 PM
OK...I'll bite with my first post. I ordered the Kitfox Super 7 from John at Sebring last month and look forward to June Shipping. I live 1/2 hour south of Viking and see them as a strong competitor for the engine choice. Obviously, the ROTAX is proven...However, there are similarities. Both use geared reduction PSRU's. Both have high RPM and piston speeds. I'm an instrumentation type so not a power guy...However, I've been reading a lot on the L15A engineering. Internals as good or better than Rotax for sure. A replacement "new" crate engine from Honda racing @ $2500. So here's the rub...unproven experimental or proven high cost. The RCM curve suggests that the 912ULS suffers failure in the first 50 hours like any such complicated system. Frankly, to early to decide...but I am intrigued with the thought of substancially returning affordability into GA.

I haven't spent time at Viking but will go up to X50 soon to check out his operation...I too have a slew of questions...but hopefull!

szicree
02-14-2011, 04:37 PM
Go to vansairforce.com and do a search under Eggenfellner. You'll have all the info you need.

chefwarthog
02-14-2011, 09:26 PM
If you purchase a Honda Fit engine at $2500.00 you will got the motor + transmition in all, but when you want a motor for a aircraft you don't need the transmition just the engine.


so maybe that's why it is cheaper but I doubt you can buy for $250.00........:eek:

But if you pay $4000 at 5000. less then a Rotax you can have some problemes, but still pay less for you engine.

runwayrex
02-15-2011, 06:27 AM
CRAV8R, Can you expand on the "Checkered history" of Eggenfellner? I'm not sure if that's a complimentary (like checkered flag) or questionable (like spotted). There's a fellow in our chapter with an Eggenfellner Subaru in his plane and likes it a lot. He reports that Eggenfellner is quite talented from an engineering standpoint, but not much of a people person.

chefwarthog
02-15-2011, 07:49 AM
I went to see vansairforce.com like ¨szicree¨ suggest and I fond a lot of blubbering but. I like facts and it seem that Eggenfellner as a lot of so so history with is Subaru engine convercision. And all your saying gus is to wait and see before to jump in, in franch we say: il faut laisser ****é le mouton! but one thread bring my attention the one of ¨Canadian Joy¨ and you will have to see by your self at:
:mad::o:D
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67604

This thread is from vansairforce.com ¨It's a matter of history...

I have time on my side I have to bild my garage before to order my kit......:o

Andrew G
02-15-2011, 10:52 AM
When I buy the (eventual) Kitfox... it will be Rotax powered, simply because convincing my insurance company to "go Experimental" will be tough enough with a very proven engine, which Rotax is... The only hate I have for the setup is the cost... it really is too damned much by a factor of 50%... don't worry, I am a capitalist and they do win the supply / demand debate every time...

With that said... I have to admit, I study all the engines that "compete" with the 912 (100 hp). Lycoming made a decent effort, but fell way short on the weight, it's still too heavy given the LSA rules... Continental, well, in my non-engineer opinion, they just fell short... The guy who put the Yamaha on his gyrocopter has some great things going, but he isn't a developer, so it's a one-off... not in my lifetime, and the Belgian engine seems like a good one but too small, and the Corvair, etc... back to the insurance company problem.

This Honda conversion and the argument the Egg guy puts forth makes some sense... You know that old flying saying? "if it looks like it can fly, it can, if it doesn't, it won't"... the Subaru didn't feel right with me, this Honda does. I have had a Honda outboard for many years... it runs like a sewing machine. The Fit engine has an excellent pedigree. The Rotax, actually evolved from a snowmobile right? And a 2 stroke one at that... the Fit, IMHO, has a superior pedigree... tinkering for 5 years will work the prop swing bugs out.

Egg is such a bad self promoter on the chat forums and in the videos it's funny, it's like watching a bad auto dealer, you know the guys with the toupes, etc... but, I have to thank him for his efforts to make affordable and safe flying for all... I do hope he becomes successful so he can make enough money to go in the lab where he probably excels... so he can get a professional marketing team...

So, Mr. Egg, keep doing what you are doing, I think there are enough early adopters out there who want to fly cheaply... just don't screw up.:D

DesertFox4
02-15-2011, 11:03 AM
chefwarthog's info. copied from Van's site has been removed from his previous post.
Van's Airforce.com's site has specific rules for use of their site and all info. on it.
Breaking his #1 rule by copying and pasting directly from his site to this site without his written permission will not be allowed.



From Van's site:
Legal Terms and Conditions

Please review the following terms and conditions concerning your use of this site. By accessing, using or downloading materials from this web site (including the forums) you agree to follow and be bound by these terms and conditions.

1.

You may download, view, copy and print documents and graphics ("Documents") incorporated in this web site subject to the following: (1) the Documents may be used solely for personal, informational, non-commercial purposes; and (2) and will not be copied or posted on any networked computer or broadcast in any media; and (3) the Documents may not be modified or altered in any way. Except as expressly provided herein, you may not use, download, upload, copy, print, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, post, transmit or distribute any information from this web site in whole or in part without the prior written permission of Doug Reeves.

enyaw
02-15-2011, 11:25 AM
chefwarthog's info. copied from Van's site has been removed from his previous post.
Van's Airforce.com's site has specific rules for use of their site and all info. on it.
Breaking his #1 rule by copying and pasting directly from his site to this site without his written permission will not be allowed.

If chiefwarthog were to edit his post and put a link to the thread that he had previously quoted, would that be allowed?

Van's Airforce has a much broader readership and we have many common issues. I for one appreciate access to the cross-pollination and would hope that there was a way to share information w/out having to recreate others' searches based on cryptic references to another board.

DesertFox4
02-15-2011, 11:52 AM
enyaw, I see no problem with a link to the site as long as it doesn't violate Doug's rules. I'll take a look tonight at the rest of his terms of use requirements but seems like that might be OK. :)

szicree
02-15-2011, 12:59 PM
I went to see vansairforce.com like ¨szicree¨ suggest and I fond a lot of blubbering

I began my RV-4 back in '98 and due to life getting in the way took almost 10 years to finish. During that time I would frequent web forums such as this one to keep abreast of the latest developments. Eggenfellner's Subaru conversions came up quite frequently and much of the discussion was negative. The main issues I can recall were: cooling problems, poor performance, and gear drive failures. I believe the gear drive being used currently on the Sube is a 4th generation. Keep in mind that the first generation was marketed as fully tested. It is my understanding that the customers were expected to pay for the updated gearboxes. As I've said before, the question here is not whether the Honda motor is tough, but whether the engineering to adapt it to an aircraft is fully tested.

You had commented earlier that having some engine problems would be okay if you could save some money. I'm sure I don't need to point out that an engine failure on takeoff, over hostile terrain, water or at night can mean death. I know we don't like to talk about that, but deaths happen in this hobby.

Finally, have you considered the resale value of an alternate engined craft? Check around and I think you'll see that they can be tough to sell at anything but a big loss.

This is not meant to bash anyone who goes alternative, but those who have done it succesfully have done LOTS of homework.

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 02:40 PM
Amen on the "lot's of home work",..I actually bought a car ,.brand new off the show room floor with the style motor I'm using ,..it's got 65,000 miles on it so far and only an oil change every 2k miles has been done to it ( besides the 10th set of tires on the chassis),..still runs like day one,..now you have to understand ,..I use to race cars semi professionally at speeds over 100 mph ,..I am really testing this motors durability,..so it's not just a drive to the store and back ,..:cool: it's 5500 to 6500 rpm coming into a R-100' corner at 90 miles an hour then subject it to 2.5 to 3G side load,..or end load in this case ,..(the motor is mounted in the car sideways) for 5 to 10 seconds at a time depending on the length of the corner,.. that would be like taking a 912 and flying it straight up wide open throttle for 5 to 10 seconds at a time repeatedly..

Slyfox
02-15-2011, 03:15 PM
skypirate. I fly my 912 wide open for hours on end. I just make sure the rpm's are 5200. :D That's 120mph by the way.

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 03:20 PM
skypirate. I fly my 912 wide open for hours on end. I just make sure the rpm's are 5200. :D That's 120mph by the way.
ha ha show off :) now pull that stick back and go straight up and get all the oil on the back of the engine for 5 to 10 seconds ha ha

Slyfox
02-15-2011, 04:00 PM
I do that all the time, usually peg the vsi at 2000. Now, what about that oil to the back of the engine??? How about me pushed back in the seat.:D

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 04:04 PM
you got me ha ha my anaology might have been a bit "unthought" ,..we are also talking 3g loads,..with the 912 going straight up it's only 1 to 1.5 g unless you mount jatos's to the struts :D

Slyfox
02-15-2011, 04:40 PM
you only have a small window and poof, the momentum is done, time to push the stick forward.

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 04:43 PM
na ,..left rudder pull back a little more on the stick and a little left aeleron ,.yeehaaa~!!!

szicree
02-15-2011, 04:54 PM
it's 5500 to 6500 rpm coming into a R-100' corner at 90 miles an hour then subject it to 2.5 to 3G side load,..or end load in this case ,..(the motor is mounted in the car sideways) for 5 to 10 seconds at a time depending on the length of the corner

Wow! Are you saying that your car can hold 3g lateral for 10 seconds? What sort of car/tires are we talking about here?

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 05:16 PM
sure it can ,..heck a volkswagen can as long as the road isnt flat ,..and the tires are top of the line perelli's,..16 R 50's

probably aught to get back on topic :)

whitewulfe
02-15-2011, 05:23 PM
Wow! Are you saying that your car can hold 3g lateral for 10 seconds? What sort of car/tires are we talking about here?

I'm going to venture a guess at either DOT racing radials, or full fledged slicks, since given the description (and my limited knowledge of racing) we're looking at either solo1 autocross/autoslalom, or proper circuit time trials/racing.

I sure know my old Fuzion ZRi tires supposedly could hand such loads (with a competent driver), but I know I could barely hold 45mph or so through anything remotely tight, but such was mainly due to lack of preparation (of both driver and car). The worst I'd ever done was a 270 degree turn at about 70kph in rallycross (and she was a tight corner too), and even then I knew I was pushing my own limits (but it was worth it, shaved something like 40 seconds off my very first time of the day - I drove conservatively at first since it was only my second event ever)

Av8r3400
02-15-2011, 05:34 PM
The Rotax, actually evolved from a snowmobile right? And a 2 stroke one at that... the Fit, IMHO, has a superior pedigree... tinkering for 5 years will work the prop swing bugs out.

The 900 series Rotax engine (the one we are comparing to) is a dedicated aircraft engine. It did not evolve from a snowmobile engine, it was a clean sheet design solely for the aircraft market. It is not a conversion of any sort.

Its architecture has more in common with modern motorcycle engines.

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 05:36 PM
I raced rally up the access roads for ski areas and raced circle track asphalt ,..sure wish that hoosier still made the street legal rally tire ,.they were the best,..I don't like the good years they bust loose in a hurry once they reach 215 f degrees,..

ok before we get in trouble aught to get back on topic

Slyfox
02-15-2011, 05:40 PM
na ,..left rudder pull back a little more on the stick and a little left aeleron ,.yeehaaa~!!!

I don't do that:rolleyes:

SkyPirate
02-15-2011, 05:57 PM
I like the rotax ,..heck 6 of my planes have had rotax on them of one size or another ,..just the cost of the 900 series and what I've seen happen to some after relatively low hours logged ,.. and TBO cost ,..this motor I'm using ,.cost is less then 1/20 the cost of a rotax 912 uls and I can get one local in a hurry if I need a replacement,..
As for the viking,..I don't know squat about it so I can not reply on it's pro's or con's,.but more power to the application if it works,..

Chase

szicree
02-15-2011, 05:58 PM
sure it can ,..heck a volkswagen can as long as the road isnt flat ,..and the tires are top of the line perelli's,..16 R 50's

probably aught to get back on topic :)

Now wait a second. Certainly a banked road will allow even a crappy car to take a lot of g, but only part of this is truly lateral. For example, you could take a car around a 60 degree bank at a speed sufficient to generate a centripetal acceleration of 3 g, but only 1.5 g would be in the lateral direction (parallel to the pavement). The rest is directed into the track. Meanwhile, good ol' gravity is trying to slide the car down the bank at .866 g. Therefore the net tendency to slide the car laterally is only 1.5g -.866g = .634g. If we're trying to see how the engine handles side loading, these distinctions are quite relevent.

DesertFox6
02-15-2011, 08:22 PM
Actually, as an aviation-related footnote; unless you're doing a transitional-vectored maneuver, like a loop, Cuban eight or cloverleaf, flying straight up or straight down, (that's 90 degrees from the "horizontal,") requires zero G. :eek:

"G required" (without going into all the trig) varies as the sustained pitch attitude: Sustained, level/horizontal, flight requires 1 G while vertical up/down flight requires 0 G, with each sustained pitch angle in between varying accordingly between those two limits. Where the oil winds up is anyone's guess until it appears on your windshield: THEN you'll know for sure! :D

Seriously though, any engine, 912, HF110, Honda, Lycoming or McCullough chainsaw, that isn't rigged to sustain fuel or oil pressure under zero G conditions will quickly eliminate itself from your cross-check needs, thus allowing you to concentrate exclusively on your stick and rudder skills! ;)

"E.T."
(Sold on 912s for all the right reasons already mentioned!)

chefwarthog
02-15-2011, 11:08 PM
When I buy the (eventual) Kitfox... it will be Rotax powered, simply because convincing my insurance company to "go Experimental" will be tough enough with a very proven engine, which Rotax is... The only hate I have for the setup is the cost... it really is too damned much by a factor of 50%... don't worry, I am a capitalist and they do win the supply / demand debate every time...

With that said... I have to admit, I study all the engines that "compete" with the 912 (100 hp). Lycoming made a decent effort, but fell way short on the weight, it's still too heavy given the LSA rules... Continental, well, in my non-engineer opinion, they just fell short... The guy who put the Yamaha on his gyrocopter has some great things going, but he isn't a developer, so it's a one-off... not in my lifetime, and the Belgian engine seems like a good one but too small, and the Corvair, etc... back to the insurance company problem.

This Honda conversion and the argument the Egg guy puts forth makes some sense... You know that old flying saying? "if it looks like it can fly, it can, if it doesn't, it won't"... the Subaru didn't feel right with me, this Honda does. I have had a Honda outboard for many years... it runs like a sewing machine. The Fit engine has an excellent pedigree. The Rotax, actually evolved from a snowmobile right? And a 2 stroke one at that... the Fit, IMHO, has a superior pedigree... tinkering for 5 years will work the prop swing bugs out.

Egg is such a bad self promoter on the chat forums and in the videos it's funny, it's like watching a bad auto dealer, you know the guys with the toupes, etc... but, I have to thank him for his efforts to make affordable and safe flying for all... I do hope he becomes successful so he can make enough money to go in the lab where he probably excels... so he can get a professional marketing team...

So, Mr. Egg, keep doing what you are doing, I think there are enough early adopters out there who want to fly cheaply... just don't screw up.:D
100% agreement on that thread, you say it all, my friend.
I wist i was better in english to make my self more clearly....:o

chefwarthog
03-18-2011, 10:40 AM
Hi guys, I juste find this video of this two engine on a comparative static pull test and the Hf 110 pull 480lb, as much as the Rotax 914. so imagine if they install a turbo on the Viking, we won't be able to fly the Kitfox with doors open anymore:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DOeKsD8aXq0

And like Andrew G said, M.Egg let the marketing to the professioal:p

Andrew G
03-18-2011, 01:15 PM
Honda is in the middle of building their plant and launching production of their new jet and engine... perhaps they will view aviation as a good opportunity...

There are thousands of LSA's around the world, the market for fuel efficient, Rotax-ish engines is good... maybe Honda will enter the normally aspirated engine market too and create some much needed competition. Honda makes scads of recreational products, may as well make an engine for the LSA market too...

Much better pedigree than Rotax, which, despite the newness of Rotax's design vis their 2 stroke snowmobile engines... Honda's 4 stroke quality and history are literally legendary in many different applications. For Honda to bridge the gap to successful aviation engines shouldn't be that difficult...

Dorsal
03-18-2011, 03:41 PM
http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c030304.html

Squirrelfox
03-18-2011, 03:43 PM
Report from the front: I'm just a few miles south of Viking and made a trip up there a cfew weeks back to look things over. A few observations regarding the thread.

Their operation is small but professional. Testing like the youtube video is on going. THe bollard thrust test was interesting but from a pure testing environment...the variables were not controlled so a little apples and orange debate is still out there. I liked the smoothness in sound as compared to the Rotax..Not sure of the value on that statement.

I just don't see Honda entering the LSA or small GA engine market. They live off of economies of scale while limiting their liability...Aviations presents too much risk in the "backyard" market. I think it will up to entrepeneurs like Viking to provide our niche. A while back there was an engine based on the Harley motorcycle lineage..I believe Harley aggressively put a stop to the marketing. I hope that Honda does no such action regarding Viking as I truly admire the vision...There are always engineering difficulties and only time will tell if Eggenfeller has hit the mark. I think we all hold a bit of gratitude for all the conversion engine folk as they collectively bring innovation.

I agree that Rotax is the comparison leader. Judging from the reports..they are not "bulletproof" however. PSRU failures and carb issues. I'm not convinced that the cost is not a false sense of security, I will admit that a widespread engine model brings improvements and reliability in the long run...Any thoughts.

chefwarthog
03-18-2011, 03:59 PM
I wonder what is the difference of the top speed between the 912 uls & 914?

Dorsal
03-18-2011, 04:33 PM
Depends on altitude.

chefwarthog
03-18-2011, 04:46 PM
what is the difference at low, mid, and high altitude?

Dorsal
03-18-2011, 08:00 PM
I hope someone with a 914 chimes in but when I looked into this the info I got suggested that below 5000 there is not much of a difference in cruise, over 15000 you might see as much as 20+ mph better. The extra 15 horse on takeoff can't hurt either:) in the end it was to rich for my blood an I did not want the added complexity of the turbo.

DesertFox6
03-18-2011, 10:36 PM
"Top speed" is something I used to worry about in a previous type of aircraft where it mattered...but we used Mach and "G" meters in our comparisons.

My never-say-cough 912 UL has been moving my Model IV Speedster all over the western USA at an average of 100 mph and 2.8 gph for over 11 years, which is giving me about 35.7 mpg or, at max gross weight, about 1200 lbs of fun per minute. :D

When the rest of the nouveau-engine world matches that record, I'll pay attention; until then...I'm busy flyin'!

And the 914? One of our local builders, a several-national-EAA-award-winning-champion whose Kitfox craftsmanship has graced the covers of a FEW EAA mags, had a 914 on his last trophy-winner and he said he'd never do that again. I'll trust his judgment explicitly on that count...YOW!

"E.T."

chefwarthog
03-18-2011, 10:53 PM
Thanks for those explanations Dorsal, you have my trust.
I would like to see how fast a Kitfox can cruse with a Hf 110 in front, You think it could do 15 miles/h + then a 912uls, it is almost the same wight.:rolleyes:

The guys of Viking have install one of there engine in a Escapade Aircraft that look like a Kitfox, the engine assembly look really neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCyPowROFBU&feature=player_embedded#at=50

Have a good weekend, guys.

Eric

Dorsal
03-19-2011, 04:51 AM
You think it could do 15 miles/h + then a 912uls, it is almost the same wight.:rolleyes:


Eric

Definitely not, the reason a 914 can pull this off is because it is turbo normalized and does a better job maintaining power at altitude. Based on the specs alone (not what I would base a decision on) I expect the engine should perform comparably to the 912S. I do agree it looks cool and I like the Honda core, interesting option to keep an eye on. Personally I am not an auto conversion type guy, I like an engine that was designed from the ground up to run at 75% to 100% power all day long. That said I admire and respect those who go down this path (very much looking forward to hearing about John's Corvair Fox) thats one of the things that make this hobby and group so much fun.

Are you building at this point or just thinking?

Andrew G
03-19-2011, 05:23 AM
Warning... major pontification ahead...:D

Chef, you aren't going to get many of the veterans here too get excited about an experimental engine because there have been too many engine schemes and none of them, except Rotax, has been a successful commercial LSA venture - yet.

The Rotax works well and performs as advertised. It just costs 2x as much as it should, and it aint perfect yet. My complaint with Rotax isn't the engine per se', it's the value proposition... which is a cool way of saying it's way too #*$& expensive.

Guys like you and me can only dream that one day a well-healed, technology-laden company like Honda or Yamaha will invest in an LSA aviation engine package that can successfully compete with Rotax. Sadly, those two Japanese companies probably have bigger fish to fry lately, i.e. like staying non-radioactive...

The two USA engine biggies, Lycoming and Continental tried in a bare minimum kind of way to produce a competitor but are pretty much staying with the proven after-market sales (servicing old certified planes) and brand new $170 - $500k planes. Continental committed to the Cessna LSA, who knows if that's a long run mutually rewarding deal or not. From all my reading, Rotax is a better engine than the Continental choice.

The big driver in commercial aviation investment today is Asia... Asian airlines and governments are spending gajillions in airframes and engines and business jets. Asian airport infrastructure is immature coupled with incredible road congestion and immature road infrastructure... which is good for us in the long term because the demand for cheap air travel will be HUGE in Asia... and anytime a market increases, we all benefit.

Asian General Aviation infrastructure is almost zero... which frankly is our only hope here in the USA that those countries build their General Aviation infrastructure, and pave the way for overall General Aviation (including LSA) growth in LSA engine development.

And in a final pontification note... I read recently that the head of Cessna's sales, the guy who paved the way for Cessna to sell the Skycatcher (Continental powered) is now working for Flight Design... a Rotax-powered LSA heavyweight (in terms of sales volume)... that kinda legitimizes LSA and will help propel LSA sales and drive a bigger LSA market, which hopefully will drive engine innovation.

Until then, we have to justify the extra $10k investment in these LSAs... or purchase an engine from Mr. Egg and hope the gearbox will last... and as anyone who has ever bought newly introduced software or hardware, the consumer is the test pilot... :eek:

chefwarthog
03-19-2011, 09:53 AM
For you info my dear Dorsal, I am not building at this point, but I am doing more then thinking, I see Kitfox every where, even in my cereal in morning:rolleyes:. I have dream of flying since my childhood, now that my two kids have grow up and have leave home:p, I have learned that I will be grandfather............:D,

But I have to build my garage prior to order my kit. I am the kind of guy that always make up invention, I am happy when working with my tools.:)

But I don't want to bother you guys with my romance, in the general discussions at ''Is it possible?'' I go through all this garage thing, but I have ask a question that no budy have anwser for now, so if any have this drawing but with wing fold it will be nice if you can email me. Just to be sure that my dream will fit nice and tight under my garage's truss, blueprint.:rolleyes:

thanks for your support.

Eric

Squirrelfox
03-19-2011, 02:57 PM
To Andrew....Well stated. Either we experiment or pay the fiddler. The fact is that many of the kitfox owners operate in hostile territiry. I can surely see why a 912/914 must be the only option fot all the brave souls in mountain terrain... The turf that surrounds my view is quite docile. I'm sure it makes me a little reluctant to pay Rotax their liability extortion.

To Eric...Keep that dream alive. My kitfox dream tormented me for a few years. Kit on order and I know not what the future holds. One step at a time and evewry now and then reinvigorate the dream. We must constantly "bother" each other about our dreams. Heck...this forum is a support group for romantic flyers...Otherwise we'd be flying spam cans!

Congratulations Grandpa...I'm a new one myself last week!

Eddie

Dorsal
03-19-2011, 04:29 PM
Cheers to that and congratulations to you both.
I used to see Kitfoxes in my cereal too, dreams are never a bother.

Av8r_Sed
03-14-2012, 10:50 AM
Are you going to be the first to fly it in a Kitfox? Please take lots of pictures of your installation and share the progress. We need more pioneers.

-- Paul S

Dorsal
03-14-2012, 11:55 AM
While I am excited to see new engine options for aviation it is my opinion that you should not compare service hours in a car (generally at a fration of rated power) with service hours in a plane at 75+ percent of rated power.

chefwarthog
03-16-2012, 09:03 PM
But the engine block of the honda fit is use in there marine outbord and Formula Ford racing car, they use ceramic discs to keep pistons center in cylinder, so it's bild to sustain high RPM....I dont think that Formula Ford pilots win there race at 75% of the power of the engine....;)

Like I have said, now it is truth, for the pice of the Rotax 912Si you will have a Viking engine and a SkyView system..... in your plane..... :rolleyes:

And for the dream, it is one step closer, Starting my Light Sport Pilot License course next week!!!:D

Eric.

Dorsal
03-17-2012, 04:26 AM
Excellent, may you have clear skies and light winds :D

kitfox2009
03-17-2012, 09:02 AM
Chefwarthog
Are you doing this Light Sport Course in the USA? I don`t believe we have that license class in Canada.
Cheers
Don

chefwarthog
03-17-2012, 08:01 PM
Thanks Dorsal, I will appreciate favorable forecast to begin in the air.... but I am operate a Retro excavator from time to time so I think it will help me with the coordination movement.....

Don, the cours that I am going through is call in french
''Ultra-léger avancé 3 axes'' (TP12804)


Eric

Esser
03-18-2012, 02:49 AM
Chefwarthog
Are you doing this Light Sport Course in the USA? I don`t believe we have that license class in Canada.
Cheers
Don

I am guessing he means recreational pilot permit. Day time VFR up to 4 seat non-high performance plane but with only one passenger.

kmach
03-18-2012, 08:30 PM
''Ultra-léger avancé 3 axes''

I think he is saying he is getting the Advanced Ultralight Permit, which allows you to carry a passenger , in an advanced ultralight.

This would be somewhat comparible with the US Sport Pilot license .;)

chefwarthog
03-18-2012, 09:41 PM
You got it Kevin, in Canada the light sport pilot license,
it's call ''Advence ultralight 3 axes license'' with a medical exam you can carry a passager.....