Viking Engines In Aus

[Geoff13]

There is an opening there about one's abilities off the bike rather than the quality of the machine, but being a true gentleman I shall leave that one alone.

 

 

[Soleair]

I find the V4's and Vtwins for that matter functional in an Agricultural type of a way.

Can't comment on Kwakker V4's. But have a go on a VFR & see what you think then.

 

Bruce

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Old Koreelah were you ever asked by your wife to go bike riding after you had both gone to bed? Alan.

Nope...(and she wasn't the wench in the story).

 

 

[Tucano]

$US25K is about $A35 with freight and GST

 

I think this is for the US market

 

 

[geoffreywh]

what kwacker V4?

 

 

[Geoff13]

what kwacker V4?

Very good question. I was actually referring to the Yamaha V4 Venture, about vintage 2008.

 

I do not know why I mentioned Kawasaki as I have never ridden a Kawasaki in my life. I have been researching them though for information on their radiators for a project that I am working on and may have had them in my mind when I wrote that. My apologies for any confusion.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

The Yamaha V4 is a thing of beauty....

 

 

[Geoff13]

No the Yamaha V4 is a source of vibration and noise. As I said functional in an agricultural type of way.

 

The Honda Flat 6 you can sit a wine glass on one of the heads and rev up and not spill a drop. Now that is a thing of beauty.

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

Try a Kawasaki inline 6 cyl Z 1300 engine for size.

 

 

[Jmbb74]

Another video with better camera audio.

 

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

What is your takeoff speed?...it seems to be very fast....unless its the camera playing tricks

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Motor sounds nice...certainly humms along nicely

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Looks to me like the video is playing at 2 times the normal speed ??

 

David

 

 

[Jmbb74]

Hi all, it's just a optical illusion because of the camera position and wide angle. This mornings speed had just hit 60knts at rotation.

 

 

[nig71]

Viking looks really interesting at face value but has anyone considered the honda civic diesel as a choice for aero conversion. It has an aluminum block, develops nearly 110hp from 3000rpm (according to one chart I looked at) could be chipped to 150hp, possibly has the same bolt patterns for civic petrol gearbox (don't really know;just guessing) for a bolt up of PRSU.

 

On another note, I wonder if the powers that be could be leaned on in the interests of developing a diesel aircraft engine to increase the MTOW of diesel powered LSA to the same as amphibious LSA. Now I am just a learning pilot with a mere ten hours under my belt and really haven't done much with weight and balance calculations so be gentle with me but it seems to me that an increase in engine weight wouldn't stuff with COG calculations because the weight is where most of the weight in an LSA is located anyway. A heavier engine could also be shifted aft a bit to compensate as well. The fuel weighs more by specific gravity but the engine uses less so there could be weight savings here. Or at least the option to put less on board for two up operations is available.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with any auto conversion is that no one designs airframes for a big fat nose weight.

 

 

[nig71]

What I only am just realising is that it seems if you have a light engine you shift it forward to adjust COG . Much like on a turboprop. Light engine; long cowl.

 

Plus which is there an advantage to a tail wheel aircraft and make the main gear take the load.

 

Right at the moment I am a bit fascinated by the Just Highlander Superstol. I don't think its gear would have much problem taking extra load. A diesel would be a great fit for me on a farm.

 

According to Honda the diesel has 58% of the economy of the petrol. So some weight could be gained on fuel load.

 

 

[kasper]

Well auto conversion with redrive nearly always comes at a weight penalty to an equivalent aircraft specific engine.

 

Look at the SMART engines converted to aircraft use by FlyEco - one a turbo diesel and the other turbo petrol - handy that they are 80 and 100hp as they compare to rotax 912 nicely.

 

In both cases the engine mass on an 'equivalent' basis is greater in the auto conversion ... and looking at the fuel burn of the rotax the rotax gets hours of fuel for the same installed weight of the auto-converion engine. Short of the auto-conversion engine being cheap as chips (they are not) the sums do not add up.

 

So going diesel at 80hp is more about the availability of jetA and the diesel injection and all the nice automotive stuff rather than the installed mass ... 80hp diesel ecofly is actually more weight that the 3300 jab and is close in weight to the continental O200

 

So basically the weight on this 80hp diesel does not kick in as fuel mass saving due to lower burn until the 6th hour of flying starts ... not a lot of microlights run this long in a single leg and even training organisations.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Normal diesel will wax up at about minus 4 C. Avtur would be the only safe fuel unless flying low in the tropics. Nev. Diesels are heavy because they work at high pressures and loads. They have been built successfully in the past, and there have been Diesel Radials that set endurance records. I think Packard built one in the early 30's. for that purpose. Junkers had the Jumo in some bombers. They are 2 stroke which you can pretty much forget these days as they are more polluting than desired. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

It has an aluminium block

I remind you that 1kg of aluminium weighs exactly the same as 1kg of cast iron.

 

No one knows the weight of the Honda diesels. The 2.0 Subaru flat 4 diesel weighs 170kgs and that is a lot more than many cast iron block 4 cylinder engines I can name.

 

According to Honda the diesel has 58% of the economy of the petrol. So some weight could be gained on fuel load.

So maybe they weigh the same at liftoff, but when you land with low fuel, the diesel is still heavier. Then there's the torsional vibrations.

 

I'm not against diesels but if they made sense people would be using them.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

cessna 172 diesel is becoming more popular bex, these are based off the MB 2.0 engine

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R06D5bDTMZM

 

 

[Nobody]

A viable aircraft diesel might actually be a 2 stroke. You give up some efficiency for higher power output for the weight these guys have developed an engine and it has flown in a few types of aircraft. There is one flying in an RV-9 in the USA

 

http://wilksch.net/

 

 

[bexrbetter]

cessna 172 diesel is becoming more popular bex, these are based off the MB 2.0 engine

I know them well.

 

So you reckon 150kgs and $100,000 (installed) cost is ok?

 

A viable aircraft diesel might actually be a 2 stroke./

I'm hearing some good things about the WAM, not sure of the cost etc though.

 

Still 130kgs it's getting a bit much for our typical sized craft.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Is it doable to have a lightish (equivalent to 100-150 hp) turbo prop that could run on either diesel or jetA1?

 

I am not technically savvy on the possibilities of this but I would've thought something that could be run on farm diesel in the summer and jetA1 in the winter or when traveling would be a goer and especially if it was put in something in around the 750 kgs MTOW it would be well suited to rural applications.

 

As a separate silly question. (Ok maybe a couple/few not just one more) Why don't we see small turbo props in light touring aircraft? Is it an expense issue? Wouldn't their reliability be better than a piston equivalent?

 

 

[Nobody]

Still 130kgs it's getting a bit much for our typical sized craft.

To be fair that weight includes a constant speed prop, governor, radiators, starter, alternator, oil and coolant. It is also for an engine that has a turbo and so will deliver its rated power at altitude.