Shoe-horning a Viking 90 into a SkyRanger.

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[Garfly]

 

And in this vid Viking defends itself on the relative weight issue.

 

 

[Garfly]

 

And, while we're on the subject, a story of a Zenith 750/Viking owner finding it necessary to swap out the engine core at 1150 hours.

 

 

[Red]

I didnt have much luck with my venture into the alternative area...my problem centred around the drive arrangement which consisted of a 582 reduction box and centirugal clutch joind by a rubber coupling, the parts didnt agree with each other and one  almost total loss of drive in climbout and the problems of dealing with the very unhelpfull german supplier of the clutch meant I gave in and fitted a 912.

 

But its always good to see alternative engines tried and the viking does seem pretty sorted.

What do you have in your Skyranger?

[Garfly]

Me? I run the standard 912ULS.  And yes, I'd hesitate to experiment with exotic engines, m'self. But I do admire folks with the savvy and confidence to do so.

Which is why I liked the story of the Viking/Zenith750 guy (above) who found himself grounded a long way from home with a cracked cylinder (as it turned out).

The way he took us with him on that week long journey from precautionary landing to back in the air was, to me, terrific; both as video-story telling and as in-depth technical information.

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi Garfly,

 

Had a quick look  at the start of this video, where the commentator lists the weight of Rotax 912 ULS fluids/components - To say the list is odd, would be an understatement;

 

Items such as engine mounting, throttle cables are not part of any engines/weight - these are airframe components and common to all engines.

 

Coolant & heater hose??? are these not one in the same?

What are water cooling components? (hoses again?)

The above are part of the single heaviest contributor (not counting the engine itself) /

 

Oil quantity /weight is close to double what it should be.

 

Could be a mistakes , could be intentional, either way it makes any claims/comparisons suspect. 

 

Seems to me that the only way to compare engine weights,is to take the engines, all their operating bits (including liquids) out of flying aircraft  - weigh the lot and then publish the findings - anyone done that?

[Garfly]

17 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi Garfly,

 

Had a quick look  at the start of this video, where the commentator lists the weight of Rotax 912 ULS fluids/components - To say the list is odd, would be an understatement;

 

Items such as engine mounting, throttle cables are not part of any engines/weight - these are airframe components and common to all engines.

 

Coolant & heater hose??? are these not one in the same?

What are water cooling components? (hoses again?)

The above are part of the single heaviest contributor (not counting the engine itself) /

 

Oil quantity /weight is close to double what it should be.

 

Could be a mistakes , could be intentional, either way it makes any claims/comparisons suspect. 

 

Seems to me that the only way to compare engine weights,is to take the engines, all their operating bits (including liquids) out of flying aircraft  - weigh the lot and then publish the findings - anyone done that?

 

(Referring to the second of the three videos)

 

Yeah, Skippy I'm not sure how fair and apples-to-apples those weigh-ins were.

 

Clearly the Viking guy is a bit sensitive to the "too heavy" criticism he gets and wanted to put it into context.

 

Anyway,  I suppose if he made it work on the Skyranger (with a bit of ballast in the back?)  I suppose he has a point.

 

It'd be interesting to know how that Ranger is faring.

 

I notice in this video he claims that the Vikings are no longer the 'alternative' choice for the Zenith in the US but rather the dominant one.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq2iLz_TsB8

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8 by Garfly

[Garfly]

I like Let's Go Aviate's series of video essays.  In this one he looks into the history of inline-fours for aeroplanes,

finishing up with the recent offerings from Viking, Aeromomentum and Edge.

 

 

 

 

[Red]

I still have a Kitplanes mag fromm the 80s that  has a mention of an aero conversion of the Honda Goldwing motorcycle engine that actualy retained 3 of the gears so you could change the loading for takeoff and cruise

It always intrigued me but I guess never had any success as I've never found anything else written about it

Anyone here  know anything about it?

[skippydiesel]

To me it's the post WW2 dominance of Uncle Sam, in the aircraft world, that has suppressed cost effective alternatives to the big bore, slow revving, air cooled engine. Rotax being the exception. 

[facthunter]

You are free to buy whatever you like and what works best for you. There's NO conspiracy. like you suggest. It's a contested market and you are pretty one eyed. Anything aircooled, you rubbish it.. Reduction Gearing is an added complexity and there's good reasons to do without it IF you can.. Likewise Head gaskets and liquid cooling.. but you won't be listening.  Nev

[Thruster88]

9 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

To me it's the post WW2 dominance of Uncle Sam, in the aircraft world, that has suppressed cost effective alternatives to the big bore, slow revving, air cooled engine. Rotax being the exception. 

Skippy you must be excited by the Austro and Delta Hawk. Liquid, geared and diesel, ticks all the boxes. Are they cheaper than a Lycoming, not sure about that. Delta Hawk is direct drive.

Edited August 13 by Thruster88

[skippydiesel]

24 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy you must be excited by the Austro and Delta Hawk. Liquid, geared and diesel, ticks all the boxes. Are they cheaper than a Lycoming, not sure about that. Delta Hawk is direct drive.

Bit cynical - so many promising engines have come & then gone.

 

I have always been a small bore/high compression/ revving supporter.

 

Seems to me that despite the added complexity & weight of the necessary gear system, to keep the prop within its most  efficient and low noise speed -  the the potential for fuel efficiency & lower pollution seems to lie in this direction,  at least for the sub 300 hp engines.

[facthunter]

The Rotax ULS is not particularly fuel efficient. Put a sender against the gearbox and have a listen to it in flight. Flat 4's have torsional vibrations to handle that are pretty bad.. Some engines have dynamic balancing. . Many have" don't use" RPM settings You don't want flexible pipes and  hoses everywhere. if it can be avoided.  You are entitled to use what you choose, but it would be better if you weren't so condemnatory and insulting of people with a contrary view..  Nev

[Red]

I know its not exactly great at efficiency but 912/912s' are lower consumption than an O200 or Jab2200 in most applications

I suppose compared to some of the auto conversions they may fair less well.

[Red]

Talking about alternatives, whats the current impression on Rotary Piston (Wankel) engines?

There are loads of them now being produced for UAVs but has longevity improved? (I seem to remember Tip seals where the main problem with low engine reliability)

There was a Sherwood Cub with a rotary piston engine near me a few years back but I notice the company now offers it with either a Polini single cylinder 2 stroke or a larger Hirth engine so perhaps they still have a way to go.

 

[BrendAn]

i have done a bit of jab bashing in the past but since i have had this 2200a solid lifter i am impressed with how smooth and reliable it is.  and economical. i have only done 35 of the 403 hrs but in the logbooks there are no mentions of engine failure or repairs.

[BrendAn]

13 minutes ago, Red said:

Talking about alternatives, whats the current impression on Rotary Piston (Wankel) engines?

There are loads of them now being produced for UAVs but has longevity improved? (I seem to remember Tip seals where the main problem with low engine reliability)

There was a Sherwood Cub with a rotary piston engine near me a few years back but I notice the company now offers it with either a Polini single cylinder 2 stroke or a larger Hirth engine so perhaps they still have a way to go.

 

i watched a youtube of john williams talking about the engines he has tried in the titan tornado . he did try a wankel and was impressed with it but it created too much exhaust heat . and that was a problem in the tornado. he also said he had a room full of engines that didn't work.  even a 2 cyl inline rotax 4 stroke which was abysmal. then rotax offered him one the first 912s and said try it, if you like it pay for it. if not send it back. he now had the perfect engine.  rip john. a great loss to experimental aviation, only a couple of weeks ago.

Edited August 13 by BrendAn

[Garfly]

55 minutes ago, Red said:

Talking about alternatives, whats the current impression on Rotary Piston (Wankel) engines?

 

Lets Go Aviate  has a go at that:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2_orSNXGWk

 

[onetrack]

I'm sure the queue for DeltaHawk DHK180 engines is going to be around the block, at US110,000 per "engine package"! - NOT!

[Red]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

I'm sure the queue for DeltaHawk DHK180 engines is going to be around the block, at US110,000 per "engine package"! - NOT!

It's a very interesting engine, but despite having many enjoyable hours behind a Rotax 503 in a Shadow I'm not sure id be happy behind a piston ported 2 stroke in that power range and in the type of aircraft it will be fitted to.

 

Oh yea and that price😬

Edited August 13 by Red