new engine choice

[avid1954 1]

has anyone tried a Viking Honda on an avid model C

[Av8r3400 1179]

No one wants to trust Eggenfellner with any money.

I wouldn't...

[lostman 198]

As much as I think the Honda engine is a great idea I have to agree with Larry. Not sure why others are still trusting him with money again. 

[C5Engineer 1170]

Have you seen an install up close? Very complex.

[EDMO 1078]

Not even considering the money, I wouldn't trust my plane to an Egg!  My friend totaled his new RV with a bad Egg in it.   EDMO

Edited 19 Feb 2016 by EDMO

[saskavid 47]

Not even considering the money, I wouldn't trust my plane to an Egg!  My friend totaled his new RV with a bad Egg in it.   EDMO

Badd egg....too funny!!!. You guys have a better understanding of the grapevine in these things when it comes to what works and what doesn't . I defer to everyone else's good judgement.

[EDMO 1078]

I'm not saying that the Viking is a bad engine - just that Egg has somewhat of a muddy track record about testing his products before selling them - he was in the Subaru conversions business for a long time.  EDMO

[akflyer 1427]

Just because of one lost plane I would not discount and engine.  I have lost one to a lycosaurus as well and know many other that have done the same with various certified aircraft engines.  Not liking a guy because of shitty business practices is not a reason to not like a particular engine that would probably be well received if marketed by someone else.

Thats pretty much jumping on the Pacers suck and so does 582 engines.. For every one that has an issues hundreds if not thousands are flying without issues.

Just my .02

[EDMO 1078]

Just because of one lost plane I would not discount and engine.  I have lost one to a lycosaurus as well and know many other that have done the same with various certified aircraft engines.  Not liking a guy because of shitty business practices is not a reason to not like a particular engine that would probably be well received if marketed by someone else.

Thats pretty much jumping on the Pacers suck and so does 582 engines.. For every one that has an issues hundreds if not thousands are flying without issues.

Just my .02

There was more than one failure with Egg's products.  I agree, and I am not knocking the engines - just leery of the seller.    EDMO

[Av8r3400 1179]

Im sorry, but I'm not a fan of auto conversions in aircraft.  I make no point to hide that.  They are statistically far more likely to fail.  This is why most insurance companies won't touch them or will charge a great premium to insure one.

To me the Viking engine falls into the same category.  Factor in Jan Eggenfellner and I'll have no part in it at all. 

[EDMO 1078]

Im sorry, but I'm not a fan of auto conversions in aircraft.  I make no point to hide that.  They are statistically far more likely to fail.  This is why most insurance companies won't touch them or will charge a great premium to insure one.

To me the Viking engine falls into the same category.  Factor in Jan Eggenfellner and I'll have no part in it at all. 

As far as I know, the Subaru and the VW, (both based on the original Boxer engines, the same as Lyco, Conti, Franklin, Rotax 912, etc.) are the only aircraft type engines to be put in cars, and converted back to aircraft engines.  I have never seen a Porsche engine in a plane.  Some insurance companies will insure the Subaru and VW the same as other Boxer engines and the converted snowmobile 2-stroke Rotax engines.  EDMO

Edited 19 Feb 2016 by EDMO

[Av8r3400 1179]

Mooney installed a Porsche engine in their aircraft for a few years.  They were horrible.  There were many, many failures and they had extremely short lifespans.  This is because car engines are not meant for aircraft.

Subaru and VW boxer engines were designed for cars.  Point of fact.  They share the same shape as popular aircraft engines, but that's all.  They do not have sufficient strength in their crankshafts or bearing designs to handle the gyroscopic forces that a propeller puts on them.  These are some of the many reasons for things like re-drives, additional added bearings, fancy redesigned forged crankshafts, modifications to give dual ignitions, and many other things.  All these modifications are an attempt to make a car engine work in an airplane.  Sometimes they work.  Sometimes they don't.

Lycoming, Continental and later the Rotax 912 series were designed as aircraft engines from the start.  They don't need to be modified to work in an airplane.

 

It's up to you to decide how much risk is acceptable to you and to the passengers you choose to take in your aircraft.  Risk - Reward.  Cost - Benefit.

 

 

Rotax and other 2-stroke aircraft engines are a topic for another conversation at another time.

[EDMO 1078]

Reiner Hoffman and SuberAvid and some more of us might disagree with some of that, but I am still with you about not flying with a 2-stroke.   "To each his own".   EDMO

Edited 20 Feb 2016 by EDMO

[Av8r3400 1179]

What's to disagree with?  

Car engines were designed for cars.  People modify them to work in airplanes.  Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.  Insurance companies don't like them.

It's all a matter of your risk tolerance.

 

[lostman 198]

Larry, you should check your facts a little. The Subaru engine was originally designed for aviation and was in fact put into cars because they couldn't hit the market they way they thought. 

I think the tempers need to chill a little here as well. To each his own. Remember that I've been down three times behind three different engines. I don't like or dislike them based on those experiences. In fact in none of the three cases was it actually engine failure. It was something else that caused the engine to quit running. 

Just my .02 that aren't worth a penny.

[Av8r3400 1179]

Again, I'm not loosing any cool, just pointing facts.  

The E81 and the later engines were designed for cars.  Fact.  Maybe a far ancestor had a design intent for aircraft, but was never used.  (I don't know why.  You say it didn't "hit the market the way they thought", I ask why not?).  Subaru heavy industry then abandoned the idea of aviation use for the original design, completely reworked it and put it in cars.  Subaru isn't stupid.  If they had a winner to break into the aircraft market, that's money to be made.  Instead, they abandoned it. 

A few decades ago a home builder got the idea to re-rework one and put it into an Airplane.  A couple thousand have flown.  At least a few hundred still do.  There are hundreds of thousands of them languishing in salvage yards.  Then why arent we all flying behind them?  Why has Rotax had the success they did with the 912 when Subaru didn't?

 

If if you are a true experimenter, great. Have at it.  It's a great running car engine that can be modified to work in some aircraft.  

Life is all about what your acceptable risk profile is. 

[EDMO 1078]

The original EA-51 did not have enough horsepower for the weight of the plane, according to what I have read.  

Supposedly, the EA was for Experimental Aircraft, but not quite understandable, unless the Japanese were going to sell it to Americans.   I don't sprecken Japanese... EDMO

Edited 20 Feb 2016 by EDMO

[allonsye 85]

Larry, you should check your facts a little. The Subaru engine was originally designed for aviation and was in fact put into cars because they couldn't hit the market they way they thought. 

I think the tempers need to chill a little here as well. To each his own. Remember that I've been down three times behind three different engines. I don't like or dislike them based on those experiences. In fact in none of the three cases was it actually engine failure. It was something else that caused the engine to quit running. 

Just my .02 that aren't worth a penny.

You forgot  to  mention Ken that 2 of those 3 failures were 4-strokes I'm taking the liberty to say.

[EDMO 1078]

Larry, you should check your facts a little. The Subaru engine was originally designed for aviation and was in fact put into cars because they couldn't hit the market they way they thought. 

I think the tempers need to chill a little here as well. To each his own. Remember that I've been down three times behind three different engines. I don't like or dislike them based on those experiences. In fact in none of the three cases was it actually engine failure. It was something else that caused the engine to quit running. 

Just my .02 that aren't worth a penny.

You forgot  to  mention Ken that 2 of those 3 failures were 4-strokes I'm taking the liberty to say.

And, out of the 3 wrecked Kitfoxes I have owned, there were at least 5 or 6 Two-stroke failures, and 1 failure of a fuel pump wire with a Subaru NSI.  I also realize that there are/were a lot of pilots who don't have the education to fly and maintain a Two-stroke engine - I am one of them!   EDMO

Edited 23 Feb 2016 by EDMO

[Dusty 126]

The early Subaru engines were quit small ,there would have been a very limited market.

their exhaust pipe systym was similar to a vw,now they appear to be 2 into one,

probably a collectible?

[marksires 484]

Larry, you should check your facts a little. The Subaru engine was originally designed for aviation and was in fact put into cars because they couldn't hit the market they way they thought. 

I think the tempers need to chill a little here as well. To each his own. Remember that I've been down three times behind three different engines. I don't like or dislike them based on those experiences. In fact in none of the three cases was it actually engine failure. It was something else that caused the engine to quit running. 

Just my .02 that aren't worth a penny.

You forgot  to  mention Ken that 2 of those 3 failures were 4-strokes I'm taking the liberty to say.

And, out of the 3 wrecked Kitfoxes I have owned, there were at least 5 or 6 Two-stroke failures, and 1 failure of a fuel pump wire with a Subaru NSI.  I also realize that there are/were a lot of pilots who don't have the education to fly and maintain a Two-stroke engine - I am one of them!   EDMO

I bought 'Flying the Feathered Edge', a movie about Bob Hoover.  Fantastic, I highly recommend it.  But talk about engine failures!  The way the movie described it, you'd think he had more engine failures than successful flights!  In WWII, he got assigned to a 'Depot' in North Africa.  His job was to test fly the airplanes after they were assembled by the mostly Arab workers.  They were assembled as well as you might imagine......

Mark

 

[Av8r3400 1179]

Sorry for the thread creep, but...

Talk about assembling warbirds, this is 40 minutes well spent.

 

Edited 23 Feb 2016 by Av8r3400

[EDMO 1078]

Great film Larry - Best 40 minutes I have had all year!   EDMO

[KFfan 151]

ummm I'll give you a pass on that one Ed

Seemed to be a pretty GI proof process...

[TJay 1041]

That was pretty awesome, I actually felt like i was right there helping.