A new Lycoming 233 or Continental O200 lightweight also sell in the $30k range for 75+ year old technology. So don't compare apples and onions (a used O200). The new Rotax injected motor will sell is such quantities that there will be a flood of mid to low time $5k 80 hp 912UL and $7500 100 HP 912ULS used motors available.

I will also forecast that Dynon and the rest of their competition will be taking orders for electronics compatible with the new motor by Airventure 2012.

Av8r3400 wrote:A new Lycoming 233 or Continental O200 lightweight also sell in the $30k range for 75+ year old technology. So don't compare apples and onions (a used O200)......

Those also make a used O-200 sound pretty good, so don't take offense. Apples to onions, eh.... I guess that means I like onions?

That Duke barrel engine looks pretty cool at first blush. I wonder what the bearing loads are on that swashplate-starfish thingie, to take that axial force from the rod and make it spin the crank. Seems like the rods would have less "mechanical advantage" on that crank, than on a traditional crankshaft journal?

But that's a question for one of BCP's engineering brain trust types.

Av8r3400 wrote:I will also forecast that Dynon and the rest of their competition will be taking orders for electronics compatible with the new motor by Airventure 2012.

They already are:

http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/news_ ... r2012.html

'Greg

The D-motor is now taking orders...
it is 80 hp at 125 lbs and is a flathead style 4 cyll 4 stroke
It is made in Belgium -- like the UL power engine

Additional comments on the D-motor...
-125 lbs is all in weight (all accessaories)...
(inccludes water and rad)
-water cooled
-$17,000
-developed for airplanes
-tested so far on X-air

http://www.d-motor.eu

Because it is flat head it is narrow profile, and since it does not have overhead valves it can reduce weight...
Interesting that Belgium has come out with two new LSA engines from two different companies...

A flat head? Really?

1933 called and they want their motor back.

Av8r3400 wrote:A flat head? Really?

1933 called and they want their motor back.

My thoughts, too. In general, it's hard to get a flathead to breath well.

tom

Flatties are cool! I think I'm gonna put one of these into my airplane, get a Big Daddy Ed Roth "Rat Fink" t-shirt, and install a long johnson bar flap handle with an eight-ball on it! (anybody else remember his t-shirts from the car shows?)

I think a good 70-120hp powerplant is critical for our hobby/sport. I stopped borrowing C185s the day gas hit 4.00/gal. Had already decided on a Rotax 912 Rans S-7 as my ideal retirement aircraft before their cost due to that damn Rotax pushed me to a used Citabria. Just back from Italy and all the heavy GA iron is parked. Everyone still flying has a LSA type Rotax powered aircraft flying from an ever expanding plethora of little grass strips. Sitting here in Lincoln Park Airport, Sunset Pub,NJ having lunch. Same as last time, haven't even heard an airplane for hours. Lunch at Arlington WA a few weeks ago was the same. So this powerplant thread is important - we adapt to $12/gal price of flying or we die out.

I've been studying up on the Viking. I guess the developer, Jan Eggenfellner, has some mud on him left over from his Subaru development efforts. A lot of people were very disappointed in that engine. What I see with the Viking looks awfully good to me though. He uses a shock absorbing disk between the bumpy domain of the crankshaft and the compelling smoothness of the propeller linked gear box. This is not a pleasant place to be for mechanical things and is usually the achilles heel of engine/PSRU designs. Rotax uses a clutch as I understand it. In any case none of the Viking engines has been in operation for more than a few hundred hours and one hesitates to be first with small company efforts like this. With the Rotax there was the industrial might of Bombadier to provide some emotional assurance. Still, the entry level price of about $16,000 for a firewall forward 100 horse engine is very tempting.

EB

The d-motor flathead power curve is pretty nice ... at 2700 rpm it produces 77 hp ... I think that is more than the 85 hp Jabiru at that rpm .... the 80 hp jabiru (older version) produces about 66 hp at 2700 rpm ... This should bode well for bigger prop on the flat head... also seems like 10 lbs lighter than the jab 2200 with all water and rad items..

It has a 1500 hr TBO .... I think they have their test unit at tbo already...

To my thinking I like the numbers and design of this engine, but the issue remaining is testing... Also I wonder what patents could they be using on the flathead since flatheads have been around for a long time .... Would be nice if they could be made more cheaply in North america (or elsewhere)... in the 10 K range...

Emory Bored wrote:I've been studying up on the Viking. I guess the developer, Jan Eggenfellner, has some mud on him left over from his Subaru development efforts.

I think the negativity is more about how he addressed the issues as a business owner. Whether he solves the engineering issues or not is a separate issue from his customer service quality. I can't personally speak to either one, I only know what I've read.

Emory Bored wrote: With the Rotax there was the industrial might of Bombadier to provide some emotional assurance.

Rotax is no longer owned by Bombardier, if I remember correctly. I believe they sold their recreational products division in 2003. This was also around the time that they scrapped their program for higher power GA piston engines.

Zzz wrote:

Emory Bored wrote:I've been studying up on the Viking. I guess the developer, Jan Eggenfellner, has some mud on him left over from his Subaru development efforts.

I think the negativity is more about how he addressed the issues as a business owner. Whether he solves the engineering issues or not is a separate issue from his customer service quality. I can't personally speak to either one, I only know what I've read.

Emory Bored wrote: With the Rotax there was the industrial might of Bombardier to provide some emotional assurance.

Rotax is no longer owned by Bombardier, if I remember correctly. I believe they sold their recreational products division in 2003. This was also around the time that they scrapped their program for higher power GA piston engines.

Both your points are pretty much as I have come to understand as well. If you look at Rotax documentation; Service Bulletins, ADs, testing data, etc, you become aware that you are dealing with a well integrated engineering/manufacturing/marketing conglomerate. Not a garage developer. Whatever was spun off in 2003 was a fully developed GA manufacturer. That's expensive to re-produce from scratch. Little outfits that start like Apple Computer and Hewlett Packard usually stay small because they simply never develop the cash flow to finance such infrastructure. They also frequently center around a personality that is resistant to corporate methods. In our little GA world there are 20 Jim Bedes for every Richard VanGrundsven. All that having been said, Eggenfellner is starting with good bones backed by Honda. It's an outboard motor engine that get's lots of support from the factory. On the other hand, have you ever tried to buy parts for a 20 year old Honda outboard? I suspect that Continental, Lycoming, and Rotax will be here and supporting their products for years to come. If Honda abandons this little motor I doubt Viking will survive.

I'm not criticizing Rotax, in fact I've used their products for many years and would buy another in a heartbeat. They aren't owned by Bombardier any longer, however. I think the point you make though is that they have a mountain of history and data to stand on.

Re: The Viking, it was a good idea to capitalize on the Honda reputation, but if I'm not mistaken, they are used Honda Fit engine cores. Viking is careful to not call it a Honda engine, but rather that it uses "Honda internal components" or something to that effect. What exactly that means, I don't know.

Related thread: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6930

Rotax uses a clutch as I understand it.

Some of their engines do. It's main function is to protect the reciprocating components in a prop strike. It does not disconnect the prop from the motor in normal operations.

Rotax is no longer owned by Bombardier, if I remember correctly. I believe they sold their recreational products division in 2003. This was also around the time that they scrapped their program for higher power GA piston engines.

BRP (Bombardier Recreational Products) owns Rotax (and Ski Doo, Can Am, Sea Doo, etc.). They split from Bombardier in 03 not sold off. They are actually now larger and more profitable than their previous parent.

The way I am looking at it is total engine weight divided by horsepower and then subjectively adjusting for other things like:
-reduction or not?
-4 or 2 stroke?
-cooling type and issues?
-the RPM where good HP is?
-reliability of ignition system?

The 0-200 comes out very good on the above scale and is the standard for looking at others in my opinion: 200 lbs/100 HP = 2 lbs per HP... no reduction ..... 4 stroke ... no cooling sissues .... decent low RPM power .... reliable ignitiion ...

The D-motor: 125 lbs/80 hp = 1.55 lbs per HP, no reduction, 4 stroke, water cooling I think is good, decent low RPM power, ignition yet to be proven ...

The Viking looks like a very good conversion ....
-good weight to power ratio (1.9 lbs per hp about)
-engine designed to run at high RPM continuous (marine engine)...
-the reduction unit that Viking came up with seems well thought out and better quality than the other auto ones I have seen..
(including rubber dampeners and encased housing with gears...)
-considering only 3 years old seems to be getting good sales traction ... and very few problems reported.
-the thrust is great and more than the 100 HP rotax ....
-lots of good testimonials coming out from users noticing sizable performance increases over the 100 hp rotax.
-2000 hr TBO ? sounds a little big ...

However, I would agree that:
-long term , the Japanese change technology quickly and unless Viking can some how secure a supply of the "internals" long term, then the long term future of Viking is uncertain... With astute business management though if the engine is a winner, there must be a way to make this work...

I am thinking this engine is starting to look like it will be very good ...

Av8r3400 wrote:1933 called and they want their motor back.

It's a direct drive, so RPMs are limited (assuming reasonable prop sizes). That's why a flathead works in this case.

Still, it'a a very new motor, for people who like trying new things.

I get it. It is a very new old motor.....

All I know is they were the Rod engine of choice back in the glory days of "the Rods".....
Come to think of it, that's been a few decades ago.

Maybe cause they were cheap salvage motors for the kids who built Rods?
And pretty basic to work on-no special/expensive tools,
and you didn't have to be Einstein to work on them.

It's coming back to me now....
lc