Viking 130 engine failure at 1150 hours

MarkH

MarkH

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
828
Location
Under the SFRA
Display Name
MarkH
(Not my video, but I like to follow aircraft auto conversions)
The link starts with an examination of the engine, the first 30 minutes are background and an engine swap.

This video came up in my Youtube feed, it seems that the engine had a custom tune for 87 octane fuel (Viking recommends 91). The cause of failure seems to be detonation.

I find this very interesting because there aren't a ton of these engines flying and, as a result, there have not been many failures. This seems to be a pretty catastrophic failure, but the engine still ran and made enough power to get back and land.
 
RyanB said:
Auto engine conversions have proven unreliable in aircraft applications. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to fly behind any of them.
Click to expand...

There are auto conversions that have proven reliable enough to be certificated. While I understand the hesitation to fly behind them, I believe that their development and use in experimental aviation is good for all of GA.

Kevin Holbrook said:
I am stunned that there is a Viking engine that lasted to 1150 hours
Click to expand...

While I understand the surprise (the lack of data for high time Vikings is its own issue), I think the context is important and there is value in what can be learned from this. Something to keep in mind with Viking engines (from a data analysis standpoint) is that all of them have an unknown service history, specifically because they are sourced from salvage cars.
 
I believe the Continental diesel that Tecnam is using is based on the same Mercedes engine of the Austro when Continental took over the Thielert (sp?) debacle.

While Rotax wasn’t a car engine, it did get its aviation start in experimental planes. General Atomics gave Rotax a huge boost of confidence (and money) when they put them in the MQ-1 Predator.
 
From the FWIW department ...

Proper Corvair conversions have proven to give robust power, smooth performance, and good reliability. William Wynne has done a lot in 35 years to make these conversions what they are today. Dan Weseman (Sport Performance Aviation) has had a lot of positive developement of Corvair engines over the last 15 years even using one on his prototype single seat Panther aircraft:

1700616202649.png

Here's a list of WW only conversions that shows 124 aircraft with over 22K hours: https://www.markbaldridge.com/flyingcorvairs/
 
Last edited:
aterry1067 said:
I believe the Continental diesel that Tecnam is using is based on the same Mercedes engine of the Austro when Continental took over the Thielert (sp?) debacle.

While Rotax wasn’t a car engine, it did get its aviation start in experimental planes. General Atomics gave Rotax a huge boost of confidence (and money) when they put them in the MQ-1 Predator.
Click to expand...
Rotax sold 50 000+ 4 stroke aviation engines so far since the 1980s ... according to wikipedia there were 400 Predator drones built so perhaps a boost in confidence but i am not sure about money …


… in their own (marketing) words…
IMG_0983.jpeg
 
Last edited:
When I run into people at an airport that fly around a lot, I've never run into one running an auto conversion.

When I run into people running auto conversions, they never seem to be flying.
 
I would trade my Lyco O-235 in for a Viking engine in a heart beat, if I had the money to do so. There are thousands of these Honda engines flying now (all over the world) with very few problems after the initial gear box issues were sorted out.

There are so many benefits over the traditional aircraft engines (possible exception Rotax, ULS, maybe a few others) that there really is no comparison.

I get the fact that the collective perception is that lyco's and conti's are "real" aircraft engines. I used to feel that way myself. That was until I built my own plane with a lyco and realized that all the disparate parts from different manufacturers were all susceptible to their own install issues, maintenance issues, and failure issues (carb, magneto, fuel pump, alternator, starter, etc). And all extremely expensive.

The heart of the issue is that the vast majority of homebuilders (like myself) are designing and installing their entire firewall forward in a completely unique and one-off install. They are doing it for the first time. With the exception of Van's Aircraft, none of the kit manufacturers provide any guidance on how to install any part of the firewall forward. You have to figure out every attachment, every support, torque setting, hose and tubing connector, every wiring connector, the complete wiring system, the entire fuel system. You have to figure out every single item yourself because your aircraft is a on-off design, even if there are hundreds of similar airframes.

The odds of any of us ending up with an install any where near a certificated aircraft is small. There will be any number of mistakes, install errors, and on and on.

The idea of a simple, complete, factory built packaged system from Viking makes the likelihood of fewer problems logical.

Yes, if you took a certificated and time proven firewall forward into a homebuilt, I believe it would be more reliable than Viking system. But the reality is people like me, with zero experience, are left to try and figure out every detail, mostly in a vacuum.

Compared to a Honda engine that has been around for years and installed in literally hundreds of thousands of vehicles, the advantages are very real. Runs on auto gas, fuel injection, far more efficient, cheap to replace any part, etc..

Yet the one aspect I've come to appreciate after issues with all of the sub-components on my engine, is the the entire Honda system is designed, built, wired, and installed as a single unit, including wiring. The completely packaged system is more reliable than the lyco's and conti's when you consider the failure points of all the disparate components, and not just a catastrophic failure of the engine itself. I would also argue that the Honda engine itself is less prone to catastrophic failure than traditional aircraft engines, due to higher level of engineering and product improvement over many years.

When you consider the significant difference in range (due to increase efficiency) and the far, far lower cost of ownership, combined with Honda reliability, the Viking engine beats Lyco's and Conti's on every metric, IMO.

Also, in the case of the subject engine owner, he clearly admits to not following manufacturer recommendations for both the type of fuel and regularly exceeding max. recommended engine rpms. You can't fix stupid.
 
Last edited:
RyanB said:
Auto engine conversions have proven unreliable in aircraft applications. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to fly behind any of them.
Click to expand...
Always hard to establish the safety record of auto-engine conversions, because FAA records don't reliably establish the number of specific engines in the fleet. About 15% of Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft are merely listed as having "AMAT/EXP" engines. There's nothing to prevent a company selling conversions as claiming the majority of those are theirs. It should be noted that one company, at least, claims an installed base that is ten times higher than the US records reflect (although non-US engines can mess up such comparisons).

In addition, there is no standardization for identifying the auto engine types. An FAA (or NTSB...) record saying the aircraft has a Great Plains conversion is pretty definite, but if the record says Volkswagen that DOESN'T mean it's NOT a Great Plains conversion.

I use two methods to examine engine safety statistics. The first completely ignores the installed base, and uses exclusively NTSB accident reports. This method computes the percentage of accidents that were caused by engine mechanical failures:
1700674816120.png

Note, again, the percentages is the percentage of ACCIDENTS, not the percentage of the entire installed fleet. This plot DOES NOT MEAN that 22% of auto engines suffer a mechanical issue, just that 22% of the known accidents were due to engine issue.

And for homebuilts, the "known accidents" issue can be important, because homebuilts are much more suited to disassembly and removal from the crash site before the local gendarmerie arrives....

Anyway, as the above shows, when accidents happen, it's about three times the likelihood that an auto-engine had an issue than a conventional engine.

However, this sort of statistic messes people up a bit. They expect to see an accident rate for the entire fleet...hence my capitalized reminders above.

I have made a stab at estimating the number of installed engines. As I mentioned, about 15% of the homebuilts don't list a specific engine. However, NTSB reports are a bit better. I cross-referenced the list of AMAT/EXP engines in the FAA registry with the NTSB reports, and got the engine types for about 150 AMAT/EXP engines. I use that data compute the estimated percentage of the AMAT/EXP fleet that are particular engine types. It's done for both the active aircraft as well as the de-registered ones.

Here's what the auto-engine conversion numbers look like:
1700675666784.png
About 10.24% of the AMAT/EXP engines in the crosslisted NTSB list were VWs, so I applied that percentage to the number of AMAT/EXP engines in both the active and deregistered aircraft list to compute the estimated total number of installed engines. Note that there have been about four times the number of homebuilts with VW engines than the current registry reflects. Other types do not see as much of an increase.

For comparison, here's the same data for Lycoming:
1700675983129.png

With that, I can estimate how often a given type of engine fails in a given year (for homebuilts):
1700676175738.png
It's not on the graphic, but the worst-case I saw was a common two-stroke engine, with an installed base of ~780 engines and a 0.245% annual failure rate.

Now, consider how "serious" the failure rates are. The Honda, for instance, has a ~0.15% annual failure rate...ZERO point 15 PERCENT. That's one accident each year for ~600 aircraft. My 22-year accident database shows only 9 accidents where the Honda engine was a causal factor. That's really not that bad.

Of course, my processes have their issues. I examine homebuilt accidents from 1998-2021, for example, and the aircraft in the deregistered list may come from far before that time period...makes the results a bit better.

Also, based on the percentage of the number of accidents (the first graphic), the Rotax 912 and the Continental O-200 come out about the same. But as you can see in the last graph, the 912 is higher than the O-200. The Rotax fleet size is difficult to determine, since not only are there engines listed as AMAT/EXP, there are listings showing generic "Bombardier" or "Rotax" engine types without a specific model. These could be 912s, and equally could be two-stroke 582s. I have run a similar process to try to identify the Bombardier or Rotax engine types.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Lndwarrior said:
There are thousands of these Honda engines flying now (all over the world) ...
Click to expand...
Please provide proof. Get me a list of N-Numbers (and registration numbers for those outside the US). I estimate about 250 in the US.

I went through this with Corvair engines a year or so back. One of our happy crew provided me with a list of Corvair-powered engines and I was able to calibrate my fleet-size-estimating process.

Ron Wanttaja
 
It seems the owners of the latest generation Viking engines are pretty happy with them. It's really hard to tell what the success rate is because of all the background noise from people who have a sour taste for the companies owner. As with all new engine applications there will be growing pains sorting out the different failure modes. The 912 certainly wasn't a success right out of the gate and originally had like an 800 hour tbo. VW's took decade's to sort out if you'd even say they are now, same goes for Corvair engines. The Subaru conversions have always sucked, the engine wasn't all that reliable in a car much less an airplane. The Apex engines have had their own gearbox and engine problems as well. Hopefully one of these companies have the staying power to keep fine tuning the application into a genuine alternative.
 
The majority of auto installs are one offs done by someone of unknown experience level. my auto engine plan is to use an unpressurized coolant system with electric coolant pumps. if it fails does that mean all auto engines should be considered unreliable or that my specific installation was not thorough engineered?
 
Salty said:
When I run into people running auto conversions, they never seem to be flying.
Click to expand...
I flew about 200 hours over 4 years behind the Mosler half VW in my Fisher 404. Other than valves that needed grinding (which has also happened on my Lycoming), the only engine related troubles I had was with the Slick magneto. The guy in the hangar next to me had a Corvair powered Zenith CH601, and he flew it a lot. Now I'm sharing a hangar with another guy with a Corvair powered Rebel. I don't see it flying because we're on different schedules, but I know he recently finished his 40 hour test period.
 
How do you know owners are happy with them or that they arent having failures and issues not reported through an ntsb accident report?? The developer highly moderates his own forum and a few others as a moderator to delete anything negative posyed and has gone after other builders who tried to start their own forum to discuss the problems they were having. He isn't a person I would trust to design something that could kill me if it stops working at the wrong time.
 
MarkH said:
(Not my video, but I like to follow aircraft auto conversions)
The link starts with an examination of the engine, the first 30 minutes are background and an engine swap.

This video came up in my Youtube feed, it seems that the engine had a custom tune for 87 octane fuel (Viking recommends 91). The cause of failure seems to be detonation.

I find this very interesting because there aren't a ton of these engines flying and, as a result, there have not been many failures. This seems to be a pretty catastrophic failure, but the engine still ran and made enough power to get back and land.
Click to expand...
It’s ancient history but the guy was told not to run low octane fuel in it, because it was tuned for best performance at higher octanes, abused the oil and gearbox hourly recommendations and subsequently had detonation problems that cracked a piston. I’ve put hundreds of hours on my Viking engine as has my son, yes the developer had problems with early designs including a bankruptcy but that was part of the learning curve that what him and his company the success that it is today. Lots of old school that puts him and his engine down but they are ignorant.
 
kmacht said:
How do you know owners are happy with them or that they arent having failures and issues not reported through an ntsb accident report?? The developer highly moderates his own forum and a few others as a moderator to delete anything negative posyed and has gone after other builders who tried to start their own forum to discuss the problems they were having. He isn't a person I would trust to design something that could kill me if it stops working at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
If that’s a reference to Vikings Facebook pages you are spreading misinformation, there’s a map of all the Viking customers on their website, pick any dot , I’ll get you the email for that purchaser and you can ask them if they are happy and/or would be willing to recommend the Viking aircraft engine.
 
wanttaja said:
Always hard to establish the safety record of auto-engine conversions, because FAA records don't reliably establish the number of specific engines in the fleet. About 15% of Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft are merely listed as having "AMAT/EXP" engines. There's nothing to prevent a company selling conversions as claiming the majority of those are theirs. It should be noted that one company, at least, claims an installed base that is ten times higher than the US records reflect (although non-US engines can mess up such comparisons).

In addition, there is no standardization for identifying the auto engine types. An FAA (or NTSB...) record saying the aircraft has a Great Plains conversion is pretty definite, but if the record says Volkswagen that DOESN'T mean it's NOT a Great Plains conversion.

I use two methods to examine engine safety statistics. The first completely ignores the installed base, and uses exclusively NTSB accident reports. This method computes the percentage of accidents that were caused by engine mechanical failures:
View attachment 122616

Note, again, the percentages is the percentage of ACCIDENTS, not the percentage of the entire installed fleet. This plot DOES NOT MEAN that 22% of auto engines suffer a mechanical issue, just that 22% of the known accidents were due to engine issue.

And for homebuilts, the "known accidents" issue can be important, because homebuilts are much more suited to disassembly and removal from the crash site before the local gendarmerie arrives....

Anyway, as the above shows, when accidents happen, it's about three times the likelihood that an auto-engine had an issue than a conventional engine.

However, this sort of statistic messes people up a bit. They expect to see an accident rate for the entire fleet...hence my capitalized reminders above.

I have made a stab at estimating the number of installed engines. As I mentioned, about 15% of the homebuilts don't list a specific engine. However, NTSB reports are a bit better. I cross-referenced the list of AMAT/EXP engines in the FAA registry with the NTSB reports, and got the engine types for about 150 AMAT/EXP engines. I use that data compute the estimated percentage of the AMAT/EXP fleet that are particular engine types. It's done for both the active aircraft as well as the de-registered ones.

Here's what the auto-engine conversion numbers look like:
View attachment 122618
About 10.24% of the AMAT/EXP engines in the crosslisted NTSB list were VWs, so I applied that percentage to the number of AMAT/EXP engines in both the active and deregistered aircraft list to compute the estimated total number of installed engines. Note that there have been about four times the number of homebuilts with VW engines than the current registry reflects. Other types do not see as much of an increase.

For comparison, here's the same data for Lycoming:
View attachment 122619

With that, I can estimate how often a given type of engine fails in a given year (for homebuilts):
View attachment 122620
It's not on the graphic, but the worst-case I saw was a common two-stroke engine, with an installed base of ~780 engines and a 0.245% annual failure rate.

Now, consider how "serious" the failure rates are. The Honda, for instance, has a ~0.15% annual failure rate...ZERO point 15 PERCENT. That's one accident each year for ~600 aircraft. My 22-year accident database shows only 9 accidents where the Honda engine was a causal factor. That's really not that bad.

Of course, my processes have their issues. I examine homebuilt accidents from 1998-2021, for example, and the aircraft in the deregistered list may come from far before that time period...makes the results a bit better.

Also, based on the percentage of the number of accidents (the first graphic), the Rotax 912 and the Continental O-200 come out about the same. But as you can see in the last graph, the 912 is higher than the O-200. The Rotax fleet size is difficult to determine, since not only are there engines listed as AMAT/EXP, there are listings showing generic "Bombardier" or "Rotax" engine types without a specific model. These could be 912s, and equally could be two-stroke 582s. I have run a similar process to try to identify the Bombardier or Rotax engine types.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
A “failure” can be something completely independent of the engine, for example the fuel or electrical system that feeds said engine. The engine itself can be perfectly fine after this “engine stoppage” related accident. If you could break this down further you would find different numbers. It’s not to fair to say it’s a bad design when you have an amateur builder put together a half assed fuel or electrical system.
 
Dana said:
I flew about 200 hours over 4 years behind the Mosler half VW in my Fisher 404. Other than valves that needed grinding (which has also happened on my Lycoming), the only engine related troubles I had was with the Slick magneto. The guy in the hangar next to me had a Corvair powered Zenith CH601, and he flew it a lot. Now I'm sharing a hangar with another guy with a Corvair powered Rebel. I don't see it flying because we're on different schedules, but I know he recently finished his 40 hour test period.
Click to expand...
500hrs on my Viking in the last three years…. No issues.
 
pfarber said:
The majority of auto installs are one offs done by someone of unknown experience level. my auto engine plan is to use an unpressurized coolant system with electric coolant pumps. if it fails does that mean all auto engines should be considered unreliable or that my specific installation was not thorough engineered?
Click to expand...
Perfectly said……
 
unsafervguy said:
just get a nice adult beverage and google the developer of the viking engine and have a fun evening reading the story.......
Click to expand...
And everyone gets a second chance to redeem themselves, sometimes we fail before we achieve. It’s ok for a large corporation to return from a bankruptcy but I guess not the little guy, pretty narrow minded thinking. Do you still buy airline tickets, cars? Many of those have returned for bankruptcy, unless you’ve never made a mistake and your perfect don’t spread b.s that you don’t have a clue about.
 
Capt321 said:
A “failure” can be something completely independent of the engine, for example the fuel or electrical system that feeds said engine. The engine itself can be perfectly fine after this “engine stoppage” related accident. If you could break this down further you would find different numbers. It’s not to fair to say it’s a bad design when you have an amateur builder put together a half assed fuel or electrical system.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Cap, it's an engine *system*, not just the base engine. I believe that the base engines are just as durable as traditional aircraft engines. But the ancillary equipment is part of the package.

Take ignition systems, for example. It's a common failure mode in auto-engine conversions...often due to the builder being unable to supply reliable power to an electronic ignition systems. The old, clunky...but dual...magnetos in a traditional aircraft engine don't require that external power, hence the potential builder error failure modes are fewer.

For example, from 1998 through 2024, 12% of the accidents involving Honda-engined homebuilts (5 out of 39) involved problems with the electronic ignition systems, either the failure of the system itself, or the loss of electrical power. During the same time period, there were 12 accidents involving failures of the magnetos in Lycoming-powered EAB. Twice as many failures, but out of almost FIFTY TIMES the number of total accidents (12/1887). 0.6%, vs. 12.8%.

Cooling systems? Air cooling a traditional aircraft engine may not be the most inefficient system, but it's very easy to implement vs. a system that requires a radiator, water pump, etc. Two failures out of those 39 Honda-powered accidents. Two cooling failures out of those 1800 Lycoming-powered cases.

"Not the fault of the engine conversion company"? Sure. But it does indicate that the average homebuilder is less able to achieve a reliable aircraft powerplant when a conversion is required. And that's the key factor.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Capt321 said:
If that’s a reference to Vikings Facebook pages you are spreading misinformation, there’s a map of all the Viking customers on their website, pick any dot , I’ll get you the email for that purchaser and you can ask them if they are happy and/or would be willing to recommend the Viking aircraft engine.
Click to expand...

Are you associated (personal or business relationships) with Viking in any way aside from solely being a customer?
 
wanttaja said:
Take ignition systems, for example. It's a common failure mode in auto-engine conversions...often due to the builder being unable to supply reliable power to an electronic ignition systems. The old, clunky...but dual...magnetos in a traditional aircraft engine don't require that external power, hence the potential builder error failure modes are fewer.

For example, from 1998 through 2024, 12% of the accidents involving Honda-engined homebuilts (5 out of 39) involved problems with the electronic ignition systems, either the failure of the system itself, or the loss of electrical power. During the same time period, there were 12 accidents involving failures of the magnetos in Lycoming-powered EAB. Twice as many failures, but out of almost FIFTY TIMES the number of total accidents (12/1887). 0.6%, vs. 12.8%.
Click to expand...
This. Even in certified airplanes, 90% of engine problems are electrical. In the airframe, electrical systems are the most troublesome. In cars, again, it's electrical systems that keep mechanics busy.

Converting an auto engine for aircraft use is much more complicated that it appears to the homebuilder. Been there, done that. Lots of hassles. Lycoming's iE2 engines, certified, have electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition, but they have redundant electrical supply systems and redundant computer controls. Many homebrew conversions don't. They are absolutely dependent on the ship's power, and every switch, contactor, terminal, and wire present failure points. One alternator that might just fail. Electric fuel pumps with no mechanical backup.

Some folks say, "It's OK. This is Experimental aviation and we can do want we like here." They deliberately ignore the fact that they are about to trust their soft pink bodies to a machine that could slam them to the ground.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
"Traditional" Continental engines were developed from automobile engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Motors_Company
Click to expand...
Not really. Their automobile engines were inline affairs, mostly. When I was a kid my Dad had a 1959 Rambler American (American Motors) that had a Continental four-cylinder inline engine in it. It had a magneto. As an adult we had a Clark forklift in the shop that had a Continental four-banger. Continentals were often seen in welders, generators, and so on.

Continental developed aircraft engines for aircraft. They converted some of their aircraft radials for use in tanks and APCs. Air-cooled, so no radiators or hoses to get shot away. They didn't convert their cast-iron inlines for airplanes. They came up with new designs, all air-cooled, all opposed or radials. The Boeing Stearman used an R-670 Continental radial:

1768330431895.png

1768330579835.png

Lycoming got their start in sewing machines, then in automobile engines. Their aircraft engines were also clean-sheet designs, not converted auto engines.
 
wanttaja said:
Sorry, Cap, it's an engine *system*, not just the base engine. I believe that the base engines are just as durable as traditional aircraft engines. But the ancillary equipment is part of the package.

Take ignition systems, for example. It's a common failure mode in auto-engine conversions...often due to the builder being unable to supply reliable power to an electronic ignition systems. The old, clunky...but dual...magnetos in a traditional aircraft engine don't require that external power, hence the potential builder error failure modes are fewer.

For example, from 1998 through 2024, 12% of the accidents involving Honda-engined homebuilts (5 out of 39) involved problems with the electronic ignition systems, either the failure of the system itself, or the loss of electrical power. During the same time period, there were 12 accidents involving failures of the magnetos in Lycoming-powered EAB. Twice as many failures, but out of almost FIFTY TIMES the number of total accidents (12/1887). 0.6%, vs. 12.8%.

Cooling systems? Air cooling a traditional aircraft engine may not be the most inefficient system, but it's very easy to implement vs. a system that requires a radiator, water pump, etc. Two failures out of those 39 Honda-powered accidents. Two cooling failures out of those 1800 Lycoming-powered cases.

"Not the fault of the engine conversion company"? Sure. But it does indicate that the average homebuilder is less able to achieve a reliable aircraft powerplant when a conversion is required. And that's the key factor.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Like you said they need to do their homework better and follow the engine manufacturers suggestions. My ultimate point here was that the YouTube video of the Viking 130 (Honda) auto conversion failure was by the owner and his self appointed “test pilot” FB page basically trying to make the engine fail at some point. That maybe too much of an assumption but he was doing several things he was told not to do, hence a failure at 1100 hrs. Keep in mind a certified engine requires a certified mechanic not someone that thinks they are good at installing and designing a fuel or electrical system. That alone adds huge weight to these accident numbers too.
 
The Porsche-Flugmotor (PFM 3200) was certified and installed in 40 Mooneys.

Rare work of art in the firmament: Mooney with a Porsche aircraft engine

The PFM 3200-powered Mooney is legendary among aviators. They all want this ‘Porsche of the skies’ – and today there are only five that are airworthy anywhere in the world. We had the extraordinary opportunity to take a ride in one.
newsroom.porsche.com newsroom.porsche.com

IMO if there ever is a widely successful auto conversion package, it will happen like the PFM: developed by an engine manufacturer with all the engineering resources that entails, not a yahoo in a garage.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IMO if there ever is a widely successful auto conversion package, it will happen like the PFM: developed by an engine manufacturer with all the engineering resources that entails, not a yahoo in a garage.
Click to expand...
Toyota also completed an FAA certified engine to power its TTA-1 composite aircraft which was developed at the same time the SR20 and Columbia 300 were. But shelved the project due to lack of market. I believe they had $1B+ invested. But if you want to see a "vehicle" engine that would pass most of the FAA requirements look to a NASCAR, Indy, or F1 engine... then look at their costs.
 
MarkH said:
There are auto conversions that have proven reliable enough to be certificated. While I understand the hesitation to fly behind them, I believe that their development and use in experimental aviation is good for all of GA.



While I understand the surprise (the lack of data for high time Vikings is its own issue), I think the context is important and there is value in what can be learned from this. Something to keep in mind with Viking engines (from a data analysis standpoint) is that all of them have an unknown service history, specifically because they are sourced from salvage cars.
Click to expand...
My Viking 150hp engine came from one of 25 cars that all had less than 5 miles on their odometers, they were all part of a train derailment delivering brand new vehicles. Viking gets late model low mileage engines from reliable sources. They don’t go digging through junkyards like you try to make it sound. There is documentation for each engine and if you want to pay for the information they can tell you the exact year and mileage the car had when it was parted out. They won’t accept things outside certain year and mileage amounts. I’m a customer with experience with a Viking what is your experience regarding the product, the opinion you’ve surmised after what you’ve read on the internet ?
 
Capt321 said:
My Viking 150hp engine came from one of 25 cars that all had less than 5 miles on their odometers, they were all part of a train derailment delivering brand new vehicles.
Click to expand...
Why aren't those vehicles in the train derailment "salvage cars"?
MarkH said:
...is that all of them have an unknown service history, specifically because they are sourced from salvage cars.
Click to expand...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Why aren't those vehicles in the train derailment "salvage cars"?
Click to expand...
You missed the point, yes they are salvage cars but they were brand spanking new Honda engines, almost no miles, not something you need to worry about their maintenance history or care as the other poster tried to imply doubt in the Viking product. There’s a warranty with the Viking engine also, they aren’t going to leave you hanging. They find the lowest miles and most recent years for sources.
 
Capt321 said:
You missed the point, yes they are salvage cars but they were brand spanking new Honda engines, almost no miles, not something you need to worry about their maintenance history or care as the other poster tried to imply doubt in the Viking product.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't miss the point. These posts aren't defending Viking engines very well. The supporting data is cherry-picked, and no one suggested the engines come from "digging through junk yards". However, the engines were from salvage cars as suggested in another post.
Capt321 said:
My Viking 150hp engine came from one of 25 cars that all had less than 5 miles on their odometers, they were all part of a train derailment
Click to expand...
What about the rest of them? This is only 25 engines. I'm sure there are more than 25 Viking engines sold. I'm also sure the majority have more than 5 miles on them. What would be more helpful is to explain how Viking chooses used engines, and how they bring them to a condition usable for aircraft. Is there a milage limit? What is the warranty? What do they do if there is a problem with the engine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top