adrian222 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 This engine is heading here to Aus. Be interesting to see how it goes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY2vv6qDVms. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 They may be cheap and produce a lot of power - but they're still quite heavy (122kgs) - and they're an exceptionally complex little engine. It will be interesting to see the TBOH recommendation. Are there any currently in aviation use, that have high hours, to give an idea of reliability and lifespan? 1.5L Turbo Engine Animation I'm impressed with some of Honda's engineering - specifically, their water pumps. I bought a truckload of new car parts and components maybe 6-7 years ago, from a parts retailer who shut down - and sold most of them easily. However, in the collection of parts I purchased, there were a sizeable number of Honda water pumps. I have never been able to sell a Honda water pump in 6-7 years of trying! Every other vehicle engine chews through water pumps at a regular, and reasonably consistent rate - and even faster if the cooling system is neglected. However, Honda must have built their water pumps to outlast their engines!! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 If that weight is correct (122 kg) I suspect it won't be viable. Not in a jab anyway. That's about 40 kg heavier than a 6 cylinder Jab engine. (50% again) Trying to get w & b adjusted will be fun. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Jaba - the weight figure is taken directly from the Viking website. I must say I'm surprised this little engine weighs that much, and it's certainly a major weight penalty for any RA-Aus registerable aircraft. Performance Viking engine What interests me, is - what is done to ensure aircraft-quality, fastener retention on these engines? Are they using liquid thread locking compound on every fastener? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 its interesting after shipping so many engines Jan still doesn't have a proper engine stand, unlike our friends at Rotec Aerosport 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 I'm glad I don't have a plurry camera crew distracting me from my preflight checklist! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Rotec go to all the trouble of setting up a highly professional engine test room and engine test stand, compliant with every OH&S regulation - then they store around 100 litres of petrol under a powered electrical switchboard, in totally-unapproved, 20 litre, cheap PVC containers?? Only need one of those cheap 20L containers to split, and the petrol fumes rise straight up into the electrical control board and find a little spark, and Rotec will be looking for new premises, after a multi-million dollar fire! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 as opposed to Jan just shipping the engine more or less untested. Won't know if you've got a dud till you are under way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 its interesting after shipping so many engines Jan still doesn't have a proper engine stand, unlike our friends at Rotec Aerosport Is that a fairly small prop for what you would expect to see on a radial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Is that a fairly small prop for what you would expect to see on a radial? In a static test situation the prop just needs to balance and cool the engine. I'd be using the shortest prop - less walking to clear it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 You need to simulate some load on the engine, better than Jan's blipping the throttle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 The basic problem with the Viking is that an in-line, water-cooled configuration engine is simply inefficient for an aircraft engine, and excessive weight will always be its burden. The horizontally-opposed or radial configuration engine is simply the lightest and most efficient design for an aircraft engine, and it's the reason why the likes of Jabiru, Lycoming, Continental, P&W and Rotec have all utilised these two configurations. Even the opposed-piston engine is struggling to match horizontally-opposed and radial engines for light weight and high power output. Now, I know someone will come back and state some of the greatest WW2 aircraft engines in the world, were in-line, water-cooled engines - but these engines were built with cost no object, to win a war, and they were also produced in huge displacements and HP outputs, to ensure their deficiencies were overcome. The V12 configuration also went some way towards nullifying their weight penalty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 I think my next one will be driven by electric and Wankel hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Inline 4 cylinder is mostly about cost, people don't want to pay $25K for a car engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 The horizontally-opposed or radial configuration engine is simply the lightest and most efficient design for an aircraft engine, . An in-line engine kills the others for simplicity, weight and efficiency, that's why it's the most produced engine of all. The Suzuki Hyabusa 1300 weighs 100KG complete with it's integrated 5 speed gearbox, cut down versions are around 65KG for 175 hp stock (Google Hartley H2). All the 600cc bike engines are around 100hp for 80KG complete with gearbox, cut down versions as low as 55KG. excessive weight will always be its burden. Viking 170 = 1.4 hp per KG Lycoming 0320 = 1.35 hp per KG Rotax 912 = 1.35 hp per KG Viking 130 = 1.3 hp per KG Jabiru = 1.2 hp per KG ... so how are you coming to the conclusion it is heavy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Does anyone really think the Viking 170 is producing anywhere near 170HP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 An in-line engine kills the others for simplicity, weight and efficiency, that's why it's the most produced engine of all.The Suzuki Hyabusa 1300 weighs 100KG complete with it's integrated 5 speed gearbox, cut down versions are around 65KG for 175 hp stock (Google Hartley H2). All the 600cc bike engines are around 100hp for 80KG complete with gearbox, cut down versions as low as 55KG. Viking 170 = 1.4 hp per KG Lycoming 0320 = 1.35 hp per KG Rotax 912 = 1.35 hp per KG Viking 130 = 1.3 hp per KG Jabiru = 1.2 hp per KG ... so how are you coming to the conclusion it is heavy? Not talking about power production. Talking about weight and w&B The specs say it's 120 kg. The jabiru 6 cylinder is 80 kg. As a percentage 50% more weight and as raw numbers 40 kgs. How many HP it produces is irrelevant when it comes to the weight and balance of the aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian222 Posted October 30, 2017 Author Share Posted October 30, 2017 That Honda engine can make more than 200hp in stock form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 as a GDI engine using honda's not Jan's ECU. he won't dyno test them because the numbers are way off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 ... so how are you coming to the conclusion it is heavy? Because it weighs 122kgs, that's why. There goes all your luggage capacity for an RA-Aus registered aircraft. And I agree with the others who think that the 170HP from the Viking is pretty optimistic figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico13 Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Have a look at this one, a Honda 130 fitted up, but what caught my eye was the wire locking on the front of the prop at 3:00 min in. If you can call it wire locked with a single strand, I count and a half anti locked, two neutral and two sort of positive. It would also seem nylock nuts are sufficient for the blade root clamping. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 An in-line engine kills the others for simplicity, weight and efficiency, that's why it's the most produced engine of all.The Suzuki Hyabusa 1300 weighs 100KG complete with it's integrated 5 speed gearbox, cut down versions are around 65KG for 175 hp stock (Google Hartley H2). All the 600cc bike engines are around 100hp for 80KG complete with gearbox, cut down versions as low as 55KG. Viking 170 = 1.4 hp per KG Lycoming 0320 = 1.35 hp per KG Rotax 912 = 1.35 hp per KG Viking 130 = 1.3 hp per KG Jabiru = 1.2 hp per KG ... so how are you coming to the conclusion it is heavy? Are you quoting peak or continuous power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 There are 3 generally-used terms for HP/Kw output - Continuous, Intermittent, and Maximum. Then there's "Max HP/Kw reached for 2 mins on a dyno", "Max HP/Kw for a 2 to 10 hour engine life", and "Max reliable HP/Kw for general use purposes". Then there's torque figures that come into play as well. Generally referred to in grass-roots circles as "grunt" or "pulling power". Not much point having an engine that produces a fabulous HP/Kw figure, which "drop its guts", when steady, solid, grunt is required. The Hayabusa 1300 is producing 173 HP and only 99 lb.-ft torque. Meantimes, my 3.0L Hilux diesel is 172 HP and produces 260 lb.-ft torque. I know what engine I'd rather have, for doing continuous heavy pulling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 How many HP it produces is irrelevant when it comes to the weight and balance of the aircraft. I am unaware with the 230/430 if you can move the engine back much or not, firewall mods, etc. If you have to start adding excessive weight in the tail, etc, sure it may not be worth it if the craft ends up a pig in the end. Jabiru are obviously locked into their own engines and do not cater for others, unlike myself, so conversion may prove too difficult. Note at 5000 ft the Jabiru 3300 is losing 20% power and only making 100hp at full noise while the Honda is still maintaining 100%, eg; 170hp. Are you quoting peak or continuous power? Clearly we are all quoting manufacturer's peak hp claims. Note the argument for any turbo engine is even stronger for continuous power, as full boost can be obtained at most any rpm. Because it weighs 122kgs, that's why. There goes all your luggage capacity for an RA-Aus registered aircraft. . Ahh, so finally you are adding what the weight is relative to that you are against. It is not a heavy engine at all as I have shown, it's just too heavy for your particular purposing. And I agree with the others who think that the 170HP from the Viking is pretty optimistic figure. Well then you all look silly, it's a stock standard 174 hp Honda Civic engine mass produced by the tens of thousands. It's also 194hp rating in the Accord, and 205 hp in the Civic Si model. Maybe some of you thought Viking was "home turbo'ing" their 130 themselves, nope. And it's not even particularly powerful by today's turbo standards, try to keep up, it's 2017. The Hayabusa 1300 is producing 173 HP and only 99 lb.-ft torque. Meantimes, my 3.0L Hilux diesel is 172 HP and produces 260 lb.-ft torque. I know what engine I'd rather have, for doing continuous heavy pulling. So, you would rather a Toyota diesel than the Suzuki in a Jabiru? ... Allow me to offer some physics and math. Toyota max torque = 260 lb ft @ 2700 rpm Suzuki max torque = 100 lb ft @ 7000 rpm, reduction factor of 2.6 = 260 lb ft @ 2700 rpm. The fact is the Suzuki has the same torque as the Toyota when output shaft speed is equalised, hence the reason they have the same HP, but obviously they are purposed completely and utterly for different purposes so the comparison is ridiculous. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsirob Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 That Honda engine can make more than 200hp in stock form. On a dyno for 30 seconds, yes. In a street race for 1 minute, yes. Now try to run that level of power for a number of hours on end. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now