Rmmm

FT...Thanks. I only hope to get a CH 750 built and see if my partners are willing to buy a Viking. Practically speaking, the 1,000 hour real world testing point will take a long time to reach. But if the Viking "proves" out well, it is a great boon for LSA aviation. Let us see.

FT - 100% correct. Actually, even before those contingencies, that was the case. Budget factors are very real concerns...hence all those AeroVee and Corvair Conversions. I just had a short email exchange with Garry Morgan of Morgan Aeroworks, he suggested the same...a used Rotax. Verrry affordable. Used engines, rebuilt engines.. all ok...Not much different than buying a used airplane. Do the homework. If in doubt....walk away. Same for the Viking. Just let us keep the concerns in proper perspective and with due fairness.

More unfair rhetoric around a legitimate concern. People fly into really remote places in STOL aircraft all the time. Breakdowns do occur. As already mentioned....maintain, inspect, check, really check. One Viking owner commented on future support.....saying that except for the ECU and the PSRU everything for the Viking spare parts is available or replaceable in the open market place. The PSRU could probably be machined in a pinch to put the aircraft back in the air. So, if the ECU is really a huge worry, buy a spare and put it in your safety deposit box.

Here is the video interview with Jan that Kyle Comm was referring to... Very candid. To compare the Subaru Conversion with the Viking is fair game. But using the Subaru Conversion as a basis to immediately write off the Viking is....Well...simply..... not based on the Viking. Enough said. I have closely followed how Jan handles his customers. He does not have time for nonsense. If you have a question, he will respond as much as needed but not more. Try building a business, doing the engineering, managing a production line, and managing the staff, visiting air shows, responding to emails.... Then criticize Jan for being a bit terse. Everyone has to live their history. So I understand all the cautionary statements. Time will tell.

FT... the call for "scientific testing" is fair and reasonable. Time will prove out the fact. Jan's Subaru history is not a reason to write off the Viking. Many people successfully flew his conversion. Some just could not get it off the ground. So far, all indications are that Jan has put together a really fine engine with the Viking. Those that are "fronting up" are delighted. I would say that nearly 100 engines in the air is at least an "indication of the engine being successfully flown." Like I said, the engine owners are reporting really good results. Only a bit more time and we will have many Vikings with hundreds of hours on the clock.

FT...with all due respect....Not a pleasant tone and not at all accurate or fair. Only this year 2012 the Viking went into full production. 80 Engines sold in the latest production cycle - says the potential is not only Jan's view. If flying behind the engine qualifies as "testing", the Viking Web Site has lots of videos. http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/news/News.html Scroll through the whole page. There are LOTS of videos and relevant information for anyone seriously studying the engine. See the thrust comparison with a Rotax 912S at Go to You Tube and check out the Viking videos - both company and owners. Jan flew a Zenith CH 750 at the Zenith 20th anniversary this year and did 30 demo flights in one day. Not sure what you mean by "myriad of servicing issues". Granted dependability is a key issue...but that applies to any engine. Proper maintenance, regular and really through inspections are critical to any engine, and that includes a Rotax. The Viking comes from the factory as a fuel injected engine, so no worries around carburetors. A huge plus. Read what the actual owner/pilots are saying. For example....Casey Lyon's Viking powered Sonex http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/Stufftolinkto/Viking 110 Sonex Pirep.pdf A few months later - Casey's yearly conditional inspection details at 50 Hours http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vikingaircraftengines/message/2441 Some details.....From http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/products/Products.html AIRPLANE HOW MANY ORDERED FOR OCTOBER 2012 DELIVERY Cherry BX-2 - 1 CH-601 - 7 CH-650 - 3 CH-701 - 9 CH-750 - 9 RV-12 - 5 Sonex - 10 SeaRey - 7 SeaRey LSX - 5 Rans S-19 - 1 Just Aircraft - 6 Kit Fox 7 - 2 Kit Fox 4 - 1 Jabiru J430 - 1 Bush Caddy - 1 Dominator Gyro - 3 Sportcopter - 1 Spirit - 1 Other - 4

Technical details for the Viking Engine are here http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/Installation/Tech.html Someone complained about not having weight information. All there. Interesting how much play on various forums a few critics get. But you cannot find anyone complaining who actually is flying behind the engine. Rather, these guys are super pleased. I doubt Rotax is worried, but it is good to have an alternative.

New member here. I have been following the Viking Engine for the past six months. Trying to put together shared ownership and a Community College build project. The Zenith CH 750 has been our first choice. BUT..I have just found the Morgan Aeroworks kits. Those are really fine looking aircraft. Will be reading up on these planes for sure. Regarding the Viking Honda Engine.... Here is a post from Jan Eggenfellner, the developer of the Viking Engine. Jan explains very clearly where the engines come from and how they are built up as new aircraft engines. Re: honda engine Posted by: jeggenfellner Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:19 pm All engines are 2009 or newer Honda Fit models. We only use the Block and head. The Honda Fit is what is consider a non-rebuildable car. Any damage at all and it is off to the salvage yard. We buy anything that become available with low mileage and no damage. The engines are then disassembled and brought to new standards. An oil sample is also sent for analyses to further determine the condition of the core engines. Jan The Viking website has a complete photo layout of the entire engine in pieces, along with technical details on crankshaft, pistons, etc. Jan sold 80 engines in the last production cycle for nearly a dozen different aircraft. Impressive. Some earlier comments on this forum tied back to a disgruntled SeaRey owner who launched a very sour tale against Jan. The conclusion made here on this forum, was "Stay Clear". As a CPA (Chartered Accountant) I understand what it takes to build a business. I would suggest readers also consider that this story surely has another side. And, to his credit, Jan never responded in kind. To see what Jan is capable of doing with the SeaRey, go to the website and catch up. A customized mount and cowling is just about done. There are good customers and bad customers. Enough said. Finally, take a look at what Casey Lyons has to say about the work done on his Sonex. Casey swapped out an AeroVee for the Viking. Jan stepped in and designed a new cowling and other drag reducing measures. The results were super. The Viking powered Sonex will do 168-170 mph under the exact same conditions. (Max continuous rpm, 2 people, sea level, etc.) Watching Jan continuously upgrade the Viking Engine the past six months, albeit after a slow start and some verrry long delays, the attention to quality is obvious. If I get the finances in place, no doubt about the engine choice. Cheers Rmmm (Guam)