# Non- Biased Engine Reviews -Viking

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Arkan

##### Well-Known Member
@PagoBay.... top right of each of those videos says exactly what I mean, that's my point. Both videos you have shown are from Vikings YouTube. Their logo is in the top left.

I can find complete build videos of people using just about any engine you can think of, LS1 chevy conversions, Yamaha conversions, I have yet to find someone building a plane recording the whole process start to finish. Then recording each step of phase one, and phase two using a Viking engine. All the videos are from Viking.

#### [email protected]

##### New Member
DOES ANYONE OUT THERE KNOW WHERE TO GO TO HAVE A 2020 HONDA FIT ELECTRIC BODY INJECTION CONVERTED TO A THROTTLE BODY INJECTION

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member

#### mm4440

##### Well-Known Member
So... Lycomings have failed in flight, Continental's have failed in flight, Rotax has failed in Flight, Corvair has failed in flight, LS engine has failed in flight, Jabiru and so has the Vikings. It seems just about all of them have. What can be done? Perhaps one person is not so savory, but I guess this is why we ask no? I was just wanting to find if there were any people flying that were happy and without issue. What engine should one consider? The Rotax?
If you want to avoid engine failures, fly sailplanes. You only have to worry on tow for a short time and if it fails someone else has to pay to fix it.

#### mm4440

##### Well-Known Member
One quick clarification: FAA's policy is: if there is technology available to meet the reliability numbers in AC 23.1309, the reliability numbers are a requirement; if there is NO technology to meet those numbers, then the maximum that can be achieved is acceptable. Obviously piston engine technology does not allow an engine which, as a unit, meets the 10^5 criteria. Therefore the attainable piston engine reliability today - 1 failure in 10000-13000 hours - is acceptable. But the idea is to do whatever possible to meet those numbers. That AC is common sense. As for turboprops and turbofans, that is a whole different ball game. P&W PT6 reliability average is around 1 IFSD in 330000 hours, and big turbofans such as the GE90 (Boeing 777) are 1 IFSD in more than half a million hours. Interesting to remember that, 65 years ago, turbo compound radial engines (such as in the DC-7 and in the Super Constellation) could barely meet 1 failure in 1000 hours!
How do you tell the difference between a DC-6 and a DC-7? 4 engine airplane with 3 blade props and a 3 engine airplane with 4 blade props.

#### mm4440

##### Well-Known Member
back to Honda aircraft engines, and Jim Bede...seems to me there was a Honda conversion in the Bede 5 .......any knowledge here about that?
It worked fine with a small fuselage stretch; ~4".

#### Alessandre

##### Well-Known Member
I changed my concepts about car engine reliability, recently I opened the engine of my wife's car, a GM 2.0 L turbo because there was a lot of carbon at the valves and piston rings because of the direct injection, the car have 40k miles, I heard about and it's happening with all the direct injected engines except Toyota that uses 2 systems, direct and port inject, her car was with high blow by pressure because the rings was stuck with a lot of carbon. I don't know how Viking is dealing with this issue how they are using direct injected engines.

#### rv6ejguy

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Pretty well all DI engines, which don't also have port injection, will have the carboned up valve issue eventually. Many other OEMs are now copying Toyota/ Lexus now by adding port injection as well.

Last edited:

#### TarDevil

##### Well-Known Member

My son sent me this picture. That's my granddaughter going up for a Young Eagles flight. I fired off a text message asking what powered that Rans since it clearly wasn't the usual Rotax.
He replied, "I dunno, something converted from a Honda Fit with a redrive attached."
She lived. As did my other 3 grandkids.
This dude swears by his Viking.

#### Chris Matheny

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
I changed my concepts about car engine reliability, recently I opened the engine of my wife's car, a GM 2.0 L turbo because there was a lot of carbon at the valves and piston rings because of the direct injection, the car have 40k miles, I heard about and it's happening with all the direct injected engines except Toyota that uses 2 systems, direct and port inject, her car was with high blow by pressure because the rings was stuck with a lot of carbon. I don't know how Viking is dealing with this issue how they are using direct injected engines.

Viking doesn't have to follow the government standards and direct blow by back into the intake manifold. The oil vapors from the pcv system on the direct injection engines go to the intake and into the cylinders to be burnt. Port injection kept the back of the valves clean and direct injection doesn't have that luxury without running 2 systems. Viking I believe is just dumping the crankcase pressure and oil vapors to atmosphere so it will never deposit on the valves. This could pose other longevity issues though as the vacuum created in the pcv system helps keep the thin rings they use these days seated in the upper RPM where they are running their engines. Time will tell.

#### Alessandre

##### Well-Known Member
For my wife's car especially I gonna use this tip that I got from internet, it's called catch can, that catch the oil from blow by and deposits in a can, I think I can take it longer before need to open the engine again to clean the piston rings and valves.

Last edited:

#### Heliano

##### Well-Known Member
A quick comment, looking at the big picture: When one rightfully says "up to the FAA standards" one has to keep in mind that certification regulations are dynamic. They change over time. Remember when all light aircraft had to be certified under FAA's CFR14 Part 23? It was a painful, time consuming and expensive process; then LSA came about, making things much simpler and less expensive, and - mind you - this extra simplicity and cost savings did NOT imply in worse safety figures. The same thing may happen to the certification of engines. CFR14 Part 33 may evolve. A lot is happening in terms of converted automotive engines. The engines themselves are way more reliable than they used to be - those days when carbureted, conventional ignition VW boxer engines were the only conversion available are long gone. And the conversions are maturing. It is easy to percieve. These conversions have a huge advantage: they are much cheaper, mostly due to the fact that the automotive industry makes in one day more than engines of a certain type than an aircraft engine type during its whole product lifecycle. The only thing missing is more statistical data about engine reliability. Such data is the only meaningful argument - be it in favor or against.

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
Most LSA aircraft were not certified in the USA but in their home countries. The previous certificate could be reviewed and stamped ready to go. At least it got rid of duel certification. Most of the certified LSA are Rotax. How much work did Rotax put into their acceptance? Homebuilt LSA cracks into a different level.

#### aeromomentum

##### Well-Known Member
Viking doesn't have to follow the government standards and direct blow by back into the intake manifold. The oil vapors from the pcv system on the direct injection engines go to the intake and into the cylinders to be burnt. Port injection kept the back of the valves clean and direct injection doesn't have that luxury without running 2 systems. Viking I believe is just dumping the crankcase pressure and oil vapors to atmosphere so it will never deposit on the valves. This could pose other longevity issues though as the vacuum created in the pcv system helps keep the thin rings they use these days seated in the upper RPM where they are running their engines. Time will tell.
If you have so much vapor coming out of your crankcase that it is causing valve fowling in any engine including Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) then you have other and major issues with your engine. By FAR the intake valve fouling issues in GDI engines are due to the intake valves being open for some of the time when fuel is being injected and some of this fuel (and air) swirling around and hitting the back sides of the open intake valves. We are talking gallons of hydrocarbon fuel per hour compared to much much less than an once of hydrocarbon oil vapor per hour. Blaming the intake valve fouling on a this tiny amount of hydrocarbons in the tiny amount of blow-by gas is not realistic. Unless your engine is worn out.

Keep in mind that direct injection Diesel engines also with EGR and crankcase venting into the intake do not have this fouling issue since they only inject after the valves are closed.

At low RPM and low power (like is seen 90% of the time in a car), GDI engines do inject when the valves are closed. This is great and allows stratified charge for great low power fuel economy and emissions. This also reduces the valve fouling problems when GDI is used in cars. But once the power level is above about 30% then we start to want homogeneous mixture and loose all of the benefits of GDI. We want a lot of swirl to make a homogeneous mixture to get more power. This is one of the reasons that with GDI they inject with the intake valves open. Another is that to get all of the fuel injected only after the valves are closed would take a more complex, powerful and expensive fuel injection system like they have on direct injection Diesel engines.

Sorry for my intense wording above. I am not trying to be offensive, just trying to help with some realistic information.

#### Chris Matheny

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
As a shop owner that deals with a lot of direct injection engines I'll keep my opinions of where the buildup comes from. I've seen two exact engines ran on very different quality oils and they have very different amounts of buildup on the intake valves. If it was a gasoline issue I wouldn't see such a difference in the engines that come though the shop. No offense taken, even the oems realize this issue and most have added port injection back to address it and the oil dilution cold start issues but that's another can of worms.

#### aeromomentum

##### Well-Known Member
As a shop owner that deals with a lot of direct injection engines I'll keep my opinions of where the buildup comes from. I've seen two exact engines ran on very different quality oils and they have very different amounts of buildup on the intake valves. If it was a gasoline issue I wouldn't see such a difference in the engines that come though the shop. No offense taken, even the oems realize this issue and most have added port injection back to address it and the oil dilution cold start issues but that's another can of worms.
Were both engines operated exactly the same? Highly unlikely if even possible at all. So if one spent most of the time at low power it would have little buildup on the intake valves. If the other was operated at just slightly higher power more of the time it could have lots of fouling of the intake valves. So yes you will see such differences not due to oil type or PCV but due to how they are driven. At least all of the OEMs say this and the known mechanism of fouling makes this likely.

Yes, the OEMS are adding back port injection and now many have dual injection. GDI for low power where it provides emission and fuel economy benefits and port injection for cleaning the valves and providing higher power. For aircraft use the port injection has all the positives and none of the negatives of direct injection. For cars it is very useful to have dual injection.

I am not sure about all oil dilution issues and their causes but at least in Honda's and a few others it has been due to the mechanical high pressure fuel pumps leaking fuel into the oil. This is another very good reason to convert from GDI to port for use in aircraft. Honda has a recall on these pumps.

#### Chris Matheny

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
I'll agree with you that port injection is better for our usage in aircraft (or even throttle body injection) and do not think direct injections failure points are worth the risk in aviation.

#### KeithO

##### Well-Known Member
Sorry, but the quoted text below is simply not true. Direct injected diesels with EGR most certainly do have issues with build up, in the EGR coolers, in the connecting lines and in the intake. If you dont want your modern diesel to fail prematurely, you have to "maintain" these systems by removing them and cleaning. Depending on your engine install, this can be quite expensive. On Ford trucks, if the cab has to come off, that in itself is close to a $2000 bill before anything has been worked on. My 2008 6.4 suffered a failure of the turbo seals at 117k miles and to replace the turbo and the up pipes on the back of the engine was quoted at$6k. I had the engine pulled and sold as a core since the long block was fine and they are in demand since for most people they grenade when #8 piston cracks from the post injection.

Since then I have bought a 2001 Cummins 5.9 that I am rebuilding to install in my truck and finally I will have a reliable engine to get probably another 200k miles out of my truck.

The reason Viking uses GDI on the engine is because that is the way the engine is configured when they buy it. To change it would cost Viking more money, not less. Given how expensive everyones engine has become (Lycoming, continental, Rotax, Jabiru) there seems to be a very healthy demand for the Viking engines. When their sales volumes were lower, they would sell you a reduction drive for instance to put on your own engine, but not anymore. Now you buy a turnkey engine or nothing.

Keep in mind that direct injection Diesel engines also with EGR and crankcase venting into the intake do not have this fouling issue since they only inject after the valves are closed.

#### Chris Matheny

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
I agree, as I pulled an EGR cooler off of a Ford today. I just wasn't going to argue my basis. The new Cummins even have a filter to keep the oil from contaminating. If it was a fuel based issue, then having the intake valve open during the injection cycle of a DI engine would clean it the same as a port injection engine as claimed as the reason some oems returned to a blended system of port and direct.