Our engine choice for the Velocity

[@TheAvaiator23]

So excited to see ur progress

[@cjgworldwide]

I’m looking at using this same combination. Keep us updated.

[@AusVelocity]

That's the plan.

[@TheAvaiator23]

Great choice in engine option

[@mgbrv8]

I look forward to seeing the noise levels of this engine in the cabin

[@AusVelocity]

Yep me too, the goal is headset free. Not sure if it's attainable but gonna try.

[@mgbrv8]

Excited to see how it all goes

[@sactu1]

Good luck. I really like the Velocity and hope to see you flying her around the traps (assuming you're on the east coast).

[@AusVelocity]

North side of Brisbane. In the air within a few years, I hope.

[@Potatokyle]

checked the newest price on swishproject for the 195t and the price had raised up to 33050$ after just two years, hope i can aford to build my own velocity maybe 20-30 years later before i turn 50

[@AusVelocity]

Yeah the prices went a bit nuts after covid. But at least it's still the cheapest and best option for the SE.

[@jakenz00]

Interested to know if you talked to aeromomentum about their am20t before settling on the Viking? There is talk about the tendency for gdi engines carbon up the intake valves and how port injection is the better way to go.

[@AusVelocity]

Thanks for the comment. The carbon build up in the intake ports happens in cars because they route the engine breather tube into the intake. They have to because of anti pollution regulations. Aircraft dont have to follow those regulations so the engine is vented to atmosphere. The only thing passing through the air intake is filtered air. I thought about aeromomentum, i like what they do and I'm sure they build a great engine. It was a toss up. But in the end i think the aeromomentum would have been harder for me to get up and running. The viking was a bit simpler.

[@atillagahbro]

Great engine choice. The L15 with no EGR/PCV is arguably the best four banger available. Use a scavanger additive like Marvel and you can go back and forth with LL if you have to. The L and C brands are all that is available realistically for GA certificated aircraft and that is the main reason why they are sold. The lose tolerances are there so they dont blow up as they can't really maintain temp all that well and also so that the excess fuel used as coolant can slip by and burn off in the crank case. BTW, Honda does test their engines for thousands of hours at WOT. All the best on your project. It sounds like an amazing combination.

[@AusVelocity]

Thanks. Yes L and C have enjoyed a captive market for a long time and are happy to keep the status quo. I'm hoping for G100UL to make it to Australia's airports before I'm forced to run 100LL on long trips but will have an additive on hand if I need. But that's a long way off. Yes, I'd believe honda would run every test they could think of and leave nothing to chance to keep their reputation.

[@TheAvaiator23]

Been struggling to find my perfect plane to purchase

[@AusVelocity]

Well I was never a high wing guy and with the low wings, they were always in the way. I wish it was as easy as picking a car off the lot. Any car will do what you want most of the time.

[@TheAvaiator23]

@@AusVelocity Yeah I wanted the velocity or the virus sw

[@916medic]

Just subscribed interested in your story. I am in the same predicament. Need a family plane. Have my wife and 2 boys I need to fly around.

[@AusVelocity]

Hey thanks for the interest. I realise this is the slow way to get the family in the air. But for my financial situation I had to be honest with myself and I realised I had to do it this way or never and forget about it. Im not making any comprises on safety by going cheap and if i thought i was I'd never risk my family's safety. The plane is the safest thing in the sky and engine is extremely robust and reliable. I'll be making another video on the honda engine shortly.

[@edgarmarznap1999]

Following this closely. If you succeed this could be a game changer for the budget minded builder.

[@AusVelocity]

Yep, Viking/Honda is a quality engine packaged into affordability. Viking hit 2 birds with one stone. I think it will work out.

[@MobettahGogettah]

Turns out a comparable auto conversion is more than traditional engine with variable pitch prop.

[@AusVelocity]

How do mean more? More money, time, research, noise, vibration, maintenance, oil consumption, fuel cost? Maybe you mean more bang per buck?

[@PHMNX]

I also hesitated to install an auto conversion in my RV-7. I still think it should be possible, but the only argument that made sense is the 'constant power' that an aircraft engine needs to output. In the last 30 years I hardly see any car with engine issues at the side of the road. But when cruising with your car at 130km/h the power the engine provides is very limited (20%). In my RV-7 I cruise at 260km/h at 65% power. 'They' (whom ever that may be) claim that a car engine will not run 65% for hours and not die. I'm still not sure and although there were engine failures with car engines, there are many engine failures with aircraft engines. I'll keep following you to see what happens. I'm considering building an SE RG and will install a ULPower 520 (just like in my RV). It's an aircraft engine and also runs on Mogas. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6Czp3h_nLeUkKM

[@AusVelocity]

Thanks for the comment, Yeah you can see it as a bit of a gamble to use a car engine. But I've never bought in to the constant power argument. Firstly what is max power for a car engine? is it what the manufacturer says or what the kid who adds a bigger turbo, a load of boost pressure and upgrades the fuel injection system says it is? if you break down power into torque and revs, it makes less sense. Cars can hit max torque whenever they accelerate. But what is max torque? Is it when the metal yields and the crank shaft snaps or when the fuel/air expansion cant push down the piston any harder due to the limitation of the fuel injectors and throttle body width? Revs, the manufacturer gives me a conservatively placed red line on my tacho, to tell me what too many revs are. I think the concern is running too much air and fuel (flames) through the cylinders over a short space of time. Then it comes down to cooling so you don't melt pistons, valves, rings and bearings. You need to make sure the engine you choose can extract the heat away from those components. I think modern engines are on top of this. I think it's unfair to lump all auto engines together when comparing engine failure rates to traditional engines. Why should a 2020 Honda engine, a 2000s V8 LS engine, a 1990s rotary engine and a 1970s Volkswagen's engine all be put in the same category? But I think the UL Power are good engines. The turbo is key for the Velocity, since it's supposed to climb high and go fast.

[@PHMNX]

@@AusVelocity Yes I always marvel at the endurance of modern car engines. I remember the time when my dad drove a Peugeot (in the 70's) and that thing just broke down (and rotted). My current Volvo has 400.000 km and runs like a charm. And when in Germany I always try to get to 250 km/h and it can still do that after 9 years. I also installed a ULPower in my RV-7, but I'm not sure of the Turbo. On paper it looks great, but it's expensive. Also in the Netherlands we are not allowed to climb over 6500 ft (seriously). But I'll look into it when time of engine selection is there. I wish you great success. Marcel

[@AusVelocity]

@@PHMNX 6500 !!! Ok the turbo may not be necessary. Good luck with whatever you choose.

[@KuschallRacing]

why not diesel ? lower rpm and muchmuch more torque ?

[@AusVelocity]

Diesel is a good choice. Doing an aircraft conversion is a little above my pay grade. Maybe if i didn't have to build the aircraft, and if I had some good mentors, experts and engineers, then maybe. Not sure if i could get the required weight needed also. The delta hawk is now available, so if money was plentiful, then I could consider that an option.

[@quentinpienaar5311]

Wouldn’t it be difficult to ger automotive fuel at an airport?

[@AusVelocity]

Near impossible. Unless it's at your home field then you can take fuel to your plane. Depending on your local regulations of course.

[@felixaudet5860]

Comming from the auto world, I know that this engine is prone to oil consumption. Given you do 10X the maintenance on a plane compared to a car, this might not be a problem.

[@AusVelocity]

Thanks. I thought the oil consumption was pretty minimal but it gets checked at every flight and changed often every 50 hours. I'll keep an eye on it.

[@cardboardrob1]

I wonder if a ls3 would fit in. Lol more power

[@AusVelocity]

Too much weight for the SE but XL is doable. Need to take care of radiator cooling and finding a gearbox, fuel system etc etc. It's all been done before, you just need to find out who and how they did it. I guess i took the easy option and let viking do most of the work for me.

[@MsMaurice69]

Good choice

[@AusVelocity]

It's a popular engine in Zenith and STOL aircraft. They are great for power and torque for short takeoffs, but I feel like the engine's cruise potential is being held back by these aircraft's draggy wings and airframe. Can't wait to see how it goes in something a lot sleeker.

[@Mike-01234]

Looks great Velocity landing speed is 70 knots if you have engine issues you want to be high enough to find an airport can land at the glide range must be good not much drag on those things. I like Vikings some have had issue never know with engine sourcing from wrecked cars but most seem to run great can't beat the price for what you get I do like the fact that they can be fixed easily. I'm looking at a zenith 701 probably put one in it being a STOL aircraft easier to put it down on a road if need be.

[@chippyjohn1]

G'day Clint, I deleted my previous comment about the Honda engine. I have looked at the Viking engines through curiosity and research and found the Owner to contradict himself many times with what he says and some of the information on his website is not accurate which makes me wonder how much is honest. The dyno graph for the 150 for instance has been made up, the power curve does not follow the torque curve. One video he states that certain technology/components of his engine are good and they don't use other technology, then other videos he is using the technology he said they don't use. He states engines are brand new "never been in a crash" but then on website that they are from donor cars. He does not appear to have much mechanical knowledge or understanding of what he is selling, often just states that "they feel it is good". Components are made and replaced with out explaining power differences or checking the tune. I strongly feel he is not being honest with most of what he says, and worry the customers may not be aware of what he is selling. I came to this conclusion on my own, and only recently have found an alarming past history of people stating the same concerns and actually experienced it. The Honda engine may be okay (not in my opinion) and not trying to spook you, this is just out of concern for your safety. Make sure you know what you are installing. An engine is very complex, it wasn't cheap either for what it is. Happy new year, all the best, hope nothing ever goes wrong and I am the one that is wrong. Probably delete this comment.

[@AusVelocity]

Hey Chippy, Good to chat again. Not really fussed that the engines aren't new, they are definitely not new, I'm pretty sure they say they are undamaged low time engines, crash or no crash. I would suspect a lot of builders on a budget would buy a "used" engine. I can't explain the missing when running hot and not under load except that under load it runs better, I think it's because of the tune - timing(spark and valve)/fuel mixture, it's not tuned to run without a load as a car engine would be expected to. The engine is not getting hot since I didn't notice any temp rise in the coolant and i don't think the thermostat even opened. I suspect the ecu was trying to compensate for a lack of load (or something) with a richer mix rather than adjusting the spark or exhaust valve timing? not sure, but Viking were not surprised when I showed them a video of the engine missing without a prop. I noticed when I turned the alternator on (increased load) the missing stopped temporarily until the intake air got hotter. I find it interesting that the torque curve for the 195t is to rise and plateau quickly. I think this is what you would like in a car that could use a wide rev ranges for similar wheel speeds, like at gear changes, so I assume the engine was designed for this. I've also noted that the typical aircraft engine torque curve follows rpm, I think this by design also and if the revs were allowed/able to climb past "redline" I wonder if the torque curve would also plateau? If the graph is right then it shows the max load on the internal engine components is stable through the rev range and I assume Honda designed the components with this amount of torque in mind. I can't speak for Jan from Viking except to say he's had both success and failures in his career of converting engines. I think he started with Subarus, some hits and some misses. To me, this shows experience and lessons learnt. rv6ejguy on youtube covers some of his work, look for 6 Subaru Powered Aircraft. One of the good things about this engine is that I can ground "test" it flat out for quite a while to simulate it flying. I'll need an air blower on the radiator/intercooler. The typical aircraft engine has to be flown at speed to remain cool enough for extended "testing" as well as a break in if it's new. Can't wait for this stage of the build, I'd like to see what the generated thrust is, I'm sure Viking could tell me but I'd like to see the numbers myself. Happy New Year

[@chippyjohn1]

@@AusVelocity I assume the engine is tuned in Open Loop, meaning it is tuned to run a certain way regardless of outside changes; eg knock, exhaust temp etc. It is a very basic tune and is used as a backup tune for cars if a sensor fails, but should NOT be the primary tune. Ideally the torque curve is dead 'flat' meaning the power would rise at an exact tangent in relation to rpm, this is what race cars aim for, but is difficult. the first rise is due to boost coming on and the second because of valve timing changing with the 195T, I assume. Power follows torque and revs. Power is just a multiplication of torque and revs. A Dyno just measures torque at given intervals through out the rev range and notes the rpm and then calculates the power. (For my own testing and tuning I essentially set an engine rpm and apply a load on a spinning disc until rpm starts to drop. Just before the Rpm drops I read the most amount of torque applied and calculate my rpm. Done at small intervals I am able to plot my torque and power curve. Crude but this is Exactly how a dyno works). It appears accurate for the 195T, but the 150 graph is falsified, which makes me question other factors. Other aircraft engines may have a peaky torque curve as they are designed to operate in a specific rpm range. The Rotax series of engines have the best tuning of all the aircraft engines as far as VE is concerned calculated by me at around 95%. All others being around 80-85%. A higher revving engine is actually easier to get efficient at around 5000 with fuel injection compared to lower revving engines, but the Viking engines also seem to be around 80% which is strange due to having variable valve timing. Especially with turbo charging a Good VE should be around 100-105%. The issue with VVT/VTec, all variable valve timing for an aircraft engine is it is not really utilised properly and efficiency goes down. Even if a propeller is variable pitch and can absorb the power at higher rpm its is less efficient at a lower rpm, more so over a wider rpm range, making it pointless. A propeller is just a spinning wing, they are designed around an ideal speed and angle of attack etc. Anyway, not trying to say the engine is unreliable or unsafe. Hopefully I am wrong, just feel that Viking is not honest and I express caution, I do not know him and have never dealt with him. I get a strong sense he is taking advantage of the demand in the market and selling what is available rather than what is ideal. Once again, not saying the engine is bad, just that he does not appear to fully understand what he is selling and when it comes to aviation and lives at stake this should not be allowed. Only writing for that reason. I recommend deleting these messages. I will write no more. All the best, take care mate. PS, testing is fun, trust me, well initially until you have to test for hundreds of hours resisting the urge to take to the sky. Like a young boy pacing himself the first time he makes love. Testing is not just running the engine at power, but introducing faults, disconnecting sensors while running really stressing the engine. This is all done by manufacturers. It's one thing for a car to cut power, but if you are climbing out over trees and the power cuts its a different story.

[@chippyjohn1]

@@AusVelocity With regards to the Subaru engines, I have looked at them, they are okay, especially the 6. The fact that people had issues with those engines is not the engines fault, well the design. Most people that are flying aircraft have little mechanical knowledge, and having another tell them that something is good, is wrong. A common complaint with subaru engines is the open deck block which performance enthusiasts hate. If you had a fire ring it becomes the ideal design for low power output, it is just that people do not implement these basic design alterations. I'm using a Suzuki M13A non VVT. For an aircraft engine platform it is the best design available all things considered, but it still requires much modification to be suitable. It is not popular compared to Honda or nissan engines etc, but for low continuous power at 5000 with modifications it is the best. We do need people like Viking and Aeromomentum to push the market, but it should not be lead blind. I keep thinking about introducing an engine to the market, but then I look at the experimental market and see the quality of workmanship and worry about people filling with the wrong oil and then blaming me for a faulty product, it happens. I understand viking having that issue, but I could not sell something even if very profitable just to make money if I did not know it was ideal, tested and safe.

[@AusVelocity]

@@chippyjohn1 Yes I agree you can't just slap an engine in an airplane and if you were going to do it alone you need to be pretty expert. I take my hat off to you. Viking do make some demands when you use their engine for that very reason. I guess they've seen plenty of failure points and don't want shade being thrown at their engine/reputation when the amateur builder does something that doesn't pan out like they thought it would. They always have to play defense. Yes it's experimental but it doesn't have to be risky. Good luck with your build, I'm sure you're starting from a good foundation. Hopefully everything around your engine fits and works as expected. Would be cool to see your progress on your channel.

[@billdavis9350]

I’ve been building/flying aircraft for over 25 years. Throughout those years I’ve seen many crashes do to auto conversion engine or gearbox failures. A automotive conversion, though not my preference, may be a option for stol aircraft because if they have a engine failure they land so slowly that damage to self and property can be minimized. In your velocity the landing speed is much higher and requires much more area leaving you in a much more dangerous situation if you were to ever loose engine power. Since you’ll be flying with your children and wife a better engine option for you would be a mid time Lycoming IO-360 which can be found fairly reasonable. I pray for success whichever way you decide to go. God Bless

[@AusVelocity]

You get no argument from me Bill, The big bore, air cooled, direct drive engine has been the undisputed king for 60+ years. This is a very interesting topic in which I take no sides. One engine type has been shown to fail at a known rate and all the other types at a higher rate. As you know phase 1 of the certificate of airworthiness lasts 40 hours. Those 40 hours are solo hours in an unpopulated area and if there is any sign of doubt in the engine or gearbox after those hours, the family won't be joining me and I'll address the Issues the best I can. If that involves an IO-360 then so be it. Obviously I've made a choice but others wouldn't make the same choice and I wouldn't blame them. I intend to make a video on the topic, including the future of engines in experimental aircraft and only discuss the issues and not bat for one side or the other. Thanks for the comment Bill.

[@billdavis9350]

@@AusVelocity Hi Clint thanks for the response…look forward to your progress with the project! I’ve got a friend with a velocity xl rg and the velocity series are excellent cross country airplanes. My current aircraft is a RV-10 but I do have some composite experience and would be glad to help anyway I can. Be blessed

[@speedomars]

Not turbine. Turbo. BIG difference. Avgas has a lower boiling point and will turn to vapor at high density altitudes stopping the engine. I know this from personal experience using Mogas in a Rotax 912iS and having the engine stop at 10k feet on a 90f day. Also, you cannot go back to 100LL if you start to use Mogas in your engine. You must use premium Mogas of 89 octane or higher, really 100 octane is best if you can get it. You will also be running 5500rpm or higher in cruise and takeoff (loud). Finally, you should really be sure about using an auto engine in an aircraft. No auto engine is designed to run at full redline RPM for hours at a time unlike a Lycoming or a Continental engine. Aircraft engines over long history have been designed with loose tolerances and robust fail points to deal with extreme changes in air pressure and long run times at high RPM. If auto engines were that good then Lycoming and Continental would have long ago been overtaken, yet they are still first and second in engine sales in the piston market.

[@AusVelocity]

Thanks for the advice and taking the time to comment, if I said turbine, I meant turbo. Yes, vapor lock (boiling) can be a problem. Viking supply and require the use of a header tank below the main tanks that contain a pump(s) to maintain fuel pressure above ambient pressure preventing bubble formation. Not sure why I can't interchange between mogas and avgas. The recommended fuel is 89 octane or higher. We have plenty of 89-90 here in Australia (98 RON). 100LL does cause issues in the cylinders and on the exhaust valves by depositing lead salts. Decalin or TCP is suggested to scavenge lead in 100LL after combustion to prevent lead oxide buildup on valves. Air-cooled engines do have wider clearances to account for wide variation of cylinder temps and these lead salts. These salts also cause a lot of grief causing sticky and leaky exhaust valves. No engine is immune and everyone will be glad when G100UL is available. Yes 5500 seems high to run all the time. The redline for the engine is 6000 and won't blowup if that's passed, takeoff is suggested at 5600 and cruise at 4900. On level ground the accord will settle at 3000 for highway cruise and will up the revs for hills and passing to prevent lugging the engine. There's no reason to think the engine can't continually perform within it's designed rev and HP envelop regardless of time at higher revs. I'm pretty sure car manufactures run a few tests before they commit to building several million engines. 4900 is a bit noisier than 3000, but nothing like an unmuffled aircraft engine. As for what Lycombing et al do, that's up to them. If no one wants to spend a billion dollars in research and development, tooling, certification and liability for just a slightly better aircraft piston engine, only to sell several thousand units a year, I don't blame them.

[@speedomars]

@@AusVelocity Header tanks are standard for a high wing and a fuel injected engine. If you keep the boost pump on all the time it may help with vapor lock, but Rotax has the same setup and you can still get vapor lock dependent on outside ambient temperature and what you are doing in regard to engine management (pushing the engine). The reason you can't swtich back and forth has to do with lead deposits. 100LL will leave the deposits and the Mogas will break them loose and that can cause problems in your fuel injectors and other small places around the engine. That is why if you use Avgas at all (and use it rarely if using Mogas) you must use the Decalin to neutralize the lead. There are good reason Lycoming and Continental and Rotax own 90% of the piston market... Viking engines and other alternative engines like Astro, UL and D-Motor are NOT a panacea nor is the use of Mogas. You are mainly just trying to cheap out a bit and thats fine, but don't rationalize by assuming you will not get what you pay for...you will be no exception.

[@kaweeka]

Clint, I'm at the engine selection stage with my Velocity SE and really interested in your experience so far with the 195t. If you have some time, would you mind dropping me a line to discuss at [e-mail]? Thanks, Dave

[@AusVelocity]

Sent you an email Dave.

[@TheAvaiator23]

It’s pretty sad so many ppl still die from carbon monoxide carb heat problems of the past lol

[@AusVelocity]

Yes and the carby freezing up on final because the pilot forgot to pull the carby heat knob. Training pilots is ok, but removing the knob is better.

[@FlyMeAirplane]

I hate to be a naysayer but after 40 years and 2255 hours flying experimentals, I've seen many auto power plants tried but very very few succeed. They always start out with a great analysis of how nice it will be, but success is a huge amount of work. The Lycoming will be flying long after you've given up. Sorry.

[@AusVelocity]

Yep no worries, I'm sure that has been the case for the last 40 years. It's a lot of work and know how to convert an auto engine for an airplane, that's not lost on me. I'm no where near good enough or knowledgeable enough to do a conversion. I'm trusting viking to have designed, built and tested the whole engine system for me. The last several years they've had good success by not stuffing with the engine too much and working on the little things that catch the amateur builder out. I'll just wait and see how it goes. Not too much money sunk if it's not viable. If fact, I'm excited to see if the viking 195t can work in a velocity, for me, thats just as exciting as seeing the plane flying. Thanks for the comment and I hope you follow along to find out if it works out or not. I don't mind the naysayers, they'll keep you in check and point out your errors. I'm sure the Lycoming will still be around when i pull out the viking and put in an electric motor and fill the fuel tanks with batteries....not holding my breath for that one though.

[@matiasmerono]

I heard the same 25 yrs ago about those Rotax, and you are right, 50 yrs Lycos and Contis using technology from 90 yrs. Some of us had enough. The auto engines are able to do the job long time ago, the key is the PSRU marriage. Now we are lucky, u2.

[@savagecub]

Oh dear……….