Jan, Is the top of the cowling as slim as it can be given the engine dimensions? It looks rather bulbous compared to the stock cowling for a Titan or Rotax. Does the engine have to be mounted this high to keep the thrust line correct?
Yes, it has to be higher due to the inline engine layout. You can reshape the look of a cowling with paint. The top of this one is all a dark blue. A two tone and some stripes would change the look drastically
There is no reason to be insulting about someone's aircraft that they built and towards builder, many people actually like the cowling, and if also painted differently could look different. Also, maybe your aircraft spends 99% of the time in your hangar, but she flies this all over the country, as she has all of her RANS aircraft. She has a STUNNING RANS 19 as well. th-cam.com/video/RZmDd9HUDGc/w-d-xo.html
@@eggenfellnerI haven’t met a single person who likes your cowl for the 21. She has no choice so there’s that. And yes hers spends 99% of its time on the ground. Simple math dude. I’m about aesthetics 1st especially when you have 200k plus into something and better performing options. Your recommendation of shading with paint is in fact an admittance there’s an aesthetic problem.
@captndarty You are very incorrect, and just spewing nonsense. One, she has flown this from Florida to Maine Multiple times, through the Dakotas and all over the West Coast and back and is flying it often. With more trips planned. Who are you to speak on something you have no idea about? This was the first prototype cowling as well, the mount and other components have been adjusted and it doesn't raise higher like this first one did. Most people have the Viking 195T or our new 175 engine in it as well and the cowling is different. Many people like the cowling and have no issues with it. I'm not a huge fan of a large majority of the cowlings out there, you should see the 915 on a Zenith looks horrible, it is all opinion. Stop being mean to justify your purchase of a ridiculously expensive engine.
Cool, what altitude and fuel flow - would be cool if you did a video showing all altitudes, fuel flow, speeds etc., do you need oxygen? Isn’t that FWF and engine $60k?
@@eggenfellner I have pics and a spreadsheet on all the altitudes and fuel flows for 60%, 70% and 80% power. 138kts was at FL190 @ 8.8 gph. 70% yields 130kts at 7 gph.down Lowe 50% yields 100kts at 5gph. I don’t know what the FWF price is as I bout it factory built. It does have an Airmaster CS which yours do not so that’ll drive the price up. I like the idea of auto engines but they just don’t have the high altitude performance of the Rotax. I see too many people being cheap on the proper engine and Adriana‘s not already spending 150-200K on airplane. Spending the additional shouldn’t break the bank. I get where your market is and I applaud you for revolutionizing the auto conversions. All we’re really comparing here is price as performance still goes to the dedicated aviation engine.
You are comparing a turbocharged engine to a non-turbocharged engine, it will always be different, we also have a 195Turbo engine that will fit this same engine mount. We are however trying to demonstrate that most of the performance that can be had with these more complicated and more expensive engines can also be had with a normally aspirated engine. Very few bush "style" pilots are going to want to use oxygen for most of their flights, or even go to that altitude. You are correct that this is a different market, those that enjoy building their own airplane and install their own engine. No matter your opinion, money is always a factor, and reality is the Rotax is over 3x the amount of initial cost, maintenance, overhaul and so forth. The chart would be nice to see, as I'm sure at some areas not at altitude performance overlaps.
@@eggenfellner turbo or non turbo I was comparing HP to HP. There’s no denying the quality of your engines and the cost. Reliability of a car engine running full tilt after 2000 hours has yet to truly be proven but titll probably be fine. There’s no denying the quality of a Rotax 915 either. And yes it cost more but you get a much lighter engine that performs better across the entire flight envelope. Let’s look at the 195T you offer. It’s 80LBs heavier than the 915 and as far as I know no automotive engine is Altertive compensating so it still degrades with altitude. Let’s pick 10,000. Your 195T will likely be producing 135Hp max. The exact same as mine using max cont not full take off and it’ll cruise at 128kts with big tires all while bribing 7.8gph. Can you even put a light weight electric CS on your engines or and CS for that matter? As best I could upload my performance findings 4,000’ - [ ] 80% 119kt @ 7.8gph - [ ] 70% 113kt @ 6.7gph - [ ] 60% 103kt @ 5.7gph 6,000’ - [ ] 80% 121kt @ 7.8gph - [ ] 70% 116kts @ 6.7gph - [ ] 60% 107kt @ 5.7gph 8,000’ - [ ] 80% 125kt @ 7.9gph - [ ] 70% 117kt @ 6.7gph - [ ] 60% 110kt @ 5.7gph 10,000’ - [ ] 80% 128kt @ 7.8gph - [ ] 70% 121kt @ 6.8gph - [ ] 60% 112kt @ 5.7gph 12,000’ - [ ] 80% 130kt @ 7.9gph - [ ] 70% 123kt @ 6.7gph - [ ] 60% 115kt @ 5.8gph 14,000’ - [ ] 80% 131kt @ 7.9gph - [ ] 70% 124kt @ 6.7hph - [ ] 60% 117kt @ 5.7gph 16,000’ - [ ] 80% 133kt @ 7.7gph - [ ] 70% 127kt @ 6.4gph - [ ] 60% 118kt @ 5.5gph 18,000’ - [ ] 80% 137kt @ 8.8gph - [ ] 70% 130kt @ 6.5gph - [ ] 60% 118kt @ 5.4gph 19,000’ - [ ] 78% 138kt @ 8.7gph - [ ] 70% - [ ] 60% 21,000’ - [ ] 70% 132kt @ 7.8gph - [ ] 70% - [ ] 60% 23,000’ - [ ] 66% 130kt @ 7.3gph
Yes, we would like to review the numbers - thank you. At first glance, it looks similar at the altitudes most fly (4000-8000) for both engines. You are very far off about our turbo engine, it is not limited by altitude, but rather the size of the cooling/intercooler system so it is possible to produce a lot more power than from your setup. This however, isn't about our turbo engine, but rather something we are already flying in the RANS and that has a nice balance between weight, cost and performance. We do have a CS propeller, far superior and lighter than the Airmaster we designed with DUC, it has carbon fiber blades and hub and operates without motor/slip rings out on the prop/spinner making it less complex, and again lighter. It is also affordable. It is used in this video, and a lot of our videos show it as well, and how it works. Also, based on numbers seen in weights, any engine choice used, seems to all be within similar weights.
Looks amazing, really like those viking engines
Love the Viking Engines!❤️
How does the performance and fuel economy of this engine compare to the rotax 916 engine in the rans s21 outbound?
How much is too much over 10,000 for an LSA?
Jan, Is the top of the cowling as slim as it can be given the engine dimensions? It looks rather bulbous compared to the stock cowling for a Titan or Rotax. Does the engine have to be mounted this high to keep the thrust line correct?
Yes, it has to be higher due to the inline engine layout. You can reshape the look of a cowling with paint. The top of this one is all a dark blue. A two tone and some stripes would change the look drastically
Yes that cowl looks hideous and since airplanes been 99% of a time being admired in the hanger that’s a big no thank you.
There is no reason to be insulting about someone's aircraft that they built and towards builder, many people actually like the cowling, and if also painted differently could look different. Also, maybe your aircraft spends 99% of the time in your hangar, but she flies this all over the country, as she has all of her RANS aircraft. She has a STUNNING RANS 19 as well. th-cam.com/video/RZmDd9HUDGc/w-d-xo.html
@@eggenfellnerI haven’t met a single person who likes your cowl for the 21. She has no choice so there’s that. And yes hers spends 99% of its time on the ground. Simple math dude. I’m about aesthetics 1st especially when you have 200k plus into something and better performing options. Your recommendation of shading with paint is in fact an admittance there’s an aesthetic problem.
@captndarty You are very incorrect, and just spewing nonsense. One, she has flown this from Florida to Maine Multiple times, through the Dakotas and all over the West Coast and back and is flying it often. With more trips planned. Who are you to speak on something you have no idea about? This was the first prototype cowling as well, the mount and other components have been adjusted and it doesn't raise higher like this first one did. Most people have the Viking 195T or our new 175 engine in it as well and the cowling is different. Many people like the cowling and have no issues with it. I'm not a huge fan of a large majority of the cowlings out there, you should see the 915 on a Zenith looks horrible, it is all opinion. Stop being mean to justify your purchase of a ridiculously expensive engine.
What was the fuel burn at 118?
It is different at different altitudes but you should be able to do it between 6 and 8 GPH
My Rotax powered S-21 with 26” Tundra tires will do 138 KTS at altitude🤷🏻♂️
Cool, what altitude and fuel flow - would be cool if you did a video showing all altitudes, fuel flow, speeds etc., do you need oxygen?
Isn’t that FWF and engine $60k?
@@eggenfellner I have pics and a spreadsheet on all the altitudes and fuel flows for 60%, 70% and 80% power. 138kts was at FL190 @ 8.8 gph. 70% yields 130kts at 7 gph.down Lowe 50% yields 100kts at 5gph. I don’t know what the FWF price is as I bout it factory built. It does have an Airmaster CS which yours do not so that’ll drive the price up. I like the idea of auto engines but they just don’t have the high altitude performance of the Rotax. I see too many people being cheap on the proper engine and Adriana‘s not already spending 150-200K on airplane. Spending the additional shouldn’t break the bank. I get where your market is and I applaud you for revolutionizing the auto conversions. All we’re really comparing here is price as performance still goes to the dedicated aviation engine.
You are comparing a turbocharged engine to a non-turbocharged engine, it will always be different, we also have a 195Turbo engine that will fit this same engine mount. We are however trying to demonstrate that most of the performance that can be had with these more complicated and more expensive engines can also be had with a normally aspirated engine. Very few bush "style" pilots are going to want to use oxygen for most of their flights, or even go to that altitude. You are correct that this is a different market, those that enjoy building their own airplane and install their own engine. No matter your opinion, money is always a factor, and reality is the Rotax is over 3x the amount of initial cost, maintenance, overhaul and so forth. The chart would be nice to see, as I'm sure at some areas not at altitude performance overlaps.
@@eggenfellner turbo or non turbo I was comparing HP to HP. There’s no denying the quality of your engines and the cost. Reliability of a car engine running full tilt after 2000 hours has yet to truly be proven but titll probably be fine. There’s no denying the quality of a Rotax 915 either. And yes it cost more but you get a much lighter engine that performs better across the entire flight envelope. Let’s look at the 195T you offer. It’s 80LBs heavier than the 915 and as far as I know no automotive engine is Altertive compensating so it still degrades with altitude. Let’s pick 10,000. Your 195T will likely be producing 135Hp max. The exact same as mine using max cont not full take off and it’ll cruise at 128kts with big tires all while bribing 7.8gph. Can you even put a light weight electric CS on your engines or and CS for that matter?
As best I could upload my performance findings
4,000’
- [ ] 80% 119kt @ 7.8gph
- [ ] 70% 113kt @ 6.7gph
- [ ] 60% 103kt @ 5.7gph
6,000’
- [ ] 80% 121kt @ 7.8gph
- [ ] 70% 116kts @ 6.7gph
- [ ] 60% 107kt @ 5.7gph
8,000’
- [ ] 80% 125kt @ 7.9gph
- [ ] 70% 117kt @ 6.7gph
- [ ] 60% 110kt @ 5.7gph
10,000’
- [ ] 80% 128kt @ 7.8gph
- [ ] 70% 121kt @ 6.8gph
- [ ] 60% 112kt @ 5.7gph
12,000’
- [ ] 80% 130kt @ 7.9gph
- [ ] 70% 123kt @ 6.7gph
- [ ] 60% 115kt @ 5.8gph
14,000’
- [ ] 80% 131kt @ 7.9gph
- [ ] 70% 124kt @ 6.7hph
- [ ] 60% 117kt @ 5.7gph
16,000’
- [ ] 80% 133kt @ 7.7gph
- [ ] 70% 127kt @ 6.4gph
- [ ] 60% 118kt @ 5.5gph
18,000’
- [ ] 80% 137kt @ 8.8gph
- [ ] 70% 130kt @ 6.5gph
- [ ] 60% 118kt @ 5.4gph
19,000’
- [ ] 78% 138kt @ 8.7gph
- [ ] 70%
- [ ] 60%
21,000’
- [ ] 70% 132kt @ 7.8gph
- [ ] 70%
- [ ] 60%
23,000’
- [ ] 66% 130kt @ 7.3gph
Yes, we would like to review the numbers - thank you. At first glance, it looks similar at the altitudes most fly (4000-8000) for both engines. You are very far off about our turbo engine, it is not limited by altitude, but rather the size of the cooling/intercooler system so it is possible to produce a lot more power than from your setup. This however, isn't about our turbo engine, but rather something we are already flying in the RANS and that has a nice balance between weight, cost and performance. We do have a CS propeller, far superior and lighter than the Airmaster we designed with DUC, it has carbon fiber blades and hub and operates without motor/slip rings out on the prop/spinner making it less complex, and again lighter. It is also affordable. It is used in this video, and a lot of our videos show it as well, and how it works. Also, based on numbers seen in weights, any engine choice used, seems to all be within similar weights.