What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Aerosport vs New Lycoming from Van's

13brv3

13brv3

Well Known Member
Greetings,

As I start to make decisions about engines, and props, I'm considering whether I want to get a New O-360-A1A from Van's, or have Aerosport build one for me.

It would "seem" fairly easy to choose, since the Aerosport engine is a bit cheaper (Lycoming parts, roller cam), and has a few extra steps taken in assembly (balancing, etc). The warranty is better as well, and it can be customized with different ignition, etc. Going with the cheaper ECI parts version, and non-roller cam would save quite a bit, but it probably wouldn't be my preference.

On the other hand, I had a new Lycoming in my previous RV-8, and it was just as perfect as it was expected to be. Since it's a certified engine, it would seem that it's potentially worth more money as well, though only under certain circumstances. I'll also admit to an intangible value in being able to say it was a factory new engine.

Lycoming, or Aerosport. Which would you choose?
 
Aerosport definitely

Hi Rusty,

I can only speak from my experience here. I have a new Aerosport O-360A1A built up with Superior components and cylinders. I have the 9:2-1 pistons, LSE on one side, slick mag on the other.

The service, price and continued follow up from Bart and Sue at Aerosport has been excellent. The engine is a thing of beauty (paint, cleanliness, no cast flashing all through the cylinder fins like my hangar mate's lyc.). All the fittings and appropriate hoses, primer lines, harnesses, spark plugs, carb, gaskets were either installed or shipped with the engine.

The included engine log is very neat and shows all data pertaining to the 1 hr. run at Aerosport with compressions. Being a new airplane builder... I have called the Aerosport facility numerous times with general (sometimes stupid) questions about aircraft engines (adjustments, leaning, etc.) Everytime I called they answered my questions and really took the time to make sure that I had what I needed. I'm really impressed with the company.

Read Randy's engine section here for another perspective

http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Engine.htm

When I build my -10 for the family starting next year. An Aerosport engine will be on the nose!

Hope it helps.

Jeff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I went with ...

... an Aerosport engine from Bart as well. The warranty period is a big difference. Note that this is an experimental engine though, so it will be a 40hr flyoff instead of the 25hr for a certificated engine. 180hrs later, it makes no difference though ....
 
Rusty,

I can't beleive that you are really going through with this Lycoming thing. The other "guys" will be so disappointed. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

cheers,
Tracy.
 
I went through the same dilema a few years ago. I went with a new Aerosport using all Superior parts (before ECI stuff was an option.) I don't regret it for a second. Aerosport is the best company I've ever dealt with, in terms of support and follow up care. For example, six months after I bought my engine (set up for a c/s prop) harsh financial realities set in and forced me to go with a fixed pitch. I called Aerosport and talked to Bart about what parts I would need to convert it (front crank seal, governor pad cover.) He offered to send me all the parts (maybe $50 worth) and instructions for no charge, and a few days later I had them.

I don't know about Lycoming, but I was impressed with the extras which came with the engine. Fittings, primer lines and fittings, gaskets, lots of little goodies wihch can add up wuickly.
 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I mean what is the price difference? Several thousand. I heard some insurance companies where clamping down (eg no coverage) on experimental aircraft engines, but I think that is a non issue (comments). I have a genuine Lycoming but I bought a O-360A1A 600 hour for $2000 so it was a no brain'er. Buying today, new, I'd go Mattituck, Aerosport or one of the other good ECI/Superior engine shops. You get a warranty and save $$$$$$ what else could you want.. We are experimental and should enjoy every advantage we can. George
 
Last edited:
Just ordered me an Aerosport IO-360-B2B a few weeks ago based on all the rave reviews of their service & support. Can't wait to get it.

now I need to figure out how I want it painted...
 
So what it is you're all trying to say :D

OK, so it's an Aerosport, now how about some option opinions.

Just today, the Lycoming version of the O-360-A1A with the roller cam dropped $1800 in price due to a Lycoming promotion. This makes the Lycoming roller cam very close to the price of the Superior non-roller cam engine. I like the idea of the roller cam, and certainly don't mind having Lycoming brand parts, and the engine will be about $3k cheaper than the new engine from Van's, so it's what I'm leaning toward at the moment.

Superior claims to be...well "superior" to Lycoming parts. Are they? By enough that anyone would really notice? How about ECI. I get the impression they are just direct copies of Lycoming parts, at a lower price. With the ECI, I could save $5k over the price of the new Lycoming from Van's, which would almost pay for the new Hartzell.

What about 9.2 cr pistons? I'm leaning toward having those installed, but worry just a bit about the extra stress on the prop. Hartzell seems funny about all these rpm limitations.

Finally, I'm leaning real hard toward the E-mag/P-mag for ignition. Any reason I shouldn't use that?

Thanks for all the comments!
 
Can't imagine why you would think a factory Lycoming would add to the value of your airplane? I would have thought only a really uninformed purchaser would take that view. My thought is that any new engine from one of the well respected builders (Aerosport, Lycon, Barrett, Americas Engines, Mattituck, Penn-Yan, Performance Engines, etc) will command the same sort of money whether it is built from Lyc, Superior or ECi parts.

The benefit of using a builder is that you can specify what you want, instead of taking what Lyc are offering from their certified engine list. The versions available from Van's are just the most suitable of the engines that Lyc produces. That doesn't mean that a builder could not produce an engine that is more suitable for your needs. Shop around, find out what others would charge for what Lyc are offering (probably significantly less). One thing that most builders do that Lyc (reportedly) does not is carefully balance their engines - the stock specs for balance are rather lax, any decent builder will statically & dynamically balance an engine to much tighter tolerances. That means you get a much smoother ride.

I would only choose Lyc if they were several thousand $ cheaper than the other builders - a very unlikely situation. I recently got my engine overhaulled by Aerosport and have been very happy with their price, quality and service.

Yours, Pete

PS I've been using an E-mag for 15 months and am about to swap my remaining mag for a P-mag.
 
I would stick with the roller lifters if i were you. In my experience, I haven't seen any advantage to ECI or Superior's products of Lycomings. Superiors cylinders also tend to wear out faster under boost than standard ones in my experience, so I would stay away from the 9.2:1 pistons with superior cylinders. I don't see any other problems running the high compression pistons, but you might end up with a little less compression past the 1000hr mark

Stephen A&P
 
penguin said:
Can't imagine why you would think a factory Lycoming would add to the value of your airplane? I would have thought only a really uninformed purchaser would take that view.

PS I've been using an E-mag for 15 months and am about to swap my remaining mag for a P-mag.
Click to expand...

Hi Pete,

First, thanks for the E-mag comment. I'm pretty much committed to going that route. Aerosport charges $300 extra for an E-mag, and $600 extra for a P-mag, and I'll likely get one of each. I'll probably save that much on plugs alone.

As for the authentic Lycoming value comment. I did say "under certain circumstances". One would be if you suffered some financial problems, and had to sell off the project. A "real" Lycoming could be sold to someone with a certified plane, as well as an experimental guy, so the market is bigger. Also, lot's of folks want RV's to fly, and have not interest in building. Many of these folks have spent their whole life in production planes, and value a "certified" engine above anything else. This could easily bring more money at resale time.

BTW, I have never built a plane with the intent to sell it, but the RV-8 will be the 5th plane I've built, and so far, I've never flown one more than 2 years. From that history, I've come to realize that resale is important, which is why I'm not installing a rotary engine :)
 
osxuser said:
I would stick with the roller lifters if i were you. In my experience, I haven't seen any advantage to ECI or Superior's products of Lycomings. Superiors cylinders also tend to wear out faster under boost than standard ones in my experience, so I would stay away from the 9.2:1 pistons with superior cylinders. I don't see any other problems running the high compression pistons, but you might end up with a little less compression past the 1000hr mark

Stephen A&P
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Stephen. I have a friend with an RV-8, CS prop, and one of Bart's O-360 engines. I'm really leaning toward the 9.2 pistons, because my engine has to be just a little stronger than my friend's :D

The only downside is the eventual demise of 100LL fuel. Worst case, I guess I could change pistons if that became a problem. If I thought I could safely run premium auto fuel, it would be worth keeping the 8.5 pistons. I'm still researching this possibility.
 
Many choices

13brv3 said:
So what it is you're all trying to say :D OK, so it's an Aerosport, now how about some option opinions.

(No, many builders are excellent and they are all using the same parts, depends on where you live (shipping). Shop around.)


Superior claims to be...well "superior" to Lycoming parts. Are they? By enough that anyone would really notice? How about ECI.

(Ask the builders, the parts are very similar. Also ECI and superior are making PMA'ed parts, which means the part by itself can be installed on a Lycoming in a certified engine, and therefore must be close. Now when you make a whole engine from PMA'ed parts it is not certified, but the individual parts are. The reason they don't certify the whole ball of wax is millions of dollars in certification cost. The point is ALL parts must be almost functionally the same. Yes the SALES pitch is: "we have this little thing or this little thing", but they are all close. Also if they claim extra performance, it can't add more than 5% total power. Meaning a 180HP can be +/- 9HP and be good. Those fancy intakes and pistons or cylinders all do about the same thing. Now there are differences in cylinder bore treatments and materials. Some are better for corrosion resistance which is good for guys that don't fly much. I think the ECI jug is better in this regard. Superior is fine if you fly all the time, eg almost every day. Builders tell me the Superior parts look pretty but the quality is all there in any brand. Mattituck will build a part ECI/Superior/Lycoming using the best parts or saving money where there is no differnce.)

What about 9.2 cr pistons? I'm leaning toward having those installed, but worry just a bit about the extra stress on the prop. Hartzell seems funny about all these rpm limitations.

(I personally would not mess with HC pistons. Unless you really know what you are doing, have full engine instruments (CHT/EGTx4) and want to make an all out racer. Even than the extra few pony's is not going to make much difference, and you WILL be closer to detonation margins. If you don't know what detonation margins means you should research it. If it was easy and with out draw back Lycoming would have made it. How many Lycomings have over 8.7:1? NOT MANY. In fact the two engines that Lycoming produced and sold that had 9.0:1 or more Comp. where the 125Hp version of the O235 and the O320H2AD. The first was removed from service (because of too many problems) and the H2AD has a bad reputation, admittedly not from the 9to1 compression. This is not a hot rod, you may have your wife or kid sitting next to you, 8,000' above the ground. HC pistons are not a Ho-Hum decision. Now electronic ignition seems to be more of a obvious choice.)

(Not sure what your meant by the comment about Hartzell and HC pistons being funny. Yes Hartzell tested their prop with HC pistons, electronic ignition and they even did it on RV's. They found HC pistons and electronic ignition affects the Hartzell. It is no a big deal, especially if you go with the blended airfoil prop. If you use the HC-C2YK/F7666 you will have service life limited to 8,700 hours. This does not apply to the blended airfoil.)

Finally, I'm leaning real hard toward the E-mag/P-mag for ignition. Any reason I shouldn't use that?
(No, it is fine.)

Thanks for all the comments!
Click to expand...

DO your home work and call around. Oh yea brake the piggy bang and write a BIG-OL-CHECK. G
 
Last edited:
13brv3 said:
So what it is you're all trying to say :D
Superior claims to be...well "superior" to Lycoming parts. Are they? By enough that anyone would really notice? How about ECI. I get the impression they are just direct copies of Lycoming parts, at a lower price. With the ECI, I could save $5k over the price of the new Lycoming from Van's, which would almost pay for the new Hartzell.
Click to expand...


While Aerosport Power quotes engines built from ECI, Superior, or Lycoming components at different prices I suspect you might find that if you ask Bart Lalonde he may recommend an engine built from components from two or more suppliers, depending on your specific flying requirements. Obviously he can't quote on mix-n-match on his website because of the number of the infinite possible options. For instance if you only plan on flying 100 hours per year then cylinder corrosion could be a problem. In that case he might recommend an ECI nickel carbide cylinder which is warrantied for 5 years against corrosion. I know that Mattituck use this cylinder on their TMX engines.

With Lycoming, Superior and ECI all supplying certificated components I would think that the quality would be pretty good all around. And considering that they are all interchangeable on any particular engine there can't be huge differences in their design.

It's a strange fact these days that after a couple of major overhauls some people are flying around saying they've got a Lycoming powerplant when possibly the only Lycoming component left may be the crankcase...and sometimes not even that.
 
13brv3 said:
...the authentic Lycoming value comment. I did say "under certain circumstances". One would be if you suffered some financial problems, and had to sell off the project. A "real" Lycoming could be sold to someone with a certified plane, as well as an experimental guy, so the market is bigger. Also, lot's of folks want RV's to fly, and have not interest in building. Many of these folks have spent their whole life in production planes, and value a "certified" engine above anything else. This could easily bring more money at resale time.
Click to expand...


i've been under the impression that the moment you hang the "certified" engine on the experimental airplane, it too becomes "experimental". am i correct in thinking that if an engine is maintained by a non A&P pilot, it can't be installed in a certified airplane?

i took your post to mean that you would have a wider market to sell to for someone to fly it, but how 'bout this--it crossed my mind that if you were to sell the project to someone with the intent of using the engine in their certy'd airplane...this can't be done, correct?

i'm tired, so i hope that made sense... :)

btw, i'm back on the fence for a lyclone or an alternative engine...leaning back the other way to a lyclone...who knows.

:rolleyes:
 
For what its worth , I had been involved in the rebuild of my io 540 some time back. I decided to use superior parts instead of Lycoming for the most part. As the engine shop pointed out and I could clearly see, the Superior parts were far better finished off than the Lycoming counterpart. Granted this doesnt mean the quality is better, but sure seems the effort gone into superior parts is greater.
I was so impressed that I bought a xp360 from Superior for my RV . It looks beautifully finished. Is it better than a Lycoming, ECI, etc ?
Dunno. Dont think the difference will be felt in flight.But Im happy with my choice.
Bottom line , buy the one you like better. Just make sure its from a reputable company.
My 2 cents
 
cjensen said:
i've been under the impression that the moment you hang the "certified" engine on the experimental airplane, it too becomes "experimental". am i correct in thinking that if an engine is maintained by a non A&P pilot, it can't be installed in a certified airplane?
QUOTE]

My understanding is that if you drop a certificated donk in an experimental plane the engine becomes experimental as well. However if the engine is subsequently overhauled, or stripped and inspected, by a LAME and determined to be within spec for a certificated engine (and still has all certificated components) then it can be reclassified as such and used in a certificated plane.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for all the comments. It does sound like a mix and match solution to the parts brand may be in order. I'm sure Bart knows as well as anyone, which parts can be trusted the most, and which might have a performance edge over the others. When I get ready to make the order, I'll probably ask him to make his recommendation, and just go with that.

E-mag/P-mag is a go.

9.2 pistons... still don't know, but I'll try hard to talk myself out of these. Since I want a bulletproof engine, it would make sense to stick with the stock pistons.

As for the question of losing the certified designation of an engine by installing it in an experimental, this may depend on the timing. My example was the need to part out a "project" prior to completion, due to some unexpected financial trouble. Up until the point where the aircraft receives an airworthiness certificate, I have to believe the New Lycoming would remain certified.
 
Decertification

Guys,

It's in the nameplate and paperwork. If it isn't Lyc or a yellow tagged overhaul, it's experimental, and will remain so forever unless overhauled using Lyc parts and to Lyc specs and configuration, and then having a nameplate plastered on that is acceptable to the feds and carries a yellow tag. Shakespeare considers a rose is still a rose no matter what you call it, but not the FAA.

Hanging a cert mill on an experimental reorganizes its DNA according to the feds and it becomes experimental. I suspect the marketplace would want a price reduction to offset the risk of transferring a Lyc or other certified mill from an experimental to a cert airframe; they'd have to deal with that pesky engine log. If nothing was written saying it was placed in service on an experimental...such deals are done in back alleys. So why meddle with a certified engine destined for an experimental airframe? The only difference is 15 less flyoff hours (and even then some folks get lucky with their DAR).

Bart has given me excellent service. You can configure your engine any way you like. I wouldn't consider an engine without at least one EI; two makes more sense to me to reduce parts count, and life-cycle costs of a mag are much more than EI. I know of several 320s carrying 10:1 pistons. They're happy as a clam at high tide while dynoing in the 200s. Your choice on everything, and Bart will tell you straight away if a combination isn't good. If you really, really want a factory Lyc, I'd shop price amongst the clones and go with the cheapest. Again, no real advantage to a cert engine on an experimental.

John Siebold
 
My preference is Lycoming. I have owned two brand new 0-360s. The latest in my 7A. Lyc makes them to Van's Specs and they fit perfectly using Van's install kits. I liked the fact that I could get parts from Van's that worked properly with the engines and I didn't have to reinvent any wheels. I also like the fact that Lycoming has always stood behind their engines and provide bulletins if there is a problem. I got two year warranty that started after the engine was first run, a month before I flew it, 8 months after I got it. There may be other fine engines out there, but this is why I chose Lycoming.

I like Lyc,

Roberta :)
 
RV7ator said:
Guys,

Bart has given me excellent service. You can configure your engine any way you like. I wouldn't consider an engine without at least one EI; two makes more sense to me to reduce parts count, and life-cycle costs of a mag are much more than EI. I know of several 320s carrying 10:1 pistons. They're happy as a clam at high tide while dynoing in the 200s. Your choice on everything, and Bart will tell you straight away if a combination isn't good. If you really, really want a factory Lyc, I'd shop price amongst the clones and go with the cheapest. Again, no real advantage to a cert engine on an experimental.

John Siebold
Click to expand...

I recommend against the really high compression engines (like a 10:1 320). I know one of those guys that just detonated his IO-320 that was 200+ HP. The high HP really sacrfices realiablity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top