What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 with a Lycoming TNIO-390-X Turbo Engine

R

RV9AFlyer

Member
In looking at the performance numbers of the RV-10 and in talking with people that had flown the 210 HP, RV-10 variant, I found it hard to believe that guys like me wouldn't be interested. However, instead of the less reliable Continental 210 HP engine, I was thinking the 4-cylinder normalized turbo Lycoming TNIO-390-X would be a good fit. In looking at a cruse fuel burn of 12.3 GPH vs. 16.8 GPH of the IO-540, the lower maintenance cost of a 4-cylinder, the lighter weight, the higher altitude performance of a normalized turbo and the lower initial cost, then it all seems to boil down to airframe efficiency. In comparing my RV-9A, using the 160 HP Lycoming that flies at 160 knots, to say a Piper Warrior with the same engine HP, which flies at 108 knots at the same fuel burn, it becomes very clear that airframe efficiency is much more important than raw HP. Scientifically, this makes sense because drag is directly proportional to the cube of speed (drag = K x speed^3), so horsepower doesn't buy you much once you hit that aerodynamic "wall" anyway! Since the RV-10 has very low overall drag (like all other RV's), why not use a Lycoming TNIO-390-X, 210HP or even the IO-390-X, 200HP engine, which is about $12,000 less than a IO-540 anyway, which the RV-10 currently uses?

When I asked Van's people this same question, they said no one would be interested. I myself would be first on the list, SO WHAT SAY YOU GUYS?

John R.
N119WB, RV-9A Flying since 2004
 
RV9AFlyer said:
In looking at the performance numbers of the RV-10 and in talking with people that had flown the 210 HP, RV-10 variant, I found it hard to believe that guys like me wouldn't be interested. However, instead of the less reliable Continental 210 HP engine, I was thinking the 4-cylinder normalized turbo Lycoming TNIO-390-X would be a good fit. In looking at a cruse fuel burn of 12.3 GPH vs. 16.8 GPH of the IO-540,
John R.
N119WB, RV-9A Flying since 2004
Click to expand...

I think if you do some research on what fuel burns RV-10 pilots are getting you will find that your quote of 16.8 GPH is way off.
Guys that are flying at altitudes that allow operating at 75% power (and use fuel flows to produce that power) are running 13.5 - 14.0 GPH.
The typical RV-10 operating at a little higher altitudes (11.5 - 12.5) typically burn somewhere around 11.5 GPH (around 60% pwr) truing out at about 185 MPH.
 
RV9AFlyer said:
I

When I asked Van's people this same question, they said no one would be interested. I myself would be first on the list, SO WHAT SAY YOU GUYS?

John R.
N119WB, RV-9A Flying since 2004
Click to expand...


I've asked the guys at Van's tent at OSH and SnF the same question. Their answer is essentially that if they saw a market, they would try the smaller engine approach. They just don't get many people who want *lower* hp engines - most people want even more HP than the recommended 260...

From my perspective, a 175 (cruise) mph 4 cylinder RV-10 would be a great option for those of us who don't need the climb and altitude performance the bigger engine offers.

But that's just me. And maybe you. ;-)
 
Continental engine

I looked at that same issue with my 10. I had a Seneca with the TSIO 360 engines. I found them to be great engines, very smooth and strong. Both my 360 E's went past 1800 hours without a hitch. I personally would much rather have the Cont. 6cyl. over a 4cyl. from Lycoming. Van's seems to think that very few homebuilder's would want one so hasn't supported that. I'd have the Continental engine if Van had supported it.
As far as the 540 goes, it's pretty smooth as well, and strong. I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but I lean to less than 10 gal/hr and get close to 150 knots. I'm not sure you'll beat that much with a 4cyl, but the turbo would be nice. I'm of the opinion that one of the best safety items you can install is a bigger engine, so would rather have the 260 HP.

You pays your money and takes your choice.
 
My opinion is that your resale value will be degraded. It is almost like saying I will build a custom two bedroom, 1 bath house because it is cheaper and all I need. That is fine but find another person who wants the same.
 
Ron Lee said:
My opinion is that your resale value will be degraded. It is almost like saying I will build a custom two bedroom, 1 bath house because it is cheaper and all I need. That is fine but find another person who wants the same.
Click to expand...
I think he would find a few--especially at $6 avgas. That being said, do you really spend all that time building an airplane thinking about resale?

Masterplumber said:
I'm of the opinion that one of the best safety items you can install is a bigger engine, so would rather have the 260 HP.
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with most everything you said however, I'd have to disagree with this. Not arguing one way or another for 540 vs 390, the single biggest causes of accidents, fatal and non is maneuvering flight. A bigger engine doesn't change a pilots lack of flying skills, however it may engender some overconfidence.

Gary 40274 said:
I suspect that the weight difference might cause some heartache. Do you know the two engine weights?
Click to expand...
The RV-10 with the IO-540 is slightly nose heavy. Hence the need for the 50 Pound ballast in the rear when flying solo. The slightly lighter Cont. IO-360 and IO-390X actually makes for a more well balanced aircraft.
 
All Van's had to do was look at the RV-9(A) sales to figure out people just want bigger engines.

The -9 was designed around the O-235 at the low end and the O-320 at the upper end. I might be wrong here but I suspect there are more RV-9(A)'s flying with O-360's than there are flying with O-235's.

Thus I have to agree with Van's on the big engine thing.
 
w1curtis said:
The RV-10 with the IO-540 is slightly nose heavy. Hence the need for the 50 Pound ballast in the rear when flying solo. The slightly lighter Cont. IO-360 and IO-390X actually makes for a more well balanced aircraft.
Click to expand...

The maybe be OK when flying alone but what about with passengers?
 
Realistically

Fuel flow is simply a factor of how much power your making...Assuming you are running WOT.

Thus either engine will be sucking the same amount of gas for the same amount of power, if they are both being run either ROP or LOP.

The same power in the same airfame at WOT will suck the same amount of fuel.


At the upper end of the LOP power envelope I suspect the IO540 will be more fuel efficient bacause it can run LOP whereas the 4 banger will have to run ROP to keep up.

Bottom line I don't think it makes much diffeence form a fuel economy standpoint but the bigger motor can save you fuel under certain operating regimes.

For me personally I see more Cessna's parked in trees at the end of runways than I do RV's...More climb equals more safety in my book...As long as you know how to use the rudder that is.

Frank
 
In the "early days" of the RV-10, Van's sent out a survey to all of the builders at the time polling them on engine interest. Don't recall the exact figures, but out of the 100+ builders that responded only a couple indicated any interest in anything except a Lyc 540. It was shortly after that when they dropped the notion of producing a FWF kit for the TCM IO-360 that's on N220RV.

Above was written up in an issue of the RVator but unfortunately I don't know which issue.

Bob
 
TSwezey said:
The maybe be OK when flying alone but what about with passengers?
Click to expand...
Still nose heavy but within range without a ballast.

N941WR said:
All Van's had to do was look at the RV-9(A) sales to figure out people just want bigger engines.
Click to expand...
Do you or they have the numbers or is this just truthiness? I guess the only way to know for sure is by counting the types of engine mounts sold. I'm not sure if there is a 360 can use the same mount as the 320. If I were to *guess*, I would think the most popular engine for the RV-9 was the factory recommended 160 HP IO-320. It is less expensive than the 360, and supported/recommended by the factory.

As pilots we always want bigger engines, just as kids we always want more candy. The issue is, most pilots aren't engineers and they think a bigger engine will solve all (engineering & flying) problems. The RV-9 was designed to be a docile, easy to fly airplane-in comparison to the other RVs. The solution for potential RV-9(A) builders that want a bigger (more than 160 HP) engine is an RV-7 and additional flight training.

frankh said:
At the upper end of the LOP power envelope I suspect the IO540 will be more fuel efficient bacause it can run LOP whereas the 4 banger will have to run ROP to keep up.

Bottom line I don't think it makes much diffeence form a fuel economy standpoint but the bigger motor can save you fuel under certain operating regimes.
Click to expand...
It seems every six months or so this topic come up and various folks try to convince others (and themselves) of how a bigger engine is more safe, more efficient, etc. Those same folks could probably extrapolate how a bigger engine will make you younger, cure baldness and male ED, but like this the above is voodoo science.

You science is fine up until you forget about the additional weight of the bigger engine that has to be carried around at that same power. At the same power the bigger engine will be SLOWER. Also, all fuel injected Lycomings (and even some carborated) engines can be run lean of peak, so your ROP or LOP argument is a red herring. The more climb = more safety can be valid in routinely hot and high areas but this is a special circumstances. As for your anecdotal evidence of "more Cessna's parked in trees" well, the simple fact is that more RV meet inglorious ends due to maneuvering flight than more Cessnas and there are more Cessnas out there. But this has nothing to do with powerplant size.
 
Last edited:
w1curtis said:
Do you or they have the numbers or is this just truthiness?

As pilots we always want bigger engines, just as kids we always want more candy. The issue is, most pilots aren't engineers and they think a bigger engine will solve all (engineering & flying) problems. The RV-9 was designed to be a docile, easy to fly airplane-in comparison to the other RVs. The solution for potential RV-9(A) builders that want a bigger (more than 160 HP) engine is an RV-7 and additional flight training.
Click to expand...


Well, the -7 outsells the -9 about 2:1.. maybe that says something about people wanting more power?

Bottom line is, if you can fly the -9, you can fly the -7... no way you'd need any additional training.... The differences between these two are SO overblown on the internets..
 
w1curtis said:
Do you or they have the numbers or is this just truthiness? I guess the only way to know for sure is by counting the types of engine mounts sold. I'm not sure if there is a 360 can use the same mount as the 320. If I were to *guess*, I would think the most popular engine for the RV-9 was the factory recommended 160 HP IO-320. It is less expensive than the 360, and supported/recommended by the factory.
Click to expand...
Yes, the O-320 is the most popular engine on the -9 but that's not what I said. I was pointing out that there are probably more -9's powered by the O-360 than there are by the O-235.

I also did a quick search of the first 100 records returned for RV-9A from the FAA' database and found that a number of the engines are experimental and no size or type were listed, which means either Subbie, O-320, or O-360 kit. Of the planes with engine size listed, the majority was O-320 (No surprise there), two were listed with O-360's, and one with an O-290 (and no, it wasn't mine as I searched on -9A's). I suspect this is probably a valid representation.

As far as an RV-9 FwF kit for the smaller engines, it doesn't really exist. I had to to manufacture a number of parts for my O-290 installation and pick and chouse the items that would work. Including heavily modifying the baffles and modify a custom throttle bracket Van's punched just for me. (Check the engine page on my web site for details.) If there were a market for small engines, I'm sure Van's would have a complete FwF kit for them.

As for the cost difference between an O-320 and an O-360, it is only a few grand. Not enough to worry about at that point. Van's prices: O-320 - $21650.00 vs. O-360 - $22650.00 for their experimental engines.
 
Last edited:
Climb on a -10 won't be too inspiring with 200hp at full gross on a hot day even at SL. Throw in some elevation and you might as well just fly a 182. If you fly with only two seats full and some light but bulky baggage in the back, the smaller engine might be ok. Certainly at altitude the turbo would probably match the IO-540 in cruise.
 
As pilots we always want bigger engines, just as kids we always want more candy. The issue is, most pilots aren't engineers and they think a bigger engine will solve all (engineering & flying) problems. .
Click to expand...

Live and fly in high density altitude mountainous areas.......

and yes, you'll want the BIGGER engine! :eek:

A big advantage of an RV, is the extra kick in the pants when it's needed. I don't like seeing RV's brought down to the level of spam cans in performance, when it comes to density altitude!

L.Adamson
 
w1curtis said:
Still nose heavy but within range without a ballast.

.
Click to expand...

William,
I just have to ask...

How much personal flight time do you have in RV-10's. I just have to wonder what makes you continue to preach this?

There are many RV-10 builders who have now been flying there airplanes for quite some time, and they have publicly spoken out against this idea.

I have quite a bit of time in RV-10's and I would not consider them to be any different than a C-182 with only the front seats occupied.

If you consider a C-182 with four adult occupants to be still nose heavy but acceptable without ballast, then I guess I accept your assessment.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
William,
I just have to ask...

How much personal flight time do you have in RV-10's. I just have to wonder what makes you continue to preach this?.
Click to expand...
Maybe as much as you even though you work at the factory.

Preach what? That it is nose heavy with the IO-540? I don't have to preach it, I feel it. Also, when have you last done a CG calculation with 2 and 4 passengers? Within limits means fully controllable but I guess a ham fisted pilot would not be able to feel it or be a aware of how much trim they are using for a given CG.

-If an aircraft is well balanced, this implies that the trim is neutral for a given or across the CG range. The primary variables to the CG range are the passengers and baggage since they are farthest from the MAC.

-If an aircraft is nose heavy, this implies some type of ballast is required in order to NOT run out of trim for a given CG.

-If an aircraft is nose heavy but within limits, this means that more up trim is required but no ballast is required and you will not run out of trim for a given CG.

Those are the definitions for the terms I have used. Have you noted in detail how much up trim you were using for each of your various flight scenarios? I have. I don't preach anything, I just relate the facts and the science. Preaching implies putting forth an opinion without facts or science and relying on faith from the audience. Am I preaching?

But let me try to put it another way for the (HP?) challenged. If I could get a 260HP engine in the size and weight of the IO-360 or IO-390X in the RV-10, not only would it fly FASTER than the IO-540 RV-10, it would fly BETTER because it is more balanced--hope I don't have to explain the "less horizontal stabalizer down lift" again. I wish I could but I can't and since there are no other practical engine options for the RV-10, I have already purchased my TMX IO-540.

 
Cognitive Dissonance

There is a reason car companies make and successfully sell cars that can go three times the speed limit or from zero to sixty in six seconds, even to folks in Manhattan. We want that "kick in the pants" and we will internally adjust the laws of physics and empirical data to satisfy that need. The simple fact is that most people are ruled by their emotions and they can come up with all kinds of justifications to satisfy their emotions.

If you want a bigger engine or more HP, go for it!
If you want a smaller engine and less HP for more efficiency, go for it!
All within the aircraft design range of course. With each configuration there will be benefits and drawbacks.

If one doesn't have that need for HP and would rather go for efficiency, then voodoo science and anecdotal justifications should remain internal. But trying to convince others with ones own emotional rational and spurious science is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

A "kick in the pants" is nice, but outside of hot-and-high when is it really "needed?" What's appropriate for a pilot in Arizona and Utah is not necessarily needed or appropriate for a pilot east of the Mississippi.
 
w1curtis said:
A "kick in the pants" is nice, but outside of hot-and-high when is it really "needed?" What's appropriate for a pilot in Arizona and Utah is not necessarily needed or appropriate for a pilot east of the Mississippi.
Click to expand...

Yes......... So very true!

And all will be just fine, until you take your eastern "born" and lower powered RV to the panoramic vistas of the wild west,........ west of Denver. :D

But seriously, I can think of three close to home accidents off hand, where the pilot was use to coastal elevations, and bought the dust out here in the Rocky Mountain states. The last was plainly visible from my backyard, as I live next to the airport.

Extra horsepower, that would at least permitted the aircraft to perform as it always had at lower elevation airports, would have made the difference. Since I'm very much into a high density altitude, and performance mindset; I do prefer the most engine available for the design, along with a C/S prop. Besides, it can all be "balanced" out, and there's no reason to worry about additional drag causing forces on the horizontal stab/elevator.

L.Adamson
 
I find it amusing how this particular snake (hot rod 4 cyl engine/RV10) keeps re-appearing time and time again, no matter how many times it has had it head cut off.

This discussion has happened on this forum 3 or 4 times already, try searching a bit.

As to the C/G issues, all load that goes into a 10 is either right at C/G, or behind it. The empty C/G must start out at the front of the envelop, or you could not put much of a load on board------passengers/baggage.
 
Unless alternate engine users are prepared to do the calcs and fabrication for a custom engine mount, it's probably not gonna happen anyway. You can put almost any 200-350hp engine you want in a -10 if the C of G and structural concerns are addressed and it will fly. If that's what you want to do, just do it and let us know how it works. Always interesting to see something different.

We've had people plan everything from turbocharged Ecotec 4 cylinders, various Wankels to Todd's supercharged GM LS V8. To date only the Conti 360, Lyco 540 and Subaru EZ30 have flown in -10s to my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Mike,

Yup, as I've noted above, this topic pops up ever few months or so. I think the reason it goes on each time is that the initial question is never answered but instead opinions are put forward. That is;

Q: "Would the 210 HP Lycoming work in an RV-10?"

A: "Yes, it would work. It's weight and power are well is within the Van's design parameters but good luck since you will have to develop you own Firewall Forward package in order to use it. Van?s survey determined that there was not enough demand for the smaller engine."

It would end there but instead of answering the question, those with set paradigms interject "doom and gloom" at the mere suggestion of the lower powered engine.

Some of the "doom and gloom" -- all (the last may be debated) of which are inaccurate.
-fuel burn on the IO-390 (IO-360) is about the same as the IO-540;
-it is too light for the RV-10 and the weight difference will cause you heartache;
-you will have poor resale value;
-the IO540 will be more fuel efficient because it can run LOP whereas the 4 banger will have to run ROP to keep up;
-the bigger motor can save you fuel under certain operating regimes;
-the 4 banger will vibrate too much for the RV-10
-lower power will bring the RV down to the level of spam cans in performance;
-a bigger engine is safer;

Someone please show me the science or data that proves any of these? Well, as I've noted, that last one can be true under certain circumstances if used correctly, but generally is no more true than high wings are safer than low wings.

If you use the HP between the ears and don't exceed the DA limitations of your engine/airframe combination then you do not necessarily need more aircraft horsepower. Using the example of accidents as a result of attempting takeoff in conditions of high DA, is missing the point of the accident. Yes more power may have helped but some pilots thinking they are safe with more power, only proceed to load up the aircraft that much more and end up in the same or worse position than a lower powered airframe/engine combination. Contrast this with a pilot who considers all the factors and makes the best judgment about takeoff with the engine/airframe combination and DA considerations.

There are a few clearly underpowered aircraft out there. NONE of the RVs with an engine in the range specified by Van's are underpowered. The 210 HP RV-10 is NOT underpowered. If one feels safer flying the 540 powered RV-10 over the 210 HP RV-10 anywhere but maybe in the southwest, then they should consider additional training and pilot decision making.

In this quest for more, more, more HP, I remember the 600 HP RV-10stein that was offered on eBay last year. Who will convince me that this high tension lawn dart is safer than a 210 HP RV-10?
 
w1curtis said:
Mike,

If you use the HP between the ears and don't exceed the DA limitations of your engine/airframe combination then you do not necessarily need more aircraft horsepower. Using the example of accidents as a result of attempting takeoff in conditions of high DA, is missing the point of the accident. Yes more power may have helped but some pilots thinking they are safe with more power, only proceed to load up the aircraft that much more and end up in the same or worse position than a lower powered airframe/engine combination.
Click to expand...

The point of these accidents was indeed, gross weight, or slightly higher; added to a combination of high density altitudes. What would have been survivable at sea-level, only resulted in not escaping ground effect, or a low level mush and dropping wing until a cartwheel.

What's different here, is that "normally", the RV has a higher power to weight ratio than your standard Piper, Cessna, Beech, and Air Commander (looks like I was thinking of four accidents instead of three :()

It's not a normal everyday thing, for the average RV builder/pilot, to keep heaping on the extra weight, just because it DOES have a higher power to weight ratio.

Point is, with an RV's advantage to start with, why downgrade the aircraft to the limitations of a commercially bought machine?

L.Adamson
 
w1curtis said:
Mike,


Q: "Would the 210 HP Lycoming work in an RV-10?"

A: "Yes, it would work. It's weight and power are well is within the Van's design parameters but good luck since you will have to develop you own Firewall Forward package in order to use it. Van’s survey determined that there was not enough demand for the smaller engine."

QUOTE]

I think you should read the first post. Nowhere does he say "Will a 210 HP RV-10 work?". He asked us "what say you guys?". He was asking US what we thought not whether it would work. I would imagine you could fly that plane on 150 HP.
Click to expand...
 
Efficiency and Power

I am in the SB fuselage stage right now and am still undecided about the engine solution, though the far-easiest path is the FWF solution provided (IO-540). Having taken my test flight in the 210HP Continental RV-10 and hopping off the runway in less distance than I'd ever done in a 4-seat GA aircraft, I was impressed, but disappointed that the FWF for the Continental IO-360 (6cyl) was not available. Alas, the solutions folks seek will be largely determined by what is really available.

As for the power versus efficiency choice, my preference is to have a solution that will be more economical and versatile. My tech advisor suggests considering a Continental O-470 or IO-470 as a 'smoother-running' engine, less fuel burn -- the 210HP non-FI version even can handle 80/87 octane autogas. I'd love to see a good diesel/jet-a alternative for this niche but DeltaHawk doesn't seem to be getting to production fast enough, the European alternatives are twice the new cost of a Lyc ($70K!).

So I have a two questions for the list on this thread:

1. What extra effort is required to install an engine other than an IO-540, same or less dimensions, engine weight ~+/-20lbs? I know I'd need a custom engine mount and calculations, possibly cowling and baffling. What else? Who would I go to in order to get a custom engine mount? What are the rough costs involved?

2. If one wants extra power at altitude, it sounds like a turbocharger is a good idea, but why not a supercharger? Is it reasonable to adapt an automotive supercharger to provide a little more compressed air to the engine, especially one with lower rated (sea level) HP? (For those times when you need a boost...)

Doug.
 
ddnebert said:
So I have a two questions for the list on this thread:

1. What extra effort is required to install an engine other than an IO-540, same or less dimensions, engine weight ~+/-20lbs? I know I'd need a custom engine mount and calculations, possibly cowling and baffling. What else? Who would I go to in order to get a custom engine mount? What are the rough costs involved?
Click to expand...
Seems this would be easier than an auto engine conversion. If you had the welding skills or resources, the FF kit from say, the RV-7 minus the engine mount would be a good starting point. Or you can use the RV-7 engine mount as a starting point to build a IO-360/390X mount for the RV-10. A properly designed mount would allow you to use the existing cowling. You may have to remove the chin scoop however.

I also think Van's would be MUCH more comfortable with this *experiment* than with ANY auto engine conversion.

ddnebert said:
2. If one wants extra power at altitude, it sounds like a turbocharger is a good idea, but why not a supercharger? Is it reasonable to adapt an automotive supercharger to provide a little more compressed air to the engine, especially one with lower rated (sea level) HP? (For those times when you need a boost...)

Doug.
Click to expand...
The STC'd supercharger from Forced Aeromotive Tech (FAT) available for the Cessna, Cirrus & experimentals I think started out as an automotive supercharge. Could use their package or put together your own. I often eye the accessory pad next to the vacuum pump pad on the back of my engine and think of "future possibilities."
parts.jpg
 
Last edited:
At an OSH RV-10 forum a couple 2-3 years ago the question about using a TCM 470 or 520 was asked of Ken K. He responded that that the install would be heavier than the Lycoming 540 and that there was an issue with the mount/nose gear interference that would be a bear to work out.

As most that have actually flown N220RV (has the 210 HP TCM engine) will confirm, there is certainly enough power there to fly the plane. As a side note, this is the plane that Mike Seager uses for RV-10 transition training. The other major transition trainer for RV-10s is Alex De Dominicis' N110LV which has a Lycoming IO-540 and an air conditioning system.

Bob #40105
 
You'd probably want to start with the stock mount to retain the rear pickup points and gear pickup points. Get the non-powder coated one. The engine will have to be moved way forward to retain the C of G. You will need to extend the cowling several inches as well. An RV7A mount will be essentially useless. Don't forget to offset the engine as the factory does and allow for sag etc. I guarantee you'll have fun!.

Superchargers are not popular in GA aircraft because the turbo is lighter, more efficient, more reliable and far easier to control manifold pressure at altitude. Sure it will work but they are clumsy. At least these guys are using a centrifugal compressor.

Van's is probably not keen on any non-factory engineered engine installations but I bet they are interested to see it and see how it performs.

This could be the start of something great.
 
Last edited:
Big engine vs, smaller engines

Old addage in racing "the only substitute for power is cubic inches, and the only substitute for cubic inches is cubic money" Enter yet another addage, performance with regards to weight per cubic inch engine displacement.
At 2700 gross a 540 RV10, is lifting 5 # per cubic inch vs 7 for a 390. or a 40% increase. Will the 390 pull a 2700# RV10, certainly, but it will be struggling for speed, and after all, is this not why we are building the RV10?, and yes it "may" have a lower fuel burn, but with the loss of speed, in the end, the 540 will be equal in consumption or even less point A to point B. Let's not forget climb, time to climb at full power is considerably longer with the small engine, and it will have a very active FF gauge, while the 540 is arriving in a shorter lenght of time, faster in speed, and cruising faster.
I'm reminded when I owned a 140 Cherokee (O322-150hp). After much tweaking , I was able to reach it's published top speed of 142 MPH, Cruise at 120. Fuel burn 9 gph average(realisticaly) GW 2200#. When I replaced it with the Arrow (IO 360-180 hp, 2500GW) I received a sort of a tongue lashing being reminded of fuel consumption, Well guess what, the Arrow burned 1 gph more but cruised (at first)at 155. With the C/S prop at altitude 165 and After much "tweaking and LASAR, cruise now at top speed 170, and 8 gph at 10K, 9 at lower altitudes (averages), not to mention faster climb rate.
The notion that a smaller engine for an airframe designed for a larger one will be ecomonical is a fantasy. Yeah, one would be airborn, but speed wise a lot slower, with an engine struggling to stay affloat, meaning that it will need more power, and using more fuel than normally. At point B the fuel tanks will be much emptier that one with a 540. Lastly, a four seater (540), is now a 2 seater (360/390).
TT
RV10 N968TP
 
Assuming Van's numbers are realistic at all, they are showing 1150 FPM initial climb and 160 KTS (75% @ 8000) at gross weight, on 210 HP. I wouldn't consider that "struggling". In fact, with that performance and a 1180 lb. useful load, it sounds like an absolutely awesome C-182 substitute, for maybe 1/3 the price.
 
C0mparisons

I don't think we're comparing an RV10 to a C182 (which BTW I fly) The gross weight climb is still significant, as is it's ceiling. Given engine with comperable technology, the 540 in an RV10 would be money well spent. As I recall, a poll was taken (which I received) with the intention of determining the feasability of manufacturing FF kits for a the 210hp version of the -10. To my recollection (and I may be wrong) it was thumbs down. FYI, the 210 Conti is just about the same weight as a straight valve 540. In the end weight per cubic inch becomes a formidable consideration.
TT
RV10
N968TP
 
tacchi88 said:
I don't think we're comparing an RV10 to a C182 (which BTW I fly) The gross weight climb is still significant, as is it's ceiling. Given engine with comperable technology, the 540 in an RV10 would be money well spent. As I recall, a poll was taken (which I received) with the intention of determining the feasability of manufacturing FF kits for a the 210hp version of the -10. To my recollection (and I may be wrong) it was thumbs down. FYI, the 210 Conti is just about the same weight as a straight valve 540. In the end weight per cubic inch becomes a formidable consideration.
TT
RV10
N968TP
Click to expand...
TT,

I'd be interested in seeing your W&B calculations. I posted the below information about a year ago but let me post it again for your benefit. I forgot to add this (mis)information to the list false claims and "doom and gloom."

The 210 HP Continental IO-360 ES weighs 305 pounds dry.
http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF

The 260 HP parallel valve Lycoming IO-540 D series weighs 412 pounds dry.
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/engines/series/pdfs/540ci Engine Insert.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comparisons

Willaim,
If you are installing a 360 Conti or a 390 Lycoming, it's your choice to do so. But this chat like any other, is full of information to draw from, and after all, is that not their purpose, information?
Perhaps I should have elaborated on the "just about the same weight" statement a little further.
I am well versed on the subject of weight and balance.
TT
RV10 N968TP
Lyc IO540/per plans
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RV10inOz said:
There is no Replacement for Displacement :cool:

DB:cool:
Click to expand...

That's what the racing community used to say until small displacement turbo engines annihilated their big engines. They were so successful and reliable that they were eventually banned in most racing classes.

A 390 inch engine with about 36 inches of manifold pressure would be very similar in performance to an IO-540 and a bit better at altitude. Just run it at or below 30 inches in cruise.

Would be an interesting project.
 
lawrence said:
refering to www.vansairaft.com .looks like the 210 hp rv-10 is 80 #s lighter then the 265 hp version.low empty weight is good?? or does this plane need the extra weight up front? just a thought.
Click to expand...
No need to add extra weight up front, if Van's extended the engine mount, which I suspect they would have done. No different than the 2" longer engine mount they sent me for my light engine. W&B worked out great!
 
Bigger is better!

My current 195 Cessna has 175 hp over the stock version. I have owned a stock version, and can tell you BIGGER is BETTER. I use very little runway, probably less than your RV's, can carry 4 other people and a full bag of gas. I cruise 27 kts tas faster than the stock 195, and yes I burn more gas. I am happy to do so because of the huge proformance improvement. I don't have to worry about density altitude, mountains, or trees. Just need to eat more spinach for that right rudder!

More power is better any day! I have owned underpowered aircraft, Cessna 140, won't do that again! But to each his own, the thrifty ones can have there marginal power plants. Nope, not me I'm going for the largest hp I can.

As for the supercharger comment posted by Ross, my supercharged R985 runs flawlesly!

This posting has got me thinking about the Cont. IO 360 again for my RV 8....
I don't know why people talk **** about the Cont. 360, I've got alot of time flying them, and have never had a problem. My buddy at one of the big name engine shops says they see no problems with these engines. They make TBO, unlike its bigger brother the IO 520, got lots of time with these as well, and yes you do need to treat them with kid gloves.

If the original question is what do you think, I thinks you should go for the 260 hp IO 540.
 
Last edited:
I know this engine is designed to be normalized only. A slight change to the wastegate actuator would give you 35 inches for TO and the same 260hp or so as the 540. In cruise at altitude, you'd run away from an atmo 540 just running 30 inches or less.

Lower weight would mean higher payload.

Now you just have to engineer and fab the mount and lengthen the cowling. This is the show stopper for most people.

One other thing though, this engine lists for the same price as a new IO-540 so you'd have to have a good reason to do all this work.:(
 
Stick with the Plans

Stick to the plans is about the best most wise advice ever given.

Second wisdom, "there is no replacement for displacement". Getting more HP out of less cubic inches means what, the engine is working harder. You will find an analogy in the car world. A 4 cyl model does not get much better mileage than a 6 cyl (2 or 3 mpg) in the same car, simply because power is power.

Stay away from turbos, more maintenance. Lycs make gobs of power (torque) at low RPM. A normal ATMO 540 engine is plenty of power, and this is what Van designed the RV-10 for in dimension, cg, structure and aerodynamics.

Stay away from twiddling with wastegates and over boosting a Lycoming that was NOT designed to be turboed in the first place. You will end up spending more money, time and have little or no gain.

Yes Turbos have great altitude performance (with an inter-cooler more weight, cost and complexity).

I vote for stock configuration. Van has it all figured out. I think I know better often but I have to differ to Van The MAN. His total performance design philosophy will give you a beautiful, safe, reliable high performance plane with minimal cost and effort, IF YOU STICK WITH PLANS.

Express your creative self with the paint, upholstery and instrument panel. If you deviate plan on grief, time, money and more risk of every kind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what the racing community used to say until small displacement turbo engines annihilated their big engines. They were so successful and reliable that they were eventually banned in most racing classes.
Click to expand...

You know the only reason the Indy guys still come to Surfers Paradise once a year???? its because of these.....
http://www.v8supercar.com.au/

And when racing on the worlds best touring car circuit Mt Panorama all the fancy turbo'ed and whatever cars get blown into the weeds by these....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5815748148815017816

Yep some of you might recognise the Pontiac GTO as it was sold to you guys over there!

All the European and American Muscle was not in the race, and the following year, with a bigger foreign attack the Holden Monaro did a 1-2. This is worth watching this clip!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1469854398652794854&vt=lf&hl=en

So yes, some fancy toys do generate HP, but there is no replacement for displacement. And then if you want more supercharge the V8!:eek:

OK back into my box down under....:D

DB:cool:
 
Last edited:
RV-10 vs Mooney M20-K stock or 305 Rocket

My last airplane was a Mooney 231. For the first year I had it it was stock (TSIO-360LB and 210 HP). For the last 9 years and 1000 hours it had a TSIO 520NB and 305 HP. I sold it 5 years ago and am now in a position to replace it. I live in Denver and more of my flights were west over mountains than east over the flats. The speed 200kts @ 12500' and the accompaning fuel flow 20gph is not what I would miss. It is the ability to climb, still going up at over 1000fpm at 24,000', that I am afraid I would miss. Even as a stock 231 24,000' was no problem. I would love a RV-10 with a Continental TSIO-360. Seems to be the best of both worlds. But alas no support.
The efficiency argument above pitting a larger engine vs a smaller one in the same airframe is something I feel qualified to talk about. The 360 CI engine cruised at 175kts on 11.5-12 gph. At the same speed the 520Ci engine used over 2gph more. As long as you operate the engines in the same manner the smaller lighter one always is more efficient.
The freedom to maintain your own aircraft is a big plus for the RV-10 and one of the main reason to go that way. The Rv would cost about the same as the Rocket but would be brand new with modern avionics. I struggle with the choises. How well does the RV10 climb up high, say above 16? We got rocks here above 14! I used to think nothing of crossing the rocks with a few feet to spare. Weaving between em can be fatal.
 
Stiffle that Innovative Spirit

Seems to me there are plenty of STC'd aftermarket Rajay turbo systems that have been around for decades on otherwise internally stock Lycomings. Seem to work just fine. We're talking running 35 inches for 1 minute for takeoff. That will not have any significant effect on longevity.

I agree, a 260hp IO-540 gives the -10 very respectable climb and cruise performance even up where you need O2 and with the engine prices being equal, you need a good reason to fit a turbo 4 banger- like you always fly above 18,000 maybe.

The turbo four will be considerably lighter than the six even with the intercooler and it will use less fuel.

I disagree that a 4 cylinder car won't get a lot better mileage than a 6 or 8 cylinder. This has to do with friction and throttle angle (higher load= lower pumping losses). You see any 6 cylinder cars anywhere close to something like the 1.8L Corolla in the real world (not EPA)?

Oh boy, the big engine/ V8 thing again. Sorry but it is a complete crock to say that some atmo V8, even a 400+ cubic inch one, is gonna blow away say a modern 3L turbo. Look what happened in F1, and IMSA GTP? I seem to remember a 2.1 L Toyota GTP car fielded by Dan Gurney: 1992 and 1993 GTP driver and manufacturers champion, '92 and '93 overall winner 12 hours of Sebring, '93 overall winner 24 hours of Daytona, 26 wins, 23 poles, 17 GTP victories IN A ROW - a record never equaled by one team and never in sports car racing history. This thing was way more reliable and way faster than any V8 fielded including the 3.5L Ford F1 powered Jag and 6L Ford V8 entries. The AAR Eagle MKIII still holds the outright lap record at several US tracks- 15 years later! This is with the best competition in the world at the time with big money- GM, Ford, Nissan, Porsche, Jaguar etc., not a bunch of local yokels.

Before the AAR Toyota, the Nissan GTP ZX blew off all the V8 entries for years and before that, the Porsche 962 won for years and years. Sorry, almost no V8 victories in IMSA GTP for a very long time and for that matter in GTO either with the AAR Toyotas and Roush prepared Mercurys showing their tails to the V8 entries almost every race.

Same in Trans Am where the Mercury and Audi turbos regularly dominated until banned by the whining V8 contingent.

Even with fuel limits, compressor inlet restrictors, boost limits and weight penalties, turbos continued to easily beat big atmo V8 powered entires. Turbocharged small displacement engines have dominated every class of auto circuit racing they've been allowed to compete in.

This was 15-20 years ago now and turbo technology is way better now.

So sorry to disagree guys but a small turbo engine can be both powerful and reliable and last a long time. I've been doing it for nearly 30 years since I built my first turbo engine (a 1200cc Corolla 3KC) and beat my friend's Z28 Camaro. I've been driving my turbo KA24 240SX Nissan for 10 years now. Still fast and ain't worn out yet (dead stock internals).

Once you've owned turbo cars and turbo planes, you'll never want to settle for mere cubic inches again.:D

Maybe this will settle it all (or maybe not): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhTsH8dWtag

I say, be different, learn something and put that turbo engine in your -10 if you think you are up to it and all the work involved. It really is interesting to see something different rather than another cookie cutter RV with the same old Lycoming in it. Proven but boring. Put the E back in Experimental!:cool:
 
Last edited:
Ahhh yes.... but the crowds of people who watch the sport, they want the V8's!:)

So back to flying.......... why not turbo normalise an IO540?:cool:

DB:cool:
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Yes Turbos have great altitude performance (with an inter-cooler more weight, cost and complexity).
Click to expand...
A turbo-normalized IO-540 RV-10 might be useful if you flew in the teens a lot and in and out of hot/high airports. Cirrus is selling a ton of SR22 turbos, IIRC more turbos than normally aspirated. These are turbo-normalized engines and it's actually a Tornado Alley Turbos STC kit that is installed at the factory.

Turbos don't have to be heavy, unreliable and complicated. The Audi / VW auto 1.8l / 2.0l turbo 4-banger is a light, reliable engine with surprising amounts of torque that's been used for over 10 years. It's smaller and lighter than the Audi 3.2 V6, and the fuel efficiency is better.

As for racing ... bring back the normally aspirated 3.0l V10s in Formula1 .... they were making well over 1000 Hp and oh, the exhaust note of the V10 ....

TODR
 
RV10inOz said:
Ahhh yes.... but the crowds of people who watch the sport, they want the V8's!:)

So back to flying.......... why not turbo normalise an IO540?:cool:

DB:cool:
Click to expand...

I like the sound of a good crisp V8 race engine too ( I remember the 5L Can Am cars fondly) but there is nothing like that ripping sound of a Garrett turbo wound up to 120,000 rpm coupled to a four banger at 10,000 rpm on a cool morning qualifying session.:cool:

On the normalized 540, if you watched the TAS limits, this would be doable but probably only worth the weight and expense for better climb performance at altitude for mountain flying. Above about 12,000 feet, you'd be knocking on the Vne door already.
 
rv6ejguy said:
On the normalized 540, if you watched the TAS limits, this would be doable but probably only worth the weight and expense for better climb performance at altitude for mountain flying. Above about 12,000 feet, you'd be knocking on the Vne door already.
Click to expand...
Good point. Vne of the -10 is 200kt / 230 mph; Va is 125kt and the yellow starts at 155kt.

So, if we're cruising along at only 15,000ft and ISA, then the 200kt Vne TAS becomes 158kt IAS. I suspect that a turbo-normalized RV-10 could easily flirt with and exceed this speed, which would be a Bad Thing. Van's discusses this at length, both for the -10 and the -9.

Interestingly, the Cirrus SR22 (turbo or non) has a Vne of 200 kt.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Good point. Vne of the -10 is 200kt / 230 mph; Va is 125kt and the yellow starts at 155kt.

So, if we're cruising along at only 15,000ft and ISA, then the 200kt Vne TAS becomes 158kt IAS. I suspect that a turbo-normalized RV-10 could easily flirt with and exceed this speed, which would be a Bad Thing. Van's discusses this at length, both for the -10 and the -9.

Interestingly, the Cirrus SR22 (turbo or non) has a Vne of 200 kt.

TODR
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the Vne for the Cirrus may be IAS rather than TAS, otherwise it would be very scary at 20,000 feet.
 
Nope!

Flutter is a problem at TAS so have a read on Vans's site about engine sizes and why not to over power an a/c!

I did have a link to a very scary Commanche video, talk about tail plane flutter! :eek:

DB :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top