What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-14 Engine choice

Stockmanreef

Well Known Member
I was at fun in the sun and was talking with someone from Ameritech Industries and he indicates that there is a 215 HP engine that will fit in the RV-14. It was cheaper and could run on Mogas. He is supposed to send me the details on the engine at some point.

I don't know much about engines, so I thought I would see if anyone had any thoughts on the topic.

Ken
 
?.......was talking with someone from Ameritech Industries......
Ken

I'll go out a limb here and guess that person would be Bob H. Great guy and **** get you a nice price proposal with options. Two thumbs up for Ameritech. Bob was also the guy who gave VAF a pretty sweet deal on WW200RV props and governors.

I think he goes by: Eagle Bob on here
 
The Superior XP 400 makes 205 HP on auto gas. If you get the high compression version it is 215, but Avgas only.
 
My RV 14 dream engine!

IMHO for most of us the biggest expense we all face every time we go fly is the cost of fuel. On average at 11 GPH depending on where you live in the USA we are looking at approx $66 an hour in fuel. So if your average flight time is 1.5 hrs that's $100 every time you go to the airport. So with a great new kit like the RV14 which incorperates new modern techology in the build process I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of modern technology in the lycoming 390. I want stuff like electronic ignition, auto spark plugs, & most of all the ability to run Mogas. There are other engine manufactures that are moving in this direction. With serial numbers at 54 and going up they will want a peice of the action. I think by the time we are ready to buy our engines theses things will be available. If it weights the same, produces the same horse power, bolts up to the same motor mount, fits under the Vans supplied cowl, and meets the criteria above then thats the engine I want. It would be great if Lycoming offered these things but if not then others like Ameritech Industrie or Superior will pick up the slack. We will look hard at these engines when the time comes. ;)
 
I could not agree with you more! Very disappointed with the engine choice. $7 AVGAS is around the corner.....the FAA is broke....time for the engine manufactures to step up and put out a Mogas (10% ethanol) engine in the 180 - 200 HP range.
 
Last edited:
... So with a great new kit like the RV14 which incorperates new modern techology in the build process I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of modern technology in the lycoming 390. I want stuff like electronic ignition, auto spark plugs, & most of all the ability to run Mogas...
So, put electronic ignition, auto plugs, lower compression pistons in the 390. None of those things are difficult to do.

Heck, depending on the compression ratio, you might not even have to change the pistons.
 
"good choice" is rather subjective.

Any engine near the HP of the recommended IO-390 can work fine to fly the airplane, but if it is not of similar weight it can add many complications (far more than just ballasting the airplane to get the C.G. correct).
 
I sort of agree with the MOGAS issue. There are very few places that sell MOGAS in my area. And unless I move closer to the airport I currently fly out of, MOGAS is not in my immediate future. My CFI was using MOGAS exclusively since i have been flying with him (about 3 yrs). He carts 5 gallon jugs to the airport all the time. Recently he stopped because he has had issues with the last two engines in his 172. He is not sure that it is MOGAS or not, but is using avgas for the time being.

It still would be a nice option to have.

Ken
 
My I0-390 burns 9.0 GPS at cruise

Went to OSH last year about an hour behind an RV-6 with a fixed pitch Catto prop. He landed 15 minutes ahead of me at Ainsworth, NE. and we both took the same amount of fuel. I have dual PMags and auto plugs.
 
for a RV it might be a record, but ask paul dye what his work plane burned an hour. :D

bob burns
RV-4
 
"good choice" is rather subjective.

Any engine near the HP of the recommended IO-390 can work fine to fly the airplane, but if it is not of similar weight it can add many complications (far more than just ballasting the airplane to get the C.G. correct).

Well, the IO-390 is 308lbs dry, the IOX-370 is 255lbs + accessories. I'm expecting very similar dry weights. What other complications were you thinking of? CG location may be corrected through proper ballasting. Iyy can be corrected in a similar manner.

I'm genuinely curious what you think.
 
Well, the IO-390 is 308lbs dry, the IOX-370 is 255lbs + accessories. I'm expecting very similar dry weights. What other complications were you thinking of? CG location may be corrected through proper ballasting. Iyy can be corrected in a similar manner.

I'm genuinely curious what you think.

I think that adding accessories to an IOX-370 wont add 53 pounds.

I was talking in general terms of using different engines.
If for an example we talk about using a bigger /heavier engine.

Say it requires a longer cowl than the original design. This adds side profile area to the airplane fwd of the C.G. Aerodynamically, this is the same as reducing the size of the vertical stabilizer/rudder. It can have an effect on yaw stability and spin recovery.

Lets say the bigger/heavier engine also requires adding ballast to correct the C.G. position. The logical place to add balance weight is as far aft as possible because then the smallest amount can be used. This corrects the C.G. problem but it increases the polar moment of inertia.
In simple terms, adding any amount of weight, a large distance aft from the C.G. make the airplane more resistant to changes in yaw and pitch (changes that we want to be able to induce with the controls), and more difficult to stop pitch and yaw motions once they are in motion (something that we don't want). This can have an impact on pitch and yaw stability, and particularly, spin recovery.

So, I am not saying that using any engine other than what was recommended, means you will have serious problems related to what is described above...
I am saying that you might (and not even know it, because how many people flight test to that high of a level of detail... or know how).

Bottom line -

It requires a lot more than a set of scales, to establish that an airplane will fly exactly the same as was intended by the designer, when a different engine is used.
 
I think that adding accessories to an IOX-370 won't add 53 pounds.

Bottom line -

It requires a lot more than a set of scales, to establish that an airplane will fly exactly the same as was intended by the designer, when a different engine is used.

You haven't seen my accessories. :D You make some good points. As far as the polar moment is concerned (Iyy in my previous post) I wouldn't have to ballast aft of the cg, and whatever ballast would be required up front to account for the engine weight delta would most likely bring the moments back to where they should be.

The ECI engine is about 2 inches longer, and I'd be curious if the stock cowl would fit. As far as destabilizing aero effects, 2 inches on the fuselage planform isn't much when compared to the total acreage of the fuselage.

Your answer was quite good, thanks. Just so you know, when I'm not dreaming of building airplanes, I actually work as an Aerospace Engineer designing hypersonic airframes so I'm familiar with the design principles. That said, I appreciate the expertise of experienced builders. They always have good input.
 
IO360 235 hp

I am coming along with my IO 360 ang. Valve. Have the Cyl. Port & polish and tri valve grind in process. Cyl. 10 over with10.1 treated pistons. Case line bored and ready, new exp. bal. crank. Duel PlasmaIII with Mini sensor Light Speed ignition. (About the same cost as two standard mags, although LS comes with auto spark plugs and thread adapter and all lines (wires) all included.
 
UL Power 520is --- > 200hp running on MOGAS and just over 250 pounds for engine weight. I will take MOGAS option over 100LL any day of the week and even on a Sunday!

The UL Power 520is has a nice torque curve with great 6 cylinder power. An RV-14 with UL Power would be a great match.
 
UL Power 520is --- > 200hp running on MOGAS and just over 250 pounds for engine weight. I will take MOGAS option over 100LL any day of the week and even on a Sunday!

The UL Power 520is has a nice torque curve with great 6 cylinder power. An RV-14 with UL Power would be a great match.

I looked up this engine on the website. It requires 98RON octane fuel and 3200rpm to get the 200Hp.

I have never seen 98RON octane MOGAS. Do you have that in Texas? The best MOGAS I can get in Tennessee is 93(R+M)/2. What is that equivalent to in RON? Also, the IO390 gets the Hp at 500 RPM lower than the UL 520is; what Prop does it use? What is the Hp at 2700rpm since it is a direct drive engine?

UPDATE: I DID A GOOGLE SEARCH ON RON VS (R+M)/2. IT APPEARS 98RON IS VERY SIMILAR TO 93(R+M)/2. (R+M)/2 IS TYPICALLY 5 OCTANE POINTS LOWER THAN RON.

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Right....all you need is 93 octane (US based ratings).

This is what makes UL Power engines such a major advantage in my opinion. Modern engine control technology with FADEC and running on MOGAS for the major cost advantages. The main issue with UL Power 520is is the low engine weight, so that would have to be addressed during your initial build planning.
 
I like the engine however most RV's will only be able to use 2700 rpm. That is the limit on most props and with a 2 blade you will get into tip speed issues above that. At 2700 rpm the engine is down a significant amount of power. It would really compare to a lyc 320.

George
 
Last edited:
New info that I have is.....

"Several prop companies are making new props for the UL520. Take-off rpm will be around 3100, cruise will be around 2800. The blades will be shorter than most props on a Lycoming but we should have plenty of thrust."

"MT, Catto and Whirlwind are all working on props for UL Power. And Airmaster has very nice constant speed prop options too.
 
ULPOWER 520IS

The UL power six cyl engine does look appealing but.....the UL Power website shows the price of this engine is listed at 27250 Euros. An internet check today indicates that the Euro to dollar conversion rate is 1 Euro = $1.38 US dollars which puts the cost at $37605.00 dollars.

A modern smooth running. FADEC controlled six cylinder engine would be nice to fly behind but $37605.00 is hard to justify. When you look at the HP to RPM graphs for the engine, it is only going to produce approximately 180 Horsepower at 2700 RPM which is typically the max RPM for most propellers. Even so, if this engine was priced around 25K$ I think a lot of people would be getting in line to buy one.

The Lycoming O-540 would probably be slightly heavier but would provide more power and would be comparable in cost.
 
The UL Power is over 50 pounds lighter compared to most Lycoming choices. Also, if you contact UL Power about pricing I think you will find better pricing than what you listed (full retail). With the new prop choices coming available for UL Power 520 series it makes it a very good option in my opinion.

I recently decided, anything new that I build or buy needs to run on MOGAS....the trend for 100LL looks ugly to me.
 
Exhaust for IO360 200+ fuel inj. Engine trough Vans:

As I have posted, I am building up an IO360 200+ HP (235 hp) angle valve fuel injected engine instead of the IO390. My question this week to Vans was if the exhaust for the IO390, they plan for the 14, will fit my IO360.

Vans answer from Mr Blank: if you are going to use the IO-360-A1B6 engine in the RV-14, you can simply order the exhaust for that engine when you are ready. It will be the same one that is used on the RV- 7/7A.

So that takes that concern out of my thoughts. I don't know the manufacturer they use, but I want to squeeze efficiency not only out of the intake but also the exhaust!

Anyone know who makes Vans pipes? [email protected] :confused:
 
Vans answer from Mr Blank: if you are going to use the IO-360-A1B6 engine in the RV-14, you can simply order the exhaust for that engine when you are ready. It will be the same one that is used on the RV- 7/7A.

Bernard,

Sorry, the answer I gave you is incorrect. I have been informed that the 7/7A exhaust won't work on the RV-14 due to the Tunnel design. That changes everything with the exhaust. We'll have to wait and see what develops in the Powerplant Kit that will work. Believe me, the engineers are really thinking this through so let's give them that latitude...
 
Last edited:
Just a Thought

You know, considering the cost of a new IO-390 and the fact that an IO-540 could be had for the same money and the fact that so many RV'ers want to go as fast as possible (more power is always good) you would think that Van's would have designed the -14 to be able to use either engine.

And the cost difference between the motor mounts and cowls would be insignificant considering the total cost of building the plane as well as design and materials.

It's always nice to have options......anyone listening?

Glenn Wilkinson
 
Further along on my IO360 235hp

1.Light-speed Duel Plasma111 back along with their machining prep of flywheel.

2. Airflow Performance Fuel Injection system total flow and rebuild (non-certified) completed.

3. While waiting for fuselage and first two kit sections complete, I have learned that the individual elements to do a total rebuild and upgrade on an engine TAKES TIME! This is the time I am investing now vs later when the airframe is ready for it. Therefore, I hope that those at Vans who are in charge of procurement of contracted services are doing their work now too. When Van's reps speak about meeting customers needs on the Exhaust needs for this alternative engine rather than the IO360. There is no reason I can think of that would hold up their partners to creat the correct and similar exhaust as is specked for the IO390 for the IO 360 now.

I don't know who they use but Vetterman did not build the set for the 14 and told me they had not worked on one yet even for the io390. Does anyone know who Vans uses for the 14's exhaust system?

If you drill into any upholstery, avionics, exhaust or any accessory, none including Vans list anything for the 14 in their 2014 catalogues. Interesting how both the company and all vendors are not yet marketing any roll out items yet!
 
If someone doesn't want to pay the $40K for a 390, check out my 360 for sale in the classifieds section. More HP, less cost. :D
 
I ran across this Pipistrel info that claims their IO390 aircraft will run on unleaded- I'm thinking this is a typo so I have asked for more info.

http://www.pipistrel-usa.com/models/panthera.html

Powered by the modern, yet proven and reliable Lycoming IO-390 engine, Panthera is the statement of efficiency ? cruising at 200 kts with a fuel consumption of only 10 US gallons per hour instead of the ?usual? 17 gallons of the competition. The powerful, yet lightweight engine can run on unleaded fuel and is ready for the future!
 
I'll bet the majority of the reason for the decision was made in relation to this statement (quoted in the story)....

?A lot of this decision was made because customers want good hot and high performance. We have lots of people coming from South Africa, from Argentina, from Mexico, from Colorado, places that would otherwise demand a turbocharger solution. But instead of going to a turbocharged four-cylinder, we decided to go for a normally aspirated six for maintenance and operational simplicity,? Tomazic said.
 
Hot and High

According to the Pipistrel website max weight for the Panthera is going to be 2640 lbs. about 500 lbs. more than the -14. According to a short piece on Avweb, the 540 weighs 90 lbs. more than the 390, and Pipistrel now thinks they can up the max gross weight by 210 lbs, so the design spec is now 2850 lbs, pretty much the same as a fully loaded 172. Assuming that the production aircraft gets heavier, you probably end up closer to 3000 lbs. As any Cirrus SR-20 pilot will attest, 200 HP and 3000 lbs. don't perform well, especially hot and high. A 540 is entirely justifiable for that weight and the kind of performance Pipistrel seeks. Most -14s should fly at around 2000 lbs. The 390 would seem to be able to produce enough HP for any circumstances, including hot and high, at that weight.
 
Titan R Series 409 - 230 hp, our new price will be released at snf.

Compared to 390, more horse power, lower weight by many lbs, much better components from ACE. Might even be cylinder surprise!
 
Compared to 390, more horse power, lower weight by many lbs, much better components from ACE. Might even be cylinder surprise!

We all know that for racing, more power AND less weight is always the goal....With the RV-14, more power is good - but lighter weight is always going to be problematic, unless a builder wants to do a new engine mount, cowl, etc....to make the W&B come out right. This is one airplane where Van doesn't want people installing a SMALLER engine! ;)

I figure if I wanted to do a -14 with a custom FWF, an IO-540 sure would be attractive.... (did I really say that?) :D
 
Finished my IO-360 235HP yesterday

My 14 solution in lieu of the 390 110 hp is complete! I have previously posted the elements of my IO-360 235HP upgrade. I built it with three tried and true initiatives, yet a good, safe & lasting engine:
1. Lycon porting of the heads
2. 10.1 ceramic top covered Lycon pistons
3. Lightspeed Duel Plasma 111 electronic ignition

While the total hp may be stated somewhat higher, I have estimated lower. My goal was to effectively match the 390's hp, not make a racing engine to firewall for the short run. I plan to treat the engine kindly for the full TBO or longer.
 
Last edited:
Finished my IO-360 235HP yesterday

My 14 solution in lies of the 390 110 hp is complete! I have previously posted the elements of my IO 360 235HP upgrade. I built it with three tried and true, yet a good safe lasting engine:
1. Lycon porting of the heads
2. 10.1 ceramic top covered Lycon pistons
3. Lightspeed Duel Plasma 111 electronic ignition

While the total hp may be stated somewhat higher, I have estimated lower. My goal was to effectively match the 390's hp, not make a racing engine to firewall for the short run. I plan to treat the engine kindly for the full TBO or longer.
 
My 14 solution in lies of the 390 110 hp is complete! I have previously posted the elements of my IO 360 235HP upgrade. I built it with three tried and true, yet a good safe lasting engine:
1. Lycon porting of the heads
2. 10.1 ceramic top covered Lycon pistons
3. Lightspeed Duel Plasma 111 electronic ignition

While the total hp may be stated somewhat higher, I have estimated lower. My goal was to effectively match the 390's hp, not make a racing engine to firewall for the short run. I plan to treat the engine kindly for the full TBO or longer.

Just a typo, the IO-390 is 210 hp.
 
My 14 solution in lies of the 390 110 hp is complete! I have previously posted the elements of my IO 360 235HP upgrade. I built it with three tried and true, yet a good safe lasting engine:
1. Lycon porting of the heads
2. 10.1 ceramic top covered Lycon pistons
3. Lightspeed Duel Plasma 111 electronic ignition

While the total hp may be stated somewhat higher, I have estimated lower. My goal was to effectively match the 390's hp, not make a racing engine to firewall for the short run. I plan to treat the engine kindly for the full TBO or longer.

May I ask why you are pursing this? Is it because you already have the engine and it will be more economical for you? I was thinking the IO390 might be in the same ballpark price wise as an IO360.
 
Reasons for this choice

Short answer #1 reason: cost savings $18K
I have come in at $25K for this rebuild to new specs. So not factory out-of-the crate new, but a clean new crank, line bored case etc. etc. Lycon top end.

So while one could argue not apples to apples, in the cockpit it will be a match.

#2 reason: I have also enjoyed this process!

I don't know where this plane's costs will finish out, but guessing even with this it will come in somewhere over $110k. Essentially this deviation is standard Van builder behavior. ;-)
 
No Mention of the SMA SR305.

It is considerably heavier, but would it be a viable substitute?

Jet-A is definitely enticing.
 
It would be great to see more viable turbo diesel aircraft engines , but the sad facts are that the diesel engines that are available are too heavy and only become viable from a power to weight ratio when you start considering repowering an aircraft originally equipped with a six cylinder Lycoming or Continental.

The SMA SR305 weighs about 110-130 pounds more than a IO-390 and it marketed to replace an IO-540 or IO-520 but with a lower HP rating.

Could be easily done in a -10
 
Back
Top