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

"comparison shopping at Oshkosh"

Will you share what the engine set you back in 2015 Oshkosh dollars = ?

and how it compared to the Vans deal Lyc price.
 
The last question I had for the Lycoming engineer was the future availability of lower compression pistons for my IO-390 in the event that Avgas may not available in the future. He said that custom pistons could be easily made, and that the pistons Lycoming made and tested for the Mogas compatable engine could be easily put into production. He said that he knows of some IO-360 angle valve engines being run on Mogas that have not had issues and that the IO-390 has better detonation margins, but he could not oficially reccomend running Mogas with stock compression pistons. I am not too worried about 100LL going away soon, but I wanted the factory to have options.

Mike,

It sounds like you have done some great research on this. I'm glad there are folks out there that take the time to post this type of data for the rest of us. I was happy to read that the taildrager had an angle valve IO-360. What do you think of an IO-360 with low comparison pistons configured with Electronic ignition and a return fuel injection system (no engine mounted fuel pump). Based on what I've read, it looks like this is an option for MOGAS flexibility...
 
Yank,

I do not have any experaince operating an angle valve Lycoming on Mogas, but I have read that it has been done, even with the stock compression and fuel injection. The stock compression ratio for a 200 HP angle valve engine is 8.7:1 which is not very much higher than the 8.5:1 for a standard 180 HP parallel valve engine that is "approved" for Mogas. From talking to the Lycoming engineer I know that the angle valve combustion chamber has less margin for detonation, but the big questions are how much less, and is the detonation margin and compression ratio the only reason for not being "approved" for Mogas, or does the mechanical fuel injection alone disqualify the engine from being Mogas compatible?

You may want to call Barrett or Ly-Con and ask them what they think about running a 200 HP angle valve engine on Mogas. If you were to use electronic fuel injection such as EFII you would not have fuel vapor pressure issues with Mogas which can be an issue with mechanical injection. You would also have full ignition timing control with the EFII which may even allow you run mogas with the stock 8.7:1 pistons? I am sure someone has tried it and knows what works, they may not have the detonation margin test data but they may have the operational experiance and knowledge for you to be able to make an informed decision for the changes you need to make to run Mogas in an angle valve engine. If you find any good information please share it with the rest of us.
 
EFII and mogas

You guys have pretty much nailed it down.
Our system with up to 9:1 compression and premium auto gas works just fine.
We have lots of customers running this.

Just don't go over high terrain with mogas especially in hot weather.
Ambient air pressure can approach the vapor pressure of mogas when you're at or above 10k ft. The result can be partial fuel vaporization at the suction side of the fuel pump and a mixture of vapor and liquid fuel going to the engine.
If this happens, the engine can go to a partial power level.
This is very disconcerting if the ground is near you (as in going over high terrain).
If you are over low altitude terrain, you can simply fly lower and the issue goes away.

The simple rule is to run 100LL if you are going to fly over high terrain.

Robert
 
Also does anyone know the limits for the 74" Hartzell blended airfoil prop when fitted on the Lycoming IO-390?

No limitations. Marc Cook's airplane was the Hartzell test subject. If you're a Kitplanes subscriber, you can read the story online.

I also had a conversation with the engineer regarding detonation margins. He told me that all Lycoming engines, including the experimental versions (excluding custom racing/aerobatic engines) are tested and built with compression ratios that allow them to meet certified engine detonation margins.

Which is why you hear about all kinds of engines being run on mogas without reported problems. The certifications standard is severe. The drill is max CHT, with one cylinder max plus 50, max oil inlet temp, 100F air inlet temp, set RPM and MP, then pull through a mixture sweep. Very few folks are dumb enough to actually run their engines that way.

This is the reason why lycoming went to the larger bore cylinders on the IO-390 instead of higher compression ratio or longer stroke to get the extra HP and torque.

Lycoming did no such thing. The 390 was developed at Barrett. When Lycoming agreed to build kits, Barrett had an exclusive for a few years.

He said that he knows of some IO-360 angle valve engines being run on Mogas that have not had issues and that the IO-390 has better detonation margins, but he could not officially recommend running Mogas with stock compression pistons.

Neither can I...but I'll worry less about detonation than vapor pressure. The pilot controlled variables are temperature, ignition timing, and RPM/MP relationship.

... the cold air sump is standard on the XP-400 and not the IO-390.

Take a good look at a stock angle valve horizontal sump. Then consider engine compartment temperatures.

According to Robert Paisley 9.0 or less compression ratio engines can operate safely on mogas with the EFii system.

Sheesh. Fuel delivery method (constant flow or electronic injector) has no effect on detonation margin.

I went to Oshkosh with the intent of buying the IO-390 and a Hartzel prop to get the best pricing, but ended up with the XP-400. I intend to use the Whirlwind 74RV due to all the disclaimers and RPM "avoid" areas with the Hartzel.

I assume you mean "avoid areas" when the Hartzell is mounted on a 400. If Hartzell has not done a formal vibration survey with a 400, then yes, you should expect disclaimers. Going with the other brand because they have no disclaimers, when the other brand has also not run a vibration survey is, ummm, questionable logic.

The official Hartzell literature is here:

http://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/uploads/159-0000-R48-AW.pdf

Here's the 390 page:

 
Last edited:
I understand Barrett built the first IO-390s and I think the first IO-580s, but wasn't the new big bore cylinder built and supplied by Lycoming, and did they not engineer and test this cylinder for the experimental aerobatic competition crowd? Kind of like the chicken or the egg question.
 
Quote:
I went to Oshkosh with the intent of buying the IO-390 and a Hartzel prop to get the best pricing, but ended up with the XP-400. I intend to use the Whirlwind 74RV due to all the disclaimers and RPM "avoid" areas with the Hartzel.
I assume you mean "avoid areas" when the Hartzell is mounted on a 400. If Hartzell has not done a formal vibration survey with a 400, then yes, you should expect disclaimers. Going with the other brand because they have no disclaimers, when the other brand has also not run a vibration survey is, ummm, questionable logic.

Poor wording on my part. However, in the absence of testing for either prop, I will side with the composite as composites are known to absorb vibrations better.
 
I understand Barrett built the first IO-390s and I think the first IO-580s, but wasn't the new big bore cylinder built and supplied by Lycoming, and did they not engineer and test this cylinder for the experimental aerobatic competition crowd? Kind of like the chicken or the egg question.

True enough Mike...the cylinder did come from the 580, an older design. I know nothing about 580 development.

Barrett built the first 390 circa 1999. Lycoming delivered the first complete 390 kits to Barrett a few days before Christmas, 2003. Eventually the 390 kit was also made available through other good shops...then Lycoming decided to cut off kits, and market the 390X only through their own Thunderbolt division.
 
Auto gas

Hi Yank,
Any auto gas has the vapor pressure limitation. With Ethanol in the equation there is less vapor pressure margin. The vapor pressure of auto gas varies regionally and seasonally. You can't ever be certain what is coming out of the pump. If you fly auto gas below 8000ft, you will likely never have an issue.

Robert
 
EFII Mixture Control

Robert,

Does the EFII system set mixture in cruise for best power or best efficiency? When I am flying above ~7500' I usually run WOT and lean of peak (as lean as possible without running rough). But sometimes I want a bit more speed so the only option is to push the mixture forward to get best power...throttle is already wide open. So I am assuming with the EFII I would lose the flexibility to do this because the system is making the mixture decisions for me?

Thanks,
 
EFII

Hi Mark,
You can set up the fuel delivery to do whatever you desire.
You can also force it richer or leaner at any time manually with the Tuning Knob potentiometer.

Robert
 
Summary

Thought I'd share some of the feedback I received from various sources along my way. Please note I am not intending to criticise or pretending to be an expert, these are just my considerations.

I was keen on a composite Propeller but ruled them out after discussion with a local propeller maintenance workshop. They told me they don't do periodic inspections/overhauls of composites and it would need to be sent interstate. I also believe all composite propellers have operating limits or recommendations for continues use when used with a Lycoming IO-390, sorry this was a large negative for me. The reduced weight of a composite propeller was very attractive but the lack of any weight and balance data from Vans concerned me. I did consider adding forward ballast if required but I didn't look into this further.

A big plus was that both of the Hartzell 72” and 74” blended airfoil propellers that VAN's bundles have no operating limits when used with the Lycoming IO-390.
But I believe the Hartzell blended airfoil “No limits” do not apply to any of the other RV-14 engine options, ie there are limits for the IO-360, XP-400 or Wildcat 382.

I was very keen on the Wildcat 382 but they could only bundle it with a composite propeller. But as stated above, a composite propeller was ruled out. A good price was quoted if we ordered the wildcat 382 and that was with Electronic Ignition and a cold air induction sump. I do hope they offer other propeller options for the wildcat 382 as it would have been a winner otherwise.

And lastly an IO-360 that suits the RV-14 is almost the same price and weight as an IO-390. I also believe the IO-360 valve covers will require baffle modifications, also a negative for us.

For our RV-14A we went with the Van's bundle of the 74” Hartzell blended airfoil propeller and the Lycoming IO-390. :)

It was a pity the Lycoming IO-390 we ordered could not be supplied with P-Mag electronic Ignition and a cold air induction sump. As we pay high import taxes here in Australia selling the supplied mags and buying 2 x P-Mags will be expensive. And no one supply's a cold air induction sump yet for the IO-390.

By the way can anyone please tell me why a fuel injected engine eg the IO-390 has hot air induction via the sump? For those who don't know on the IO-390 and most other aircraft engines pass the air intake through a chamber in the sump. I can't believe its for cooling the oil and any heat transferred heads back into the engine? I thought we don't want hot air going into an engine. I don't believe its to combat icing as the IO-390 only comes fuel injected.
 
Last edited:
I believe the XP-400's RPM requires a gearbox reducer for all propellers, so for this reason we ruled it out.

2700 RPM, just like all the other XP engines.

I also believe the IO-360 valve covers will require baffle modifications, also a negative for us.

Same Vans baffles for 360 and 390.

By the way can anyone please tell me why a fuel injected engine eg the IO-390 has hot air induction via the sump?

It doesn't. The standard Lycoming horizontal sump has two separate chambers, one for oil, and one containing the tuned intake runners. The runners do not pass through the oil. The only possible heat transfer between the 200F oil and the intake air would be heating of the divider wall by the oil. Very little of the air entering the tuned intake chamber gets near that wall.

Not that it matters very much. Consider that the plenum assembly of a typical "cold air induction", as well as the intake runners of both that fancy part and a standard Lycoming horizontal sump are exposed to engine compartment air temperatures of 150~200F even when badly baffled. I have routinely measured 245F air temperatures under the cylinder heads, where the air exits the baffles...right next to the intake runners.

 
Dan, Thanks so much for the feedback. I've removed my mistake about the IO-400, sorry.
Baffles are the same, great but I didn't see that confirmed.

But regarding the sump and I loved the diagrams. I don't know for sure but I thought air is a bad conductor of heat compared to oil?
And thus any reduction in surface area between runners and hot oil helps a lot. Since the engines air intake is from outside of the aircraft the intake air is a lot cooler then the 200deg oil/air in baffled areas so I thought any improvement is great. You said very little of the air entering get near the wall, that makes sense and may negate any gains.
Please also note I'm from Perth Western Australia and it gets up to 43 deg C here in our summers. I hate the idea that my new Lycoming is going to be sucking in hotter air then it needed to be.
 
Baffles are the same, great but I didn't see that confirmed.

I installed a set on a 390. Not that it matters here; IIRC, we recently heard about finish kit baffles precut for the 390/RV-14 combination.

And thus any reduction in surface area between runners and hot oil helps a lot.

So sayeth the sales department. Ever seen any measurements of air temperature as delivered to the cylinder head, standard tuned horizontal sump vs somebody's "cold air" sump?

I hate the idea that my new Lycoming is going to be sucking in hotter air then it needed to be.

I feel your pain ;)

My own list of fun things to do includes intake temperature measurement before and after insulating wrap on the runner tubes. And BTW, consider the lunacy of a cold air intake with red hot crossover exhaust tubes running just under it.
 
The Aerosport IO-382 is a PARALLEL VALVE engine. The IO-390-A3B6 and IO-360-A1B6 are ANGLE VALVE engines. I see where lots of -14 builders, or potential builders talk about this engine being an alternative. It can be an alternative if you are willing to modify the baffeling and other parts FWF to make it work. For the $1000-$2000 "savings" vs the IO-390 I am not sure it is worth it.

If you really want to build a -14 on the "cheap" I would look for a serviceable angle valve IO-360 from a Mooney or a C-177RG.
 
Perhaps the Adept Airmotive may be an alternative

Did anyone notice their booth at Oshkosh? Adept Airmotive. They were just few yards from Van's booth.

Here is their website: http://www.adeptairmotive.com/pages/26011

This a 120 deg V-6, 285 hp, liquid cooled, full FADEC, burning MOGAS/AVGAS/BIOGAS with a dry weight of ... 324lb. :D Just shy of 6 lb from the IO-390 Lyco.
IMAG0292_zpstvyht8zk.jpg


IMAG0290_zpsgxzuthgc.jpg


But the ticket isn't cheap though; $65,000. I had a long chat with one a company representative (Richard Schulz) and he said that for that price, they provide an "engineered" complete solution. (Engine mount, hoses, wire harness, etc). Prop isn't included but will tell which one to purchase. Of course, you'll have to tell Van's to remove the standard cowling from the kit because it won't fit. Better brush up with your composite fabrication skills...

I was contemplating diesel options but I doubt any of the manufacturer will come up with decent AND affordable solution soon. The CD-135 and CD-155 from Continental are far from being adequate. DeltaHawk are proposing something decent but they advertise for the past 5 years that they will take orders "next year". I've contacted SMA but their answer was quite assertive; no intent to sell to the experimental market. Period.

I have no problem with the Lyco. Its proven, certainly very robust and reliable but we must face it, the future of avgas is uncertain and its replacement isn't going to be any cheaper than the fuel it replaces. And I can see me, pre-flight my -14 for a $100 hamburger ride and having just ONE button to push for start and ONE control juggle with for fuel management. One day, our kids will ask "what was that control for? MIXTURE?

Pretty much they same question we asked our grand father about all those pedals in their car...
 
Did anyone notice their booth at Oshkosh? Adept Airmotive. They were just few yards from Van's booth.

Here is their website: http://www.adeptairmotive.com/pages/26011

This a 120 deg V-6, 285 hp, liquid cooled, full FADEC, burning MOGAS/AVGAS/BIOGAS with a dry weight of ... 324lb. :D Just shy of 6 lb from the IO-390 Lyco.
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y477/Debovsky/IMAG0292_zpstvyht8zk.jpg

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y477/Debovsky/IMAG0290_zpsgxzuthgc.jpg

But the ticket isn't cheap though; $65,000. I had a long chat with one a company representative (Richard Schulz) and he said that for that price, they provide an "engineered" complete solution. (Engine mount, hoses, wire harness, etc). Prop isn't included but will tell which one to purchase. Of course, you'll have to tell Van's to remove the standard cowling from the kit because it won't fit. Better brush up with your composite fabrication skills...

I was contemplating diesel options but I doubt any of the manufacturer will come up with decent AND affordable solution soon. The CD-135 and CD-155 from Continental are far from being adequate. DeltaHawk are proposing something decent but they advertise for the past 5 years that they will take orders "next year". I've contacted SMA but their answer was quite assertive; no intent to sell to the experimental market. Period.

I have no problem with the Lyco. Its proven, certainly very robust and reliable but we must face it, the future of avgas is uncertain and its replacement isn't going to be any cheaper than the fuel it replaces. And I can see me, pre-flight my -14 for a $100 hamburger ride and having just ONE button to push for start and ONE control juggle with for fuel management. One day, our kids will ask "what was that control for? MIXTURE?

Pretty much they same question we asked our grand father about all those pedals in their car...

If only they had something in the 200hp range at a price competitive with a Lycoming...
 
Research first!

Before buying a UL Engine, contact me. As a UL Power owner there are things unpublished that need to be known before spending Thousands. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
What about that new diesel the E-300 few details but looks good for the RV10 I am looking at options now
 
To bring this back onto thread...

At Sun N Fun.

The after market engine chaps are all over the 14 !

They know that it needs a forward governor, which, for an IO-360 angle valve motor is a little unusual.

There are options around from JB, Aerosport etc etc

The thing that these chaps said was - if you have a 390, the only place you can get spare is from Lycoming. Good point !!

We will see how the market develops, eh ?
 
There are options around from JB, Aerosport etc etc

The thing that these chaps said was - if you have a 390, the only place you can get spare is from Lycoming. Good point !!

And because the only place you can get a spare IO-390 cylinder is from Lycoming, the price is eye watering. I started out thinking I wanted a 390 until I was told by Barrett that a new 390 jug is $4800. No competition, so Lycoming really jacks up the price (apparently not considering the fact that people like me are deterred from buying their engine altogether because I care about long term operating costs). Superior's XP-400 makes 5 more HP and one of the benefits they pitch are that their cylinders are $2800. However, as the pilot population continues to decline I wonder how long there will be a big enough market to support more than one engine manufacturer, and if I had to bet on one being there 10-15 years from now I'd have to bet on Lycoming. So pick your poison...the 390 vs 400 choice is a mixed bag from a long-term support perspective.

There's a lot to like about an overhauled angle valve IO-360 with 10:1 pistons. Initial investment is much lower, parts are readily available and relatively affordable, it will make approx the same HP as the 390, and it will be more fuel efficient to boot. You can't burn mogas, but then again you can't burn mogas in the 390 or 400 either, so you might as well take advantage of the compression increase to boost efficiency. I talked to a lot of engine shops at Osh and the general consensus seems to be that the IO-360 can handle the 10:1 pistons without significant reliability concerns for normal flying. There are already a number of experimentals flying 10:1, Firewall Forward has an STC for Mooney's & Cardinals that's been around for a while, and Lycoming has the HIO-360-D1A with 10:1 pistons (used in helicopters). The only cautions I heard were that if you are going to run them hard (wide open at low altitude for extended periods of time for racing or acro), you may eventually experience accelerated bearing wear or case fretting that could require teardown before reaching normal TBO. But that kind of abuse is hard on any engine and not my mission for the -14.

One factor to keep in mind for those planning on the Hartzell is that you'll need a counterweighted crankshaft if you use 10:1 pistons. I plan to go with Whirlwind composite which doesn't require the counterweights.

Honestly I'd be pretty happy with a stock 200 HP angle valve IO-360 like Vans has in their -14 demo bird, my biggest hesitation is with respect to resale value. In the RV-6/7/8 series, it seems that buyers will pay a pretty good premium for O-360 vs 320, and that was part of my justification for putting a 360 in my -8A. Doubtless buyers will pay more for a -14 with a 390 in it, but the real question is whether the difference in market value of a -14 powered by a new 390 vs an overhauled 360 will be greater than the difference in up-front cost to purchase these engines...
 
Did anyone learn anything new and exciting about engine options for the -14 at Oshkosh this year?
 
I am not an engine savvy builder and it's still too early for me to be making a deposit, but I am looking around; the Titan IO370 angle valve has caught my attention. And now that Titan is a subsidiary of Continental, they may be a good option regarding long term support.
 
Titan IO-370

I'm building my 14 at Synergy Air in Eugene, OR. Several other builders have purchased the Titan IO-370, both to save money and get modern jugs. However one buyer's engine arrived with the wrong data plate attached and nuts fixed with torque seal, but not properly torqued (loose as a matter of fact).

He could not get satisfaction from Titan nor get them to honor their warranty. While he had an engine mechanic inspect his engine and had all external nuts re-torqued - he does not trust that internal specs were met. He is very unhappy.
 
I'm building my 14 at Synergy Air in Eugene, OR. Several other builders have purchased the Titan IO-370, both to save money and get modern jugs. However one buyer's engine arrived with the wrong data plate attached and nuts fixed with torque seal, but not properly torqued (loose as a matter of fact).

He could not get satisfaction from Titan nor get them to honor their warranty. While he had an engine mechanic inspect his engine and had all external nuts re-torqued - he does not trust that internal specs were met. He is very unhappy.

If you are looking to customize your engine, whether it's a 360 or 390, check with Ly-Con. Great product, great reputation and their customer service is 2nd to none. I didn't know the first thing about what I really needed in an engine and they spent a ton of time helping and educating me. I think they were very fair and didn't oversell me on things I probably didn't need. My requirements were, what can I do to get the most bang for my buck for speed and economy. On the Dyno, it tested out at 235HP and at 8,000' 173kts, burning 9.6GPH. Specs of what they did are on my blog.
 
Website

I just found out that GoDaddy is serious about wanting you to pay to renew their hosting. Apparently, I ignored them, so they shut it down. It's fixed and they got their money. Sorry.
 
If you are looking to customize your engine, whether it's a 360 or 390, check with Ly-Con. Great product, great reputation and their customer service is 2nd to none. I didn't know the first thing about what I really needed in an engine and they spent a ton of time helping and educating me. I think they were very fair and didn't oversell me on things I probably didn't need. My requirements were, what can I do to get the most bang for my buck for speed and economy. On the Dyno, it tested out at 235HP and at 8,000' 173kts, burning 9.6GPH. Specs of what they did are on my blog.

This is not intended to Dis Stoney regarding the choices he made on his engine.... just pointing out that you don't necessarily have to pay for special extras to get good performance.

I have flown the RV-14A demonstrator on a couple of trips getting equal or better speed/ fuel flow (the tri gear should technically be just slightly slower).

It will easily true out at 171-172 Kts at 8.3-8.5 GPH at 9500 '

It has a bare bones stock IO-390.
 
Stoney is obviously a talented and well thought out builder, but I have to chime in with Scott. On my way to OSH this year, N914VA had a TAS of 175Kts, 8,500', 10.2 gph at peak EGT. Again, a stock I0-390.

After an enlightening conversation with Scott about LOP operation, I will begin to experiment and see how I can fine tune engine operation.
 
Stoney is obviously a talented and well thought out builder, but I have to chime in with Scott. On my way to OSH this year, N914VA had a TAS of 175Kts, 8,500', 10.2 gph at peak EGT. Again, a stock I0-390.

After an enlightening conversation with Scott about LOP operation, I will begin to experiment and see how I can fine tune engine operation.

Thank you Mitch for the compliment. However, I am a first time builder with absolutely no prior experience. I made most of my choices from other's experience and research. Scott has forgotten so much more than I will ever know and respect him immensely. So... I must be doing something wrong. Once I get the plane back from paint, and I get the 100 hours on it, I will again check the numbers and report back. If I understand the power equation, if all else is equal, the increase in HP should result in faster speeds, however, the GPH may be higher. Once I am confident I am doing everything correct, to get the most accurate readings, I will report back. I have checkers in the new paint scheme, so that should get me at least 5 MPH. :)
 
I have just gone through an engine change on my Rocket. Not an RV but I now have a good comparison of High compression (10:1), and flow matched cylinders to a totally stock lycoming engine.
I had 930 hours on my original engine and had had the ECI cylinders off three times due to ring delimitation. The last time the engine never broke in and after 60 hours of blow by my engine started to make metal. An inspection showed a spalled cam that had been perfect prior to the last cylinder replacement.
While tearing the engine down excessive crank bearing wear was evident. Was this caused by the high compression pistons or wear induced by the products of ring blow by? Probably a little of both, I had known that TBO would be reduced using the HC pistons but had hoped for at least 1500 hours not less then 1000.
I decided to use brand new stock Lycoming jugs on the rebuild.

After 60 plus hours on this rebuild I can say that I have lost 5 knots in cruise and burn about 1 gallon more per hour at rich of peak settings. The ECI jugs did not seem to like LOP operations and the speeds dropped way off to the point that I did not feel there were any real savings in terms of time or fuel with LOP settings.

With the new jugs I can run quite nicely LOP and after a few nozzle swaps I have all cylinders peaking within 0.1 gph, a number I have never gotten close to in all my other aircraft. The engine runs very smooth and I am experimenting with increasing power levels running LOP and there is some promise that I am going to get my fuel economy back. I am afraid that that extra 5 knots is gone for good.
The engine is broken in and oil consumption was one quart in 30 hours which is quite an amazing difference from the ECI jugs. At the end of the 30 hours the oil still has a gold tinge to it!

I have no regrets regarding the HC pistons and the flow balancing. At the time I was serious about racing and my numbers were very good. It came at a price in terms of longevity but money spent, I will forget, race wins I will not.
It is too bad that I had not gone with the Lycoming jugs from the start but at that time, 12 years ago, I had had some issues with lycoming quality and ECI had these new jugs that promised corrosion resistance. Since that time competition has upped the Lycoming quality and we all know how many folks have had issues with ECI jugs. It would indeed be interesting to see how HC pistons and flow balanced Lycoming jugs would have done.
At this time I am very happy with my stock engine; there was always this little black cloud in the back of my mind while flying the non stock engine, especially in areas of rugged terrain!
 
Since I don't have any recent cross country flights, and since my memory isn't what it used to be, I decided to double check my self.......

Here is a post (first post in the thread) from a couple years ago showing that my stated fuel flow was off a little bit but not much. Still good speed vs Fuel flow #'s with a stock engine.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=119114

One last bit of clarification, I wasn't recommending against the stock engine, I said in my post "if you are looking to customize it", they should also speak to Ly-Con. They have a great reputation.
 
One last bit of clarification, I wasn't recommending against the stock engine, I said in my post "if you are looking to customize it", they should also speak to Ly-Con. They have a great reputation.

No problem..... I didn't read it that way.

And I am not specifically recommending against modified engines either.

Just pointing out that the performance you have reported with an engine that is supposed to have an additional 25 HP is not better, and if anything worse (because of fuel flow) than RV-14's that have bone stock engines.
 
IO-360 from a 177RG

The Aerosport IO-382 is a PARALLEL VALVE engine. The IO-390-A3B6 and IO-360-A1B6 are ANGLE VALVE engines. I see where lots of -14 builders, or potential builders talk about this engine being an alternative. It can be an alternative if you are willing to modify the baffeling and other parts FWF to make it work. For the $1000-$2000 "savings" vs the IO-390 I am not sure it is worth it.

If you really want to build a -14 on the "cheap" I would look for a serviceable angle valve IO-360 from a Mooney or a C-177RG.

I have a Low time IO 360 in my 177RG that I want to use, What do I need to know?
 
I have a Low time IO 360 in my 177RG that I want to use, What do I need to know?

I'm thinking that there is a basic list of the required specs in this thread but I didn't find it from a brief scan. IIRC, you need an angle valve IO-360 (mostly because of CG issues, I believe), with horizontal induction & forward governor. Don't quote me, but I believe that the 177RG engine meets those specs. It's an -A1B6D, correct? Just need to know how that differs from the -A1B6.
 
Make sure it is an A1D6. The A1B6 as in the C177RG does not have a front governor pad. The engine MUST have a front governor pad (if you are going to be using a constant speed prop).
 
Make sure it is an A1D6. The A1B6 as in the C177RG does not have a front governor pad. The engine MUST have a front governor pad (if you are going to be using a constant speed prop).

That's confusing! It's my understanding that the IO-360-A1B6 that Van's sells, and used in the -14 prototype, has the front governor pad. The following Wikipedia page (which could ABSOLUTELY be wrong) indicates that the -A1B6D used in the 177RG differs from the -A1B6 only in the type of mag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lycoming_O-360_variants#IO-360

(And, I'll sheepishly admit that it was another Wikipedia page that I used to determine that the 177RG uses the -A1B6D. :eek:)

EDIT: Okay, I think I must have referenced an incorrect post that it was the -A1B6 in the -14 prototype. The Wiki page I reference above also indicates that it's the -A1D6 that has the front governor, not the -A1B6. At the same time, I've seen multiple references to the IO-360 from the Mooneys and Cardinal RGs being suitable engines for the -14/-14A. And, more hearsay, that the IO-390 being used to re-engine those same airplanes. I bow out of the discussion now. I'm obviously passing on too much bum info! :eek:
 
Last edited:
I have a Low time IO 360 in my 177RG that I want to use, What do I need to know?

Straight from Vans on their FB page.

"One of the most important red flags is the location of the propeller governor. The IO-360-A1D6, like the IO-390, has the governor mounted on the front left side of the crankcase. Many, probably the majority, of IO-360s have governors mounted on the rear accessory case, where it physically interferes with the steel engine mount/nose gear of the RV-14A and causes many ducting/wiring/routing problems for the RV-14. From what we can tell, it is not feasible to convert a rear governor engine to the forward governor configuration. We recommend that RV-14 builders avoid IO-360s with rear-mounted governors."

The full version here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=959224240815174&id=121827541221519
 
Last edited:
RV Engine Choices

Van?s Forum is filled with pages of discussion about which engine to buy, because builders want either a cheaper engine or a more modern engine than the Lycoming IO-390 sold by Vans. I too have been tempted by either the Titan 370 or the Superior XP-400 because they are advertised as being more advanced than the IO-390 as they come equipped with Nitrided Cylinders, counterbalanced crankshafts, roller tappets, weight matched components (pistons, rods, etc) and burn premium grade ethanol free mogas.

In addition Superior and Titan would let you build your own engine in their engine school, which would enable you to maintain it. However, after Continental bought Titan, they did away with engine school, but Superior will still allow you to observe or assist your engine build. Both engines are significantly cheaper than Vans Lycoming.

There are many arguments against using these alternative engines. The Titan attaches it?s constant speed propeller governor on right rear pad, where it interferes with the engine mount. In addition the Titan weighs 25 pounds less than the IO-390, which can lead to center of gravity problems. People who have installed the Titan report that expenses of modifying the firewall forward package have eaten their cost savings. The Superior engine is 2 inches longer than the IO-390, which will result in interference with the fit of the cowl. Lastly mogas isn?t a realistic fuel alternative as finding it when flying cross country is nearly impossible.

As for engine school, Lycoming offers both engine maintenance and engine assembly/disassembly courses, which will enable you to maintain your engine.

All this Sturm und Drang has been caused by Lycoming?s awful website, which offers little information and specifications. You can?t even find Lycoming?s publication Certificated Aircraft Engines SSP ? 110 on their site. You can download the June 2010 version here:

http://www.readbag.com/lycoming-support-troubleshooting-resources-ssp110

Now the good news: I need not have been concerned about IO-390?s modern features. After speaking with Lycoming?s technical support I learned that the Lycoming IO-390 engine has all the advanced features that we need. Vans sells the Lycoming model XIO-390-A3B6 RT, which comes with nitrided cylinders. A3B6 RT indicates that the governor is mounted on the left front of the engine, the propeller flange bushings are reindexed, the crankshaft counterbalanced with 1/6 & 1/8 order counterweights and the push rods have roller tappets.

If you want polished ports; pistons, pins & connecting rod?s all weight matched to 1/2 gram: order the Thunder Bolt version of the IO-390, which starts at $39,700. You can substitute E-Mags for the magnetos for an additional charge of $2,400. As for me, I plan on purchasing the IO-390 from Vans as soon as Lycoming announces it?s Sun ?n Fun show price.

Hartzell's composite propeller costs twice as much as it's 74 inch IO-390 aluminum propeller. As opposed to the 360, the aluminum propeller has no RPM restrictions when running on the 390.

See chart on next page: 


Engine Comparison


Manufacturer Lycoming Superior Titan
Designation XIO-390-A3B6 RT XP-400 IOX-370-A4H1N

Bore (inches) 5.319 5.126
Stroke (inches) 4.375 4.375
Displacement 389 400 361
Length (inches) 30.7 32.8 29.07
Width (inches) 34.25 34.3 33.41
Height (inches) 19.35 24 24.8
Dry weight (lbs) 308 310 283
Mount Dynafocal-1 Dynafocal-1 Dynafocal-1
Fuel system Injection Injection Injection
Fuel type 100LL 100LL/Mogas 91 100LL/Mogas 93
Cooling system Air Cooled Air Cooled Air Cooled

Power at 2700 rpm 210 215 200
Specific pwr: hp/in? 0.54 0.54 0.55
Compression ratio 8.70:1 8.90:1 9.6:1
Pwr/weight: hp/lb 0.68 0.69 0.71

Cost 38,700 34,500 30,300

Prop Governor Front Left Right Rear
 
Any engine updates at Oshkosh '17?

Just curious if anyone learned anything new about our -14 engine options at Oshkosh?

Thanks
 
Just curious if anyone learned anything new about our -14 engine options at Oshkosh?

I spent all week at OSH and if there's anything new with respect to engines suitable for the -14 I didn't hear about it. Van's is running the usual show special on IO-390 with Hartzell metal prop. It's not clear whether that deal is negotiated by Vans or between Lycoming and Hartzell, but I sure wish they'd offer a Lycoming/Whirlwind combo so we could get a modern composite prop. The Hartzell is the cheapest but it's heavy, transmits lots of vibration back into the airframe (typical of any metal prop), and worst of all the blade hub seals tend to dry out if you don't get it flying soon enough and then you've gotta pull the prop off and have it torn down to replace them. Kiss your $1000 savings goodbye...been there, done that, and Hartzell shows no inclination to fix the issue even though they've known about it for decades. So...the bundled deal is the cheapest option up front but has its drawbacks unfortunately...
 
SNIP but I sure wish they'd offer a Lycoming/Whirlwind combo so we could get a modern composite prop. SNIP...

Considering the Whirlwind 650 hour/5 year teardown and cost, I offer the Hartzell is the better value. I have a lot of hours behind this prop in the RV8A and RV-10, and my third Hartzell BA prop just arrived for the new RV-8 project. I've never had any issues with hub seals or anything else.

Carl
 
I sure wish they'd offer a Lycoming/Whirlwind combo so we could get a modern composite prop.

For most of us the Hartzell prop sold by Vans provides the best performance, is more durable and costs the least to buy and own.

Whirlwind have significantly higher overhaul requirements. Depending upon the model the Whirlwind gives you 3-5 years and between 400-650 hours. There are quite a few reports of premature failures - loose blades, grease leakage etc. In Australia we get 10 years and 2,000 hours on Hartzell even on a certified aircraft. One of the main reasons is that the Harzell can be re-greased at annual.

No composite blade will do well with stone damage. They cost lots of money when the nickel leading edge gets cracked and you will be out of action until it is repaired. Not ideal on an -A model RV with limited ground clearance. Taildraggers tend to do better.

Of course, the composite props are lighter, produce fewer vibrations and are great for aerobatics where the gyroscopic forces are low. They are quieter for our friends in Europe. Is it worth the additional inconvenience and cost for a composite propeller? That's up to each builder.
 
Considering the Whirlwind 650 hour/5 year teardown and cost, I offer the Hartzell is the better value. I have a lot of hours behind this prop in the RV8A and RV-10, and my third Hartzell BA prop just arrived for the new RV-8 project. I've never had any issues with hub seals or anything else.

If I recall correctly Hartzell has a TBO of something like 6 years but I've never met anyone in either the experimental or certified world who actually does that, and neither do the Whirlwind owners. As for the issues with slinging grease on the Hartzell, it's well documented by many owners, I think Tim Olson has written about it in his blog and plenty of instances in the VAF and Matronics forums. I suspect you are getting your airplanes flying more quickly than the average homebuilder if you've had three of them and no problems so far...
 
Whirlwind have significantly higher overhaul requirements. Depending upon the model the Whirlwind gives you 3-5 years and between 400-650 hours. There are quite a few reports of premature failures - loose blades, grease leakage, etc

Are those failures on recent 200RV and 74RV models? I know there were some issues like that with the earlier WW 151s about a decade ago but thought those problems had been resolved. If not it looks like I'll have to pick my poison when it comes time to buy a CS prop for my -14...
 
Back
Top