What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Alternative Engines?

rv6ejguy

Well Known Member
With Lycoming and other current aftermarket players seemingly unable to supply engine parts or engines in a timely fashion any more, it would appear to be a good time for someone new to step into the clone market or offer new engines/ parts for Experimentals.

Prices of a Lyc 540 is now in the $60K range which might open the doors to some competition I'd think

Does this take the shape of another Lyc clone, something like the Adept V6s or a professionally developed and tested automotive based engine?

I've contacted Adept a few times and they were very forthcoming with info in 2020 which I used in a YT video. A couple subsequent attempts were met with promises but so far not much new info other than they are fitting their engine to a Velocity in the US.

Would/ is Rotax planning to go upmarket with something like their canceled V300?

I talked to an experienced player designing a new aero CI engine in Europe in this hp range recently so perhaps others are starting to see that the time is right to potentially take some market share here.

Aeromomentum is apparently offering a Hyundai based FWF package which may fit RV-10s. Not aware of any flying yet though.

Or, will Lycoming step up and double production somehow to meet demand?

Thoughts or info welcome.
 
Last edited:
Here’s mine

Now granted it’s a long ways off the standard Vans reservation, but I’ve got the FWF working well for the Rotec 3600.
Just started taxi testing last week , so far all’s well
 

Attachments

  • 5C3330BF-A200-4C07-8C8E-941908405AFE.png
    5C3330BF-A200-4C07-8C8E-941908405AFE.png
    367.8 KB · Views: 342
UL Power is making great headway, and spending dollars on marketing too. If they made a FWF kit with all the goodies that Van's offers (or better), I bet they'd sell lots. The reputation of alternative engines is a ton of fabrication, delays, cost overruns. If UL Power can promise none of that will happen, I'd bet they'll take a chunk of sales from Lycoming/Ly-clones.

Only problem with them is the 3300rpm needed for max power. Not many props can spin that fast. Limit it to 2800 or 2900, and still most of the power is available, so not a deal breaker. They do have some prop connection too.
 
UL Power 520T

The UL Power 520T (220hp turbocharged 6 cylinder) redlines at 2,700 RPM.
I am putting this in my RV-8, in fact the engine has just rolled of the production line and should be in Oz in a few weeks.
Ray Lawrence at UL Power USA has a fwd kit for the RV-7 I believe, and is working on the RV-8 cowl and engine mount.
Air master Props in New Zealand also do a lineup of props that marry up nicely with the UL Power range as well.
I had my engine mount made locally, engine on its way, prop from across the ditch, and cowl from the US…it’s getting there!
 
With Lycoming and other current aftermarket players seemingly unable to supply engine parts or engines in a timely fashion any more, it would appear to be a good time for someone new to step into the clone market or offer new engines/ parts for Experimentals.

Prices of a Lyc 540 is now in the $60K range which might open the doors . . . . .

Why has Continental not been a player in the RV world?

Would Lycoming ever look into what business case would warrant putting a brand new design in development? Maybe due to push for electric development a new internal combustion engine does not have the product legs to invest in.
 
Why has Continental not been a player in the RV world?

Would Lycoming ever look into what business case would warrant putting a brand new design in development? Maybe due to push for electric development a new internal combustion engine does not have the product legs to invest in.

I assume because RVs are designed around Lycomings but all it would take is for Conti to buy an RV-10 and engineer the mount and installation of a 550 and do the flight testing. Of course they already made/make Lycoming clones in the Titan X540. What is their timeline on supplying 540 clones or 550s these days?

I notice the X540 is no longer listed on their website. Are they still producing it?

As far as the UL goes, it doesn't produce enough power for the the RV-10. Maybe they'd consider a larger displacement six?
 
As a dreamer, I always wanted a better engine. The Lycoming does quite well for our applications, but fuel requirements are the Achilles Heal.

What I would like to see:
- A two stroke diesel. Two stroke to keep the weight down and to reduce power pulses on the prop. For the RV-10 a six cylinder in the 250-280 hp range. Ok with Jet A.
- Direct drive. I suspect there are reduction schemes out there that work and are reliable, but I’ve never seen one that passes my muster.
- Turbo/super charged to keep HP up at altitude.

20 years ago Delta Hawk was the shiny bobble for this engine but it never came to market (I still have the Delta Hawk T shirt from Oshkosh 1999). Over those years projected delivery dates have ranged from 2001 to next fall. I also suspect that if a model ever does ship, it will be grossly overpriced (got to pay all those Angel Investors somehow….).

Carl
 
I assume because RVs are designed around Lycomings but all it would take is for Conti to buy an RV-10 and engineer the mount and installation of a 550 and do the flight testing. Of course they already made/make Lycoming clones in the Titan X540. What is their timeline on supplying 540 clones or 550s these days?

I notice the X540 is no longer listed on their website. Are they still producing it?

As far as the UL goes, it doesn't produce enough power for the the RV-10. Maybe they'd consider a larger displacement six?

For a gouge on what is currently available, might be available, or used to be available, folks can start their research with Tom Wilson’s deep dive into the market in the Kitplanes Engine Buyer’s Guide:

https://www.kitplanes.com/2022-engine-buyers-guide/

This will give you some insight into the current players in the market, but doesn’t really help with the question “why don’t we have…..?” I think that to answer that, you really have to understand economics more than engineering. Coming up with a new engine from a blank sheet of paper is horribly expensive, and the market is truly very tiny. Established companies understand that. New companies find it out the hard way.

As for this pilot, I am happy flying behind (or ahead of) anything that produces thrust in quantities required for flight - I have flown power plants originally designed for airplanes, cars, boats, and motorcycles (hey, that electric Zero motorcycle power system is pretty cool!). As a builder, I enjoy tinkering, but not as much as flying - and as an owner, I want something that works whenever I want it to, and isn’t going to surprise me with a major issue that costs lots of money to keep flying.

One of the advantages of my job is that I get to fly a wide variety of power systems for an hour each, and the odds that they will keep running for that hour are very good….and they don’t cost me (the visitor) anything to fly or maintain. But……ownership is something that requires deeper research to avoid surprises.

Technology advances are never cheap - but I admire those willing to take the plunge!
 
My criteria for a 540 alternative would be near equal or better weight, fuel burn, power and maintenance hours per flight hour and of course better availability than 2 years and price in the same ballpark or lower in an ideal world.

Jabiru proved you could build a billet engine in small quantities to be price competitive with legacy aero engine designs. The first few gens were not really good designs but it wouldn't cost more to do it right using the same sort of recipe.
 
In 2020 Titan told me the X540 is discontinued for the foreseeable future. Not enough demand to justify the resources I think and they were focusing on their smaller engines. Maybe once supply returns to pre-pandemic levels they will have enough spare parts and manpower to start making them again.
 
In 2020 Titan told me the X540 is discontinued for the foreseeable future. Not enough demand to justify the resources I think and they were focusing on their smaller engines. Maybe once supply returns to pre-pandemic levels they will have enough spare parts and manpower to start making them again.

Interesting when Lycoming has a 2 year backlog and RV-10s are the largest consumer of Experimental 540s. Seems like an odd decision once they already had tooling and production up and running. I understand that not all decisions are made in Mobile now.

Or they could just produce more 550s...
 
I assume because RVs are designed around Lycomings but all it would take is for Conti to buy an RV-10 and engineer the mount and installation of a 550 .........

Van's already did the engineering and installation of a Conti IO-360 for the 2nd RV-10 prototype back in the early Aughts...how much different is the 550 mounting scheme vs the 360 6-cylinder? Obviously the weight is different, which would mean incremental engine location deltas, but Van's could fairly easily accomplish that...if they weren't so busy with RV-15 design.
 
I predict that one of the next major engine offerings will have "Made in China" stamped on it. It will look traditional and may even carry a traditional brand name, but the North American market is going to have to dig deep to decide if such is a line we are willing to cross. China has the capability and they already own a surprising chunk of the industry base. They, along with Brazil are aggressively trying to expand their own domestic general aviation network. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese and then Korean manufacturing was considered junk and obviously that has been turned around. China obviously can manufacture to whatever quality standard is required. Would we buy a Chinese built 540 bolt on replacement for say ~70% of the going rate for domestic product?
 
I predict that one of the next major engine offerings will have "Made in China" stamped on it. It will look traditional and may even carry a traditional brand name, but the North American market is going to have to dig deep to decide if such is a line we are willing to cross. China has the capability and they already own a surprising chunk of the industry base. They, along with Brazil are aggressively trying to expand their own domestic general aviation network. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese and then Korean manufacturing was considered junk and obviously that has been turned around. China obviously can manufacture to whatever quality standard is required. Would we buy a Chinese built 540 bolt on replacement for say ~70% of the going rate for domestic product?

Dart engines in the US casts/ machines their own heads and blocks and say that they can produce these competitively in the US. I'd be willing to pay for a US made and supported engine even at a 30% price premium (same as a current Lycoming) rather than support the big C in any way.
 
Just my opinion

Gonna state the obvious, in my perception of reality at least.

Any new aero (applied) engine that is going to be a market disrupter from an economic standpoint (versus another "me too" option) are gonna need to have these parameters:

- It will not only have to be largely based on something designed for a larger market (automobile)
- It will have to share a vast majority of common parts with such.
- It would most certainly also have to share the same assembly line.

The electrification of the roads would actually hurt here to some degree. I cannot conceive of any favorable economics working any other way though I would love to be wrong on this.

One-offs based on cores, etc. are not gonna do it. Time to fantasize about the BMW diesel, low RPM, in-line 6 again
 
Last edited:
My take is that few OEM automakers will knowingly supply engines off their assembly lines for Experimental or certified aircraft strictly from profit and liability standpoints.

I think to path to low cost is to base the engine on as many COTS parts as possible, say Chevy, for things like lifters, valves, springs, pistons, rods, oil pumps etc.

CNC the blocks and heads from billet or there are some new laser techniques for turning out medium run casting molds. Either of these techniques would reduce tooling costs over traditional casting methods at these production quantities.

Cams are not really expensive and even crankshafts are relatively cheap these days for a nitrided billet or forged 4340 piece.

The case and heads would be the most expensive parts.
 
I don't think anyone has really analyzed whether or not the current exploding experimental market is an anomaly or a trend. If I were lycoming or any other manufacturer, I would think long and hard about whether or not the current market is either some type of bubble or a sign of things to come. If this is a bubble that pops and comes back to levels 2 years ago, a major investment, based upon anticipated future returns at the current demand, in either extra production capacity or new development could be a painful loss in a year or two down the road. I am guessing that Lycoming would have already ramped up production by now if it could do so without incurring significant capital expenditures or they are at the mercy of a few suppliers also not willing to invest in production ramping costs.

The aviation industry has had some pretty sharp up's and down's over the decades, making investment decisions challenging for CFO's and investors. I have to believe that the bulk of investments in alternative engines have resulted in sharp losses for investors. Even the PMA vendors aren't making money hand over fist. ECI had to be sold off and I highly doubt Superior is making good profits; If they were, they wouldn't have been sold off to a Chinese parent.

Larry
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone has really analyzed whether or not the current exploding experimental market is an anomaly or a trend. If I were lycoming or any other manufacturer, I would think long and hard about whether or not the current market is either some type of bubble or a sign of things to come. If this is a bubble that pops and comes back to levels 2 years ago, a major investment, based upon anticipated future returns at the current demand, in either extra production capacity or new development could be a painful loss in a year or two down the road.
Larry

The current backlog of RV kit orders means that hundreds of engines will also be needed to power them. Vans has only got busier over the years as certified aircraft prices skyrocket.

It would seem a fairly safe bet that if you got in soon, you could have a piece of a pretty stable market for at least a few years to come.

I don't believe it would take millions to pull this off if done right for this market. You'd want to ramp production up slowly and that's what would happen anyway with a new market entry.
 
I purposely wasn't considering liability issues. They are well known. I'm talking about getting something to market below the current levels. Don't the previous replies/arguments kind of drive my point. Hardware = Shared components, production, tooling, inventories,.....

Economics = Production efficiencies, relative economies of scale, limited FTE costs...

Hundreds of aircraft engines in the coming years is a data blip if you consider Ford sold over 3/4 million of one style of truck in a year. The point I was trying to make, I believe it's the only way to really change the current market.

China also knocked off a 737 as their first "domestically developed" airliner years back. Somebody else can let me know how it rides.
 
The current backlog of RV kit orders means that hundreds of engines will also be needed to power them. Vans has only got busier over the years as certified aircraft prices skyrocket.

It would seem a fairly safe bet that if you got in soon, you could have a piece of a pretty stable market for at least a few years to come.

I don't believe it would take millions to pull this off if done right for this market. You'd want to ramp production up slowly and that's what would happen anyway with a new market entry.

You may be right. I was afraid that the covid situation just pulled future demand into today, creating the current bulge and fear demand will fall off a cliff once the recession takes hold. Time will tell, but I don't believe that experimental aircraft are exploding as a trend; Growing, definately, but not exploding. Happy to be proven wrong. People also think that the real estate appreciation of 50% in that last two to three years is a permanent trend. Pretty sure they will be disappointed when it corrects. We are living in strange times, from a business / economic stand point. Some kind of economic third dimension.

Larry
 
Last edited:
One thing is inevitable…..things will change. The question is how long? Probably won’t worry many of us. It will be glacially slow. It won’t be an adapted auto engine IMHO either. Maybe an auto marque might try again (aka Porsche) but I’d imagine the gains simply won’t be worth the pain on all fronts….especially the liability front. Lycoming and continental have a firm grasp….a simple yet mostly reliable lump of engine that works.

You can go UL power but you are spending the same and stepping out on a limb.

The only viable alternative IMHO to cheaper offerings will be a Chinese clone. If they were reliable people would buy them. Some wouldn’t based on its origin. Then there is the question of Chinese parts fitted to lycoming engines. Personally I wouldn’t discount this from happening but I wouldn’t be the first to try it. China has some good stuff and lots of terrible stuff.

I just don’t see much change in the near future. Oh and the bubble bursting? Probably….but prices coming down….:rolleyes: Yeah…..right….
 
I purposely wasn't considering liability issues. They are well known. I'm talking about getting something to market below the current levels. Don't the previous replies/arguments kind of drive my point. Hardware = Shared components, production, tooling, inventories,.....

Economics = Production efficiencies, relative economies of scale, limited FTE costs...

Hundreds of aircraft engines in the coming years is a data blip if you consider Ford sold over 3/4 million of one style of truck in a year. The point I was trying to make, I believe it's the only way to really change the current market.

China also knocked off a 737 as their first "domestically developed" airliner years back. Somebody else can let me know how it rides.

The liability issues and small quantities are the reasons why you won't see an auto OEM skim complete engines off their regular production line for aircraft. That idea is dead right there and there are few suitable engines that could be used direct drive so that means gearbox development if you go with existing production engines. Not impossible but possibly expensive and time consuming.

I'd consider aftermarket suppliers for pistons, rods etc. Once an OEM finds out you're using their parts to build hundreds of of aero engines, you may be cut off. The Chevy aftermarket world is more than large enough to supply in this case.

I see a direct drive, big inch opposed 6 or 8 cylinder, pushrod design as best fit to replace the 540 using COTS Chevy bits. Nikasil coated aluminum air cooled cylinders like a Rotax and oil or glycol cooled heads.
 
China also knocked off a 737 as their first "domestically developed" airliner years back.

If you're thinking of the ARJ-21, it was a cloned DC-9/MD-80/717. The story behind that is interesting: Douglas set up a factory in China that got as far as building two or three MD-90s under license. The operation was then shut down. If you're wondering what happened to the factory tooling... I don't know for sure, but I suspect it was used on the ARJ-21, since the fuselage and tail are identical.
 
The liability issues and small quantities ...

This continues to boost my main point. Economically, don't expect any market disruption. Now, if only someone could make a product that could take advantage of the legacy design's strengths while making them more efficient and maybe a bit more powerful AND that system could be retrofittable to older installations....Wait a minute.

If you're thinking of the ARJ-21, it was a cloned DC-9/MD-80/717. The story behind that is interesting: Douglas set up a factory in China that got as far as building two or three MD-90s under license. The operation was then shut down. If you're wondering what happened to the factory tooling... I don't know for sure, but I suspect it was used on the ARJ-21, since the fuselage and tail are identical.

It was a Comac or similar name. Lots of IP theft alleged in the development. As mentioned, I'll let someone else experience their learning curve.

Cheers boys.
 
SNIP Now, if only someone could make a product that could take advantage of the legacy design's strengths while making them more efficient and maybe a bit more powerful AND that system could be retrofittable to older installations...
SNIP

I could not agree more.

Take a standard IO-360, replace the heads to incorporate direct injection, enable all the engine controls like I have on my 11.3 to 1 compression Colorado engine that burns 87 UL, and we have a path out of the dark ages.

Someone tell me why modern direct injection cannot work on a legacy Lycoming. Perhaps I just don’t understand.

Carl
 
I could not agree more.

Take a standard IO-360, replace the heads to incorporate direct injection, enable all the engine controls like I have on my 11.3 to 1 compression Colorado engine that burns 87 UL, and we have a path out of the dark ages.

Someone tell me why modern direct injection cannot work on a legacy Lycoming. Perhaps I just don’t understand.

Carl

That comment was for Ross who makes products that do exactly that.

@ Carl. DI on gasoline is a tough environment. The types of pumps needed to get to the pressures required are positive displacement mechanisms that have real surface-surface contact i.e. gear pumps. The contact pressure between the gear teeth is extreme due the very small contact area, guessing tens or even hundreds of thousands of psi (contact pressure). This is asking a lot of any alloy. Diesel fuel systems do OK there as it has a lot more lubricity than gasoline. When this came up in another post a while back, I actually asked Ross off-line about life expectancy of gasoline TDI engines (specifically pumps) and my suspicions were confirmed. Its gonna have a short and unpredictable life. Making a safe system would require incorporating a back-up FI pump. This would be critical, IMO. For PD pumps, the shaft horsepower is linear with pressure and flow and thus related amp draw. Keeping flow equal. A pump supplying 1000 psi (could easily require more than double that) would take almost 30X the amp draw of the current FI pumps. Small pump but big f'ing motor and related electrical.

All of the best electronics available could make the required and/ existing tech relatively efficient, fuel flexible, combustion stable, etc. Speaking directly to the Head of the Church of Electrical Redundancy, overcoming the aforementioned fluid system redundancy/reliability would be heavy and expensive.

Welcome to my world, Electrical Guy.
 
Every new Boeing and Airbus airliner delivered today has parts from all over the world, and especially China. China is considered one of the largest future markets for new airliners and their own parts in those airliners are the price of admission to their market. One of the largest plants that produces parts for Boeing is a Boeing joint venture in China.

I think some would balk to a Kitplane motor from China, but if it were designed, marketed and supported from a well known domestic source, I think people would buy on the money saved.
Continental Engines are already owned by a Chinese state owned industrial giant and speaking with reps at OSH last year they were all positive on the relationship.
They said that R&D budgets grew and that engineering had green lights to do their thing with little eastern oversight.
 
I wasn't thinking market disruption as in substantially lower prices, more a second reliable and well supported choice that you don't have to wait 24 months for delivery.
 
Remember Honda? And one day ... Electric

Does anyone remember the work of art that (I think) Honda had in the Continental booth at OSH some years ago?

I think it was 180 HP. It simply LOOKED awesomely engineered.

But alas, they did not seem to follow through with it. But if anyone MAJOR is to do an alternative/"Lycoming Replacement" engine, I would put my money on them with that project.

On the other hand, if I were planning the development of alternative propulsion for fice years from now, it would be ELECTRIC. Clearly not for the long flights initially but a target of 2 hours flight time by then. One hour is doable now. I keep imagining an ERV12 or should I say RVe-12. :)
 
Last edited:
Isn't the closest "alternative" engine the Continental CD series? We've got one flying around in an RV-10 already, and they're already delivering to OEMs so it's not a one off product either. Going to JET-A solves all the problems of our current engines IMHO, and Jet-A or an SAF equivalent is going to be around for a long time.
 
.

But alas, they did not seem to follow through with it. But if anyone MAJOR is to do an alternative/"Lycoming Replacement" engine, I would put my money on them with that project.

-12. :)

Put your money here, James….the UL engine is in mass production, proven and much cheaper than the Rotes in the -12. Come and look at mine!

Regards,
 
I wasn't thinking market disruption as in substantially lower prices, more a second reliable and well supported choice that you don't have to wait 24 months for delivery.

Air BnB changed the way a lot of people book vacation stays, Same for Uber and the taxi biz. As for GA, this is a bit of a tough one to come up with the best example here. innovative companies come along and can dominate a market over some time. Anyone reading this is probably thinking Garmin, here. This didn't change the market or business model per se'. Doesn't have to be price based benefit BTW but the change has to bring some value.

I'm sure there's better examples but the best I could come up with is Robinson. Their relatively low cost, 2000 hr limited airframe was somewhat different. It's let them dominate the small helo market and were the best selling GA aircraft some years; I would have lost that bet.

I read Pierre's comment above. I'll root for them. But, until they offer FWF kits, they probably aren't going to gain a lot of traction even in markets where they have a product. The 250 - 300 HP hole in the portfolio doesn't help.

Sorry for the drift. Not meant to be a debate. Trying to think of a good example here (not EAB versus Cert world).
 
I read Pierre's comment above. I'll root for them. But, until they offer FWF kits, they probably aren't going to gain a lot of traction even in markets where they have a product. The 250 - 300 HP hole in the portfolio doesn't help.

I agree, without FWF kits and a company test/ demo plane, I don't see anyone taking a big market share away from Lycoming any time soon.

The only other sub $85K only engines existing right now to fill the RV-10 niche are the Adept and Conti IO-550. Adept is reportedly working on an RV-10 FWF installation but have given out few details.
 
Would be cool if Vans would make the RV16 to be a 2+2 designed around the UL Power 520T. Perfect for people who either occasionally need four seats and/or want more storage (ie. golf clubs) than the RV14. Would instantly diversify engine and propeller suppliers since the UL likes the Airmaster prop.
 
UL Power FWF

I read Pierre's comment above. I'll root for them. But, until they offer FWF kits, they probably aren't going to gain a lot of traction even in markets where they have a product. The 250 - 300 HP hole in the portfolio doesn't help.

Have a look at my post on the first page.
 
Have a look at my post on the first page.

Attached below.

The UL Power 520T (220hp turbocharged 6 cylinder) redlines at 2,700 RPM.
I am putting this in my RV-8, in fact the engine has just rolled of the production line and should be in Oz in a few weeks.
Ray Lawrence at UL Power USA has a fwd kit for the RV-7 I believe, and is working on the RV-8 cowl and engine mount.
Air master Props in New Zealand also do a lineup of props that marry up nicely with the UL Power range as well.
I had my engine mount made locally, engine on its way, prop from across the ditch, and cowl from the US…it’s getting there!

First let me say, I'm an engineer and not a market analyst. That said, I don't understand UL's approach to the market. Getting in bed with an OEM goes a very long way in creating sales/backlog.

Why an RV7 kit first? There's more 6s out there from what I just searched (attached). What are the current sales numbers for a seven versus the other models? If going after the retrofit market, is this new engine (plus prop and other FWF components) going to be less than OH'ing the existing engine and prop? Then weigh the additional time and other "risks" associated with the conversion. Will there be an insurance rate increase from using such?

Make no mistake; I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm stating I don't understand their market approach. Let me also reiterate that I'm rooting for their success.
 

Attachments

  • 20JUN2022.PNG
    20JUN2022.PNG
    32.4 KB · Views: 84
Why an RV7 kit first? There's more 6s out there

Make no mistake; I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm stating I don't understand their market approach. Let me also reiterate that I'm rooting for their success.

Actually - UL Power USA is targeting the lions share of the RV (& homebuilt) market - as the RV6/A (2703) , 7/A (1904), & 9/A (1171) are essentially the same, with interchangable firewalls, cowlings, nose gear engine mounts (new style gear leg), common engine mount for 6 & 7... That's potentially 4778 retrofit sales!
 
Last edited:
Actually - UL Power USA is targeting the lions share of the RV (& homebuilt) market - as the RV6/A (2703) , 7/A (1904), & 9/A (1171) are essentially the same, with interchangable firewalls, cowlings, nose gear engine mounts (new style gear leg), common engine mount for 6 & 7... That's potentially 4778 retrofit sales!

Was going only on what was previously posted. Now I know. At least their market target makes sense now. If their FWF kit/PP/prop is competitive with OH'd component prices, they've got a decent initial chance. In the end, the product has to stand on it's own.

I didn't see any hydraulics available for the prop but didn't look too deep. Could hurt a little bit if true. Can probably gage their future success on teh number of used Lyc's that start getting posted. Thanks for getting me smarter on the RV config's.
 
Back
Top