Aerosport vs New Lycoming from Van's

[osxuser]

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

Stephen A&P

[13brv3]

Originally Posted by penguin

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

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

Hi Pete,

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

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

BTW, I have never built a plane with the intent to sell it, but the RV-8 will be the 5th plane I've built, and so far, I've never flown one more than 2 years. From that history, I've come to realize that resale is important, which is why I'm not installing a rotary engine :-)

[13brv3]

Originally Posted by osxuser

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

Stephen A&P

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

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

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by 13brv3

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for all the comments!

DO your home work and call around. Oh yea brake the piggy bang and write a BIG-OL-CHECK. G

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by 13brv3

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

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

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

It's a strange fact these days that after a couple of major overhauls some people are flying around saying they've got a Lycoming powerplant when possibly the only Lycoming component left may be the crankcase...and sometimes not even that.

[cjensen]

Originally Posted by 13brv3

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

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

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

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

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

[rv72004]

For what its worth , I had been involved in the rebuild of my io 540 some time back. I decided to use superior parts instead of Lycoming for the most part. As the engine shop pointed out and I could clearly see, the Superior parts were far better finished off than the Lycoming counterpart. Granted this doesnt mean the quality is better, but sure seems the effort gone into superior parts is greater.
I was so impressed that I bought a xp360 from Superior for my RV . It looks beautifully finished. Is it better than a Lycoming, ECI, etc ?
Dunno. Dont think the difference will be felt in flight.But Im happy with my choice.
Bottom line , buy the one you like better. Just make sure its from a reputable company.
My 2 cents

[Captain Avgas]

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

My understanding is that if you drop a certificated donk in an experimental plane the engine becomes experimental as well. However if the engine is subsequently overhauled, or stripped and inspected, by a LAME and determined to be within spec for a certificated engine (and still has all certificated components) then it can be reclassified as such and used in a certificated plane.

[13brv3]

Thanks for all the comments. It does sound like a mix and match solution to the parts brand may be in order. I'm sure Bart knows as well as anyone, which parts can be trusted the most, and which might have a performance edge over the others. When I get ready to make the order, I'll probably ask him to make his recommendation, and just go with that.

E-mag/P-mag is a go.

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

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

[RV7ator]

Guys,

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

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

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

John Siebold