What engine do you plan to install or have installed

  • Lycoming certified

    Votes: 64 22.6%

  • Lycoming Experimental clone

    Votes: 198 70.0%

  • Mazda

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Subaru

    Votes: 15 5.3%

  • Diesel

    Votes: 3 1.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Total voters
    283
  • Poll closed .
Build9A

Build9A

Well Known Member
There have been many threads concerning the engine choices made by builders. Thought it might be interesting to see how the percentages break out. Please feel free to select a choice even if you haven't actually purchased your engine yet.

As a side note, I chose the Lycoming Factory engine from Vans. I did consider auto conversions early on, but for various reasons ended up with the Lyc. A major factor for me was that I was financing the engine and at least the lenders that I contacted would only loan on a certified engine prop combo. That was 5 or 6 years ago, so things may have changed since.
 
Planning on a Mattituck

Since I live in CT, it's close enough to drive over there and pick it up when the time comes. I've visited the factory and spoken to them alot - very nice people and they've got build options (9:1 pistons, LASER, FADEC, etc.) available if you can't stand to be like everyone else.
Clay Cook
N801CM reserved for the "Cookie Monster"
tanks, tanks alot!
 
I'm curious what is the benefit of putting a certified engine on an experimental plane (assuming there's a higher cost to certified over a clone with the same specs). Any evidence they're more reliable? Is there a perception issue that would play into resale value? Or is it that people are using used/overhauled engines, of which certified are more prevalent?

FWIW, my plan is for a new clone.... sometime in early 2009 :)

-Rob
 
Not sure

I'm not sure that there is a benefit of factory over clone. With all that's available in the clone market and the price difference, I would have strongly considered the clone if I could have found financing 5 years ago.
 
<possible pro cert>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Utility - There might be some argument that the certified can be pulled and used in a certified airplane. (but why would anyone want to waste a good engine on a crummy spam can :)

Resale - Two identical aircraft one has a certified engine one exp. The certified could garner a higher price depending on the buyer.

Fly off hours - Reduce?

Insurance - Reduced?

Accountability - If you have ever read a proposed AD you will realize the detail that goes into following a cert power plant. Some of that is good some of it is not good.

<possible con cert>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Price - Costs more money

Flexibility - Any non certified thing you do makes the cert moot, non cert EI, FI, etc. In which case what was the point of going cert?


My plane when built had a Factory new AEIO-36O from vans. They can still order it from Lyc but it's just too expensive to be worth it.

New outright its MSRP is over 58K (you have to pay a core charge on a new outright engine) bought from Lyc without OEM.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/utility/global-resources/2007-Lycoming-Service-Engine-Price-List.pdf

Just for grins I called Vans to see what they could get it for. IF you hadn't bought an engine for a particular builder number under the OEM agreement, had bought all the kits, you could get it for a little less than 40K.

Just too much money. I would go exp.
 
Last edited:
engines

I have been using / recommending Americas Engines for a few years. They are for me, close, and are reliable and have friendly service. The ECI clones they sell have been great! I have one in my Borrowed Horse, runs good!
My $00.02
 
Clone here- - Superior IO 360 (possibly)

Interesting poll, I'm not surprised that the clones are polling so large a fraction of the votes.

My current plan is to install a Superior 360, but the final decision is still a ways down the road, and I'm always open to others builders' opinions and experiences.

That said, I also think that diesels have a lot of potential, especially since the engines have fewer moving parts, they are less susceptible to shock cooling, and diesel fuel has more power than does gasoline. (They are also heavier, water-cooled, and reportedly rougher on propellers.)

Regards all - - Tom
 
Superior IO-360

I got to help build a friend's XP-360 a few years ago under the tutelage of an AP/IA/master machinist. He was pretty high on the XP and took the time to compare features for us side by side with several Lycs he had in the shop, notably where Superior had done detail improvements on the Lyc. design. A stronger case web here, an oil passage there, beefier rods, nicer cyls etc etc. That particular engine, as well as several other XPs I know, are giving sterling service right now.

Call me boring, but that's enough for me. A purpose-built design, improved upon over years and years of experience and taking advantage of better materials and methods on an ongoing basis. I like it. Plus, Superior is right down the street. I can and have dropped in for the occasional chat. Convenient.

I can't comment on the other Lyc/clones since everyone I know (including the IA/AP now) is running Superior but clearly they have a lot of fans as well.

I didn't consider an auto-conversion because I'm just not that kind of guy.

John
 
I had a Lycoming engine assembled by AeroSport from 100% Lycoming components. So it's not a certificated Lycoming engine but on the other hand it's certainly not a Lycoming clone either. On that basis there is no category in this poll that my engine would fall into.

In reality I believe that most of the Lycoming engines now sold by Vans are also not certificated....but they're not Lycoming clones either.

I therefore suspect that this poll must be confusing a number of people and might be producing misleading information.

The categories should be: 1. Lycoming (experimental or certificated). 2. Lycoming clone. 3. Etc.
 
I second Bob's comment. For example, all the IO-390X engines are OEM parts, not clone, assembled at the shop of your choice as an experimental.
 
Just to pick nits a bit...

Superior does sell a certified engine (their Vantage series). Last time I checked they had STCs for C-172s, Mooneys and several other production aircraft. They also have some OEM deals and are working on others.

My XP-360 with updraft aluminum sump uses all the same parts. The only difference I found when looking was a different oil filter adapter.

So in other words my XP-360 is as 'certified' as many of the Lycomings that are out there on RVs.
 
ECI Engine and Penn Yan Aero assembly

ECI is family-owned and has been in business since 1943. I went there a few years ago and got the tour. All their internal parts are PMA approved for use on Lycoming crank cases in certified airplanes. Their crankcase design has the extra features as described in an earlier post, making it better than the Lycoming. They have their own foundry and build their crankshafts - avoiding some of the recalls that plague Lycoming owners. The other thing I liked is their Nickel-Carbide cylinder treatment they licensed from Porsche - - no RUST even if the engine is not used regularly.

Penn Yan Aero is family-owned and has been in business since 1945. I also got the tour there in 2006 and saw the difference between standard steel cylinder barrels and the nickel-carbide versions. I was glad I chose that option on my XE-320, 160 HP engine. I have one Slick MAG and One Lightspeed Plasma III ignition with crank sensor.

I got my engine September 10, 2004. http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a054.htm The first engine start was on June 6, 2005. http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a134.htm

The Hobbs time on the airplane now stands at 239.3 hours and all is well.
 
I asked Lycoming why they call their "experimental" a "YIO" instead of "XIO" and the response was "to better differentate the engine from other engine suppliers."

 
Barretts

Don't forget Barrett Precision. Although I have an ECI and love it, I may have them build an engine for my next project. I want the new IO 360 that runs on alcohol/nitro with Nitrous injection at take off power. 210HP+.

They also build the everyday engine as well!!!
 
I looked at the Lycoming and other Lycoming clone options and thought they all would be good choices. What tipped the scale for me was my previous experience with factory original Lycomings, the reduced phase one fly-off time, and the assurance that Van's spec'd engines would be compatable with their accessories. So I went with the Van's Factory New Lycoming and the Hartzell BA prop. Van's had not yet been offering the experimental Lycomings. I may have gone that route if they had. Both have proven to me I made excellent choices.

Rich and I made a short vacation to Williamsport and Piqua, picked up the engine and prop, and got special factory tours of both factories. Both arranged by Van's. Very nice experience.

Roberta
 
My -6 had a Certified Lycoming. For my -8A I ordered a experimental Lycoming from Van's. The engine is identical to the certified version without the certified data plate but 2K less. Also, it was hard to pass up the 1K discount for engine and prop combo from Van's. I had such good luck with the first engine, the choice for the -8A was not difficult.
 
Todd

I'm with ya... I've been following your install with interest, and even though I'm still a really long ways off from needing an engine, I like the alternative engine route. So keep us posted on your progress, as I might be your first LS2 "convert"
 
engine choice

I'm still a good bit from getting that power plant. When the time comes, I plan to look at all options and see what is available, new - used, certfd or not. Many pilots have come accross that "offfer thay can't refuse" when shopping. May not have been their first choice but the best choice under the circumstances.

Hopefully that "magic" deal will fall in my lap when the time comes.
 
Liquid cooled

I currently have a Subaru EJ25/Warp drive combo on my RAF 2000 Gyro. Having followed the progress of Eggenfellner Aircraft and watched the Subie scene, I've become a fan. Flat 4/6, bulletproof construction and competitive performance all make the Subie look good.

However, I fly on avtur for a living and worry about the death of avgas. I also hate the engineering compromise that is the throttled internal combustion gasoline engine. Controlling an engine by deliberately making it less efficient always seems poor practice to me. I know that gasoline direct injection engines have/are being built (Mitsubishi) but none that fit the mould of a good aero conversion.

Modern diesels, however, fit the bill perfectly. Their power delivery curve is well suited to CS props, they are much more efficient than gas engines and with common-rail injection and turbos are approaching the power/weight/smoothness capability of gas engines.

So, in summary, I want a flat 4, turbochared and bulletproof avtur burner. VW 2.0L oil burners are looking good and can be chipped to happily deliver 180+ hp and mountainous torque, but are I-4 engines so long nose/CofG for an RV would likely be an issue.

Roll on the new 2.0L Subaru turbo diesel boxer 4. Supposed to give 163hp and 250ft.lb in stock form. If the diesel tuning crowd jump on it with as much enthusiasm as they have with VW, Merc, Volvo, Ford and all the others, we should see a very nice 180+hp diesel that is the right shape and if it demonstrates the obligatory Subaru bulletproof reliability, could be the engine core to blow gas burners into the weeds.

Not much point in developing a new design, aviation only engine (Deltahawk, Wilksch etc) when auto manufacturers can produce a suitable core engine with all the advantages of development, production and support that comes with mass production. Thierlert have done the job with the Merc core and I imagine that we'll see the same with other engines over time.

Subaru Diesel RV-8 please!
 
Big problem with all the new engines gas or diesel is making the OE ECUs happy enough to run the engine without the chassis wiring plugged in. Theft and ignition interlocks with wireless security codes and all the interconnected sensors make this a difficult task with a lot of unknowns. I think this will severely limit the use of these engines in aircraft unfortunately.

With a VP prop we can fly WOT most of the time in cruise and climb efficiently with a gasoline engine so this is not so much of a deal in aviation as it is in automotive use.

There are many direct injection gasoline engines now being produced by most of the OEMs today. Unfortunately the same OE ECU problem applies to them as well. We may be stuck with low tech engine stuff for some time in aviation until dedicated controllers are available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.