Wanted / Choices in engines For -10

I have noticed that the only choice we have for the -10 is a lycoming engine for the plane. Do any of you think that three years from now Superior will make a newly desinged engine, like the xp360, but a xp 540 for us RV 10 builders that would like to have a modern engine design? Or perhaps a Turbine<

What is your thoughts on the subject?

If you won't be ready for an engine in your -10 for a couple years, you should have a couple of new choices. Eggenfellner is prepping a Subaru EZ30 based turbo engine and there is another company preparing another auto based turbo engine for the -10 which I can't comment on at this time. If Vesta and Robinson can reduce the weight of their LS based V8s, this is another possibility. Mistral and Deltahawk may get something done within that timeframe also. In 2-3 years, the prototypes should have been flying for some time and have the bugs worked out. The 540s will still be available as a la$t resort if these don't pan out.

Insurance is another matter and of course Van's is not keen on non-approved engines: "If a kit is modified in any significant manner, it should not be considered an RV (type) for registration purposes... If the builder chooses to deviate from the plans and install a non-standard engine... he or she is assuming responsibility for the airworthiness of that modification... technical support may not be available...".

Well, Mattituck already has a TMX-540 available.

TMX 540

Is this based on a Lycoming Engine Block, or is it a new computer designed engined from the ground up?

ECI "540"

While I'm going the alternate engine route with a 20B 3 rotor wankel, I thought I'd mention that ECI (a regular advertizer here) has stated that they are building new crankcases and crankshaft for a 540 clone. I got that info from the ECI rep in their booth at Golden West flyin in June. He said that they were about 6 months from releasing the first-run info. While I would take the timeline with a grain of salt, they should be able to produce a 6 cylinder without to much trouble since the cylinders and topend will be the same as their 360 clones just more of them.

Bill Jepson
Rotary10-RV

szutowiczrv10 said:

I have noticed that the only choice we have for the -10 is a lycoming engine for the plane.
What is your thoughts on the subject?

Click to expand...

As homebuilders, we have any choice of engine WE want.

Vans has determined that the best choice, based on thier criteria, is the Lycoming.

Stop and think a minute of WHY Vans would do that. I suspect you may come up with a lot of reasons, including simplicity, and liability, and a bunch more that all are various forms of compramises.

The Lyc fits the needs of Vans, and a lot of othere, but may not fit your needs.

Notice that at no time did I ust the term "Best Engine".

Mike

We are going the alternate route with the Vesta LS2 V8. It weighs more than the IO-540 by at least 50lbs. We added an additional battery and put our EFIS one box in the rear to help with the C.G.But there are many plus sides to this engine. We calculated that we should get a fuel burn of 10 to 11gph versus around 15gph for the 540. We can run mogas or 100LL. We just have to bring the mogas to the airport. We will have 300HP versus 260. The biggest plus is AC. Most of our flights will be from Florida to NC. There is no problem cooling the airplane at 10,000' but you will spend a half hour on either end of the flight sweating to death. Our engine should be arriving in September. I will post the real performances when it is flown, probably in December or Jan. This is the engine we chose. There are many great choices and by the time you are ready for an engine there will be many more. Just go to OSH or Sun-n-Fun a year before you think you are going to need an engine and talk to everyone that has an engine for sale. Also many of these alternate engines will have track records by then, some good, some bad!Pick the engine that fits what you going to be doing with the airplane. We chose an engine that has a lot of power, can use mogas and has AC. The power is to climb out fully loaded on hot humid day from just about any runway. The mogas for economy and the AC because sweating to death sucks!

Choices

I am still a few years away from that choice (time and money) but have been thinking about it. I am most intrigued by the DeltaHawk 200HP Jet-A/Diesel and its projected pricepoint (~$30K). So I may sacrifice 5kts top speed but would appear to burn half the fuel and can use a variety of fuels, including the new ultra-low-sulfur auto diesel (ULSD) mandated in 2007. Or even biodiesel! I hope to be able to afford fuel and have options for my great plane in 15 years.

If you're interested in something really on-the-edge, and want to sound like a turbojet, check out Innodyn's 188 pound, 205 or 255HP jet-a burning turbine (www.innodyn.com) at about the same price. The have an RV-8 equipped with one (longer nose to move CG forward) on a demo video. They, like a few others, are a start-up company (Pennsylvania)

In these cases I am looking forward to others blazing trails and telling us the real configuration and performance reports before I make that big investment. Both claim to be investigating firewall-forward kits, so if you are interested, let them know.

Please keep us informed about the Vesta

My neighbor races cars and says the LS2 is the most reliable auto engine in it's class to ever be built and that it has many characteristics, including oil management, that are suitable for aircrafts.

I can't wait to hear how well it performs . . . and the price is right!

Turbine

Correction, both an RV-4 and an RV-8 have the turbine, with the video being of the -4.

Alternate Route V8

After Talking with Vesta and reading many articles, I have come to the conclusion that the V8 solution, while not popular with many, is the best route for price, performance, and rebuilding. For 50 years one would think that lycoming and others would design a new liquid cooled engine for aircraft.

I am a few years away from the time I will need one and am sure many improvements will be made by the time I need it, not to mention, I will not have to finace a engine; Iwill pay cash for my V8. Oh happy days.

Jim

I am sure others have considerd those from Jpan: Toyota or Honda V6 alum auto engines. What about those out of an Acura or lexus?
Can these be remapped to suit high altitude operations?
Pardon my ignorance, but has anyone tried these?

Nobody seems to be fitting the Toyota or Honda V6s in aircraft I'm assuming because of a lack of production redrives for them. This is a catch 22 as the redrive manufacturers will only build drives for the popular engines. how will an engine get to be popular without an available redrive?

On paper, either of these engines would make a wonderful RV10 powerplant out of the box. Vee engines unfortunately don't lend themselves to fitment into a -10 with a gear drive due to the crankshaft position vs. thrust line. Chain or belt drives would likely have to be used to get the desired offset.

The OE ECUs are altitude compensating via the MAF sensor or an aftermarket programmable unit could be substituted if you wanted to run auto fuel and 100LL.

The opposed Subarus are popular because they are light, powerful, bulletproof, have drives available, the right shape and have a proper thrustline to fit most RVs.

Still, I'd love to see/ hear a 300 hp Nissan VG35 fitted to a -10. Anyone who heard the twin Nissan VG30 turbo powered Pond racer fly would have to admit that it sounded sweet.

Why? You can get 300 HP and more out of a Mazda 20B (3-rotor) all day long without turbocharging, and there ARE redrives available. Less vibration and minimal wear, and lightweight (abt 370 lbs fwf) as well.

Modern engine? What is that?

szutowiczrv10 said:

I have noticed that the only choice we have for the -10 is a lycoming engine for the plane. Do any of you think that three years from now Superior will make a newly designed engine, like the xp360, but a xp 540 for us RV 10 builders that would like to have a modern engine design? Or perhaps a Turbine.

Click to expand...

Forget Turbine, the economics make zero sense. Just look at commercially available single engine turbine aircraft, size, weight and cost. Flying 100 hours a year in a 4 seater, unpressurized aircraft with Vne in the low 200's is not an ideal airframe for a turbine. Cessna Caravan, Turbine Air Tractor (Ag plane) or a fast high flying pressurized corporate single turboprop is a better match. The Innodyn is another issue. That is a simple single stage Turbine which I consider "toy" turbine (see other threads).

"RV 10 builders would like to have a modern engine design?"

I don't understand the comments about modern engine? I hear it all the time but its not defined. The Lyc's and Continental's are air cooled by design. Their lineage is from extensive development over decades by the best and brightest scientest and engineers. There is nothing new under the sun. Granted much of the research and development was done during WWII. True the basics of the engine "Block" (bottom and top end) of our Lycs is bassed on parts unchanged for many decades, that is because it does not need changing, it was done right from the start. However I'll point out new finishes and improvements have been made like these MODERN ENGINE PARTS.

If you want an air-cooled engine, the Lyc 540 is the state of the art air-cooled, direct drive engine in the 260 HP class. You will not go faster, lighter or with better fuel burn, SO WHAT IS NOT MODERN?

Now there are advancements for Lycs, like electronic ignition, cold air induction, roller cam's and lightweight accessories (alternator, starter, prop governor), but the basics of the engine are still the same, as advanced as you need for for and air-cooled, direct drive, 2,200-2,700 RPM, low weight, simple installation, high reliability engine. If you designed an air-cooled engine today it would look like a .......... well a Lycoming.

The materials, processes, tolerances and technology in a Lyc is as high tech as it gets. Some I think are confused by the rough finish of the case and cylinder head fins. They are precision structural castings for light weight and why they look as they do. There's the desire to have a beautiful car engines, machined out of a forged aluminum block with a million valves per cylinder and gee whiz of the latest electronics. If you machined a Lyc case, cylinder heads and sump out of solid aluminum, it would look pretty but weigh a lot more. Precision castings are very modern and basically a work of art.


You see tolerances of 0.002 and 0.005 all over the engine. The valves are like inconel and sodium filled. The crank's made with vacuum arc remelt process, which improves the homogeneity, fatigue and fracture toughness and the cleanliness of the steel and significantly reduces discontinuity formation. Superior claims proprietary Electro Slag Remelt (ESR) process removes more metal impurities than the VAR process. Either way they are very high tech. An auto crank is made with what process? Auto cranks are not required to take the load of a directly driven prop, so you can't compare. If some one whats to bring up crank failures or AD's, that ship has sailed. Yes there was a screw up but as far as crank failures verses fleet, time and hours flown the MTBF is low. Bottom line the AD is preventative and here is an article the addresses this (see part II). Lyc addresses Crank AD. AOPA's brief on the Crank AD subject. Bottom line it is a metallurgical problem not a design issue, and it is really a small one in the large scheme of things. If the crank is manufactured properly than it is extremely reliable and overbuilt from a operational, stress, strain and fatigue standpoint.


From my engineering eye the Lycoming is elegant purpose designed engine; that purpose is an aircraft engine. Any automotive engine you use, no matter how cool technologically, is a work around, make-do, adapt, convert and compromise. In my opinion is look for a used 540 core, get some A&P who know engines to help and learn how to rebuild it and do that.

Air cooling in not old fashion, it's that way by design. You would never tell a Porsche 911 driver his sports car is old fashion. Yes they went to water cooling in 1999 to meet stringent noise standards, also making it easier to meet the most strict emissions, but the air cooled 911 Porsche's are the most desired over the H2O versions.

If a modern engine (water cooled) is better than why are the fastest lightest RV's powered by Lycomings? Why are the fastest racers at Reno racers Air Cooled?

I contend when any one says "Modern Engine" they mean water cooled CAR engine. Yes, car engines are modern engines, modern car engines. Lycs are modern aircraft engines. Yes, car engines have nice features, many driven by electronics, but they are car engines. Yes many car engines have variable valve timing, a million valves per cylinder, which is great when going from idle to 1,000,000 RPM and back to idle a ba-zillion times a day. However aircraft engines live in one very narrow steady state power range 95% of the time, except during taxi, takeoff and approach. You just don't need overhead cam's (which make the engine wider). Plus you don't need long rubber belts to drive those overhead cams, which can fail (It has happened). Not to mention a reduction drive. Those have also failed.

Last there's PLENTY of air to cool an air-cooled engines in an air-plane. If you want a water cooled engine fine, but be ready to do massive R&D and work like RV6ejguy is doing, which is great. All RV's are designed for air cooled engines, not water cooled engines. When RV6ejguy works out that set-up on his RV-10, that may be a great option, but for now your path of least resistance and best (known) performance is building your RV-10 "to the plans", e.g., (I)O-540 Lyc parallel valve.

Last I think some equate modern with CHEAP! Look by the time you get done with your MODERN auto engine conversion it will either cost you massive time or money or both. That makes a new / overhauled off the self "turn key" pretty and painted 540 Lyc for $39,000 a bargain. I still think you can find a 540 Lyc core for $12,000, overhaul for about the same for $24,000 to $30,000 (max).

Every one wants the fastest, lightest plane with a cheap engine. When you find that engine that will do that, let me know, I will declare it THE modern aircraft engine. For now the Lyc comes closest to meeting all criteria and Van's design goals. What water cooled engine fans need is a new airframe, designed around the engine.

Don't be mad, just my opinions and they may be wrong. I can go on about how I admire the efforts of those who try different stuff; I do admire the effort. Bottom line is each to their own. I reserve the right to be wrong, but the Lycoming is a beautiful modern AIRCRAFT engine, even if based on a 50 year old design. In a sense all engine are based on concepts that are 60-100 year old. I think the Lyc is the start of the art for an air-cooled aircraft engine, and it's the standard ALL engines, used in small aircraft, are measured by. That is the real telling point.

Mazda 20B

cobra said:

Why? You can get 300 HP and more out of a Mazda 20B (3-rotor) all day long without turbocharging, and there ARE redrives available. Less vibration and minimal wear, and lightweight (abt 370 lbs fwf) as well.

Click to expand...

Bill is working on a 20B RV10 which should be very cool. Yes this is another alternative. In atmo form however these engines are earsplitting and require a very large, heavy muffler to be acceptable. The turbo takes the bark right out, allows lower rpm for better fuel specifics and higher hp at altitude.

Work done by John Slade with his 13B turbo Cozy seem to indicate at this time that the turbo is the way to fly on the Wankel. The new Garrett unit is showing no signs of distress so far and it is very quiet with an open pipe.

The Wankel may not be a good fit in a -10 with a planetary drive because there is only about 7.5 inches from the thrust line to the cowling top 12 inches back from the spinner. An offset drive may be required for induction system clearance or a longer drive extension to move the engine back more where the cowling is taller. This may screw with the weight/ moment of the installation of the relatively light 20B. Cowling mounted rads could help to put some weight back into the nose so there are always solutions. Bill has done some study in this area maybe he can comment.

My EG33 twin turbo installation makes for a very crowded cowling with the turbos, ducting/ oil and intercoolers in place. There is no way I'd have room to place effective radiators in the cowling with the Subaru. The different shape of the Wankel might allow this.

I'm in the mockup, layout, thinking stage now. The right front injector fuel feed fitting is within 1/8 of an inch of the cowling and this was after building a custom, low profile intake manifold to replace the factory monstrosity. I found a source for heavy walled 321 elbows for the turbine inlet system in Texas and 4130 is on order for the engine mount. I'm getting ready to start fabbin' and TIG'n. Whoohoo!

Lycoming Engines

Thanks for all of your replies. You will have to understand that I am fairly new to flying and the concepts of engine design for aviation, thus I may make erroneous statements that show my ignorance of such matters and I am ok with that. This is why I am here talking and trying to understand all the concepts of engine designs for aviation and the weaknesses they might posses from my perspective.

Being that I am from a background of V8 engines and have be wrenching on such motors all my life and have worked on air cooled motor cycle engines as well, I have some knowledge of such matters, but most of my comments about aviation are based on perception.

I see looking from the outside in, gives me an opportunity to have fresh ideas, look at engine design openly, and why the tolerances have to be so high in aviation. So, I will try to better explain myself when making these comments, you may not agree, but I am a trueborn problem solver from the old school, I just use modern technology to make up for my lack of engineering or research what others already have in aviation.

So, I look forward to better understanding aviation problems in engine design; being that we are an experimental in nature, we as a community, should strive to push the envelope in aviation design. I firmly believe that if it is not broke why fix it. On the other hand, just because it has worked for fifty years does not mean that it cannot be made better, not baby steps better like Windows, but a paradigm shift in technology and design in motors that is driven by us, the end user.

Now get pounding rivets!

Not going to use a V8

Well guys, after more research, The RV -10 IS NOT a plane for a v8 Conversion. The structure and design is not a match. There are planes that are great for such conversions, this is not the case with the -10. I would suggest going to http://www.epi-eng.com/GBX-Mark15.htm and reading the information, grasp it and understand it. It made a difference to me. I hope ECI will come out with the Experimental IO 540 build it yourself kit by the time I need a power plant.

Jim

szutowiczrv10 said:

Well guys, after more research, The RV -10 IS NOT a plane for a v8 Conversion. The structure and design is not a match. There are planes that are great for such conversions, this is not the case with the -10. I would suggest going to http://www.epi-eng.com/GBX-Mark15.htm and reading the information, grasp it and understand it. It made a difference to me. I hope ECI will come out with the Experimental IO 540 build it yourself kit by the time I need a power plant.

Jim

Click to expand...

It took a bit of looking, but I found the info Jim is refering to above. Hopefully the link http://www.epi-eng.com/CNV-Evaluation.htm will take you directly there.

George, you are going to LOVE this.

Mike

EPI site

I've followed the progress of EPI over the years and this update is really spot on and covers the points concisely and realistically. IMHO the V8 conversions are really too heavy for even the RV10. Yes it can be done and will be done but the structure really needs to be investigated.

An LS1 long block weighs around 390 lbs., LS2 around 375. Subaru EG33 265 lbs.

Great link.

ECI Lycoming Knock off.

I heard from a source that ECI will indeed be showing at Oshkosh 2007 their Lycoming 540 knock off. Here is what I got.

Jim,,, It will be sometime before we have a stroker 540. We will bring in first the normal 540. Lead time on the crankcase and c/shaft are quite lengthy.. We are looking at having the 540 around Oshkosh 2007.


Hope the price is right

Hopefully they will have the Stroker EXP IO 540 Kit by the time I need to get my engine. This would be quite cool!

Cool!
I am NOT averse to the lyc/clone. I love it and fly behind it on a cert plane now.
George, I am sorry to have your BP up with all of this, asking about alternate powerplants. I am one of those dreamers who wants a better one, whatever that means, we dont know as of today. Surely there's got to be a better one?
I know of the ECI, have been talking to them and following their progress minutely, and will be going that way for my for my _10.
Interesting part above that "maybe" they will sell a kit to a savvy builder directly.

ECI is turning out great product by all accounts. If they can bring their 540 kit in under Lyco's pricing, it should be a goldmine if RV10 sales stay hot. Power to 'em.

Modern is great but not always better

rv6ejguy said:

ECI is turning out great product by all accounts and now being owned by Thielert, even better quality control is sure to follow. If they can bring their 540 kit in under Lyco's pricing, it should be a goldmine if RV10 sales stay hot. Power to 'em.

Click to expand...

I think that's Superior? Superior was bought out by Das Germans, aka Thielert AG. As far as QC, I have used ECI parts and they are top notch. There was a recall on a batch of cylinder castings a while back, but it was covered under warranty. Details found on their site or you can call them.

Aviator said:

Cool!
I am NOT averse to the lyc/clone. I love it and fly behind it on a cert plane now. George, I am sorry to have your BP up with all of this, asking about alternate power-plants. I am one of those dreamers who wants a better one, whatever that means, we don't know as of today. Surely there's got to be a better one? I know of the ECI, have been talking to them and following their progress minutely, and will be going that way for my for my _10.
Interesting part above that "maybe" they will sell a kit to a savvy builder directly.

Click to expand...

Not at all buddy, totally cool and glad to hear you are not going to the dark side. I just hear this "modern engine" thing and on one hand understand, on the other hand I think it's a cliche without meaning. Just pointing out the technology inside the Lyc is not out of date or passe, its' that way on purpose and based on sound "modern engineering" and manufacturing.

I just want to establish what a "modern engine" is. Clearly if you installed a Lycoming in a car the "modern (car) engine" would win hands down. So the fact a car engine can even come close to doing double duty is neat, but it works in reverse, in that the Lycoming is in it's element in an airplane. It is about engines optimized for their application by engineers from a clean sheet.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming, and I to would love to see some one stuff a LS1 or LS6 into a RV-10 to see what happens. I just would not personally do it. The work RV6ejguy is doing is awesome, but he is smarter, has more talent and resources than I do. It will be fun to see what happens. He's a straight shooter and if anyone can make it work he can.

Since modern engines, aka automotive engines, installed in airplanes tend to be heavier, more draggy (slower), burn more gas, noisier or more complicated to install (relying on more mechanical and electronic "systems"), I just want to establish modern engines are great, but not always better.

I still think you can find a nice O or IO 540 core for $6,000-$12,000 and overhaul it for $10,000-$15,000 (wild guess based on do it yourself). My guess is you could have a nice engine, OH'ed, for mid $20K's, which is on par or far better than alternative engine Kit's and do-it-yourself affairs.

Well if it's in print it must true. I took the numbers from ECI and the numbers from Vesta for their LS2 conversion and there is less than 100lbs difference. The problem with ECI's comparison is it comparing the weight and required structure for a 505HP engine not a 300HP engine. Yes you will get all those structural issues when you put too much HP on a structure that is not designed to handle it. I am going to be the quinea pig. I believe there is a better engine than Lycoming for an airplane! Like I said in a previous post, my engine should be arriving within a month or so and I will have the exact weight. Hopefully we will have someone that can weigh their FWF and I can weigh mine. Until we have the actual items that will go in each plane we are not talking apples to apples but apples to peanut butter. Somebody has to step forward and try these different methods. Do you think Van stopped working on his airplane designs because someone from Cessna told him it was going to work? Maybe the engine won't work like a Lycoming, but what if is better? Can a Lycoming run on E85 mogas? How much does AC cost for the Lycoming? I still believe the fuel economy will be better! If it doesn't work then I have three choices, live with the engine the way it is, work with Vesta to improve the engine or buy a lycoming. The third choice stinks but that's the chance I am taking. Ofcourse the engine could fail but so could the Lycoming.

The big question is not so much what the HP would be on one of these LS conversions, you'd be a fool to plug 500hp into an RV10 without serious mods but just that 100 more pounds up front hanging off the original structure. You can certainly build a new mount to handle the loads and you can move the batteries even further aft (they are already aft of the baggage bay) with much more additional structure. A -10 is not built like the aerobatic RVs. The structure is very much lighter.

As I said, it can be done but these engines are really a bit too heavy to start with and hp overkill even if flat rated to 275hp, you'd exceed redline in level flight above 10,000 feet probably. The LSs are cool engines for the right airframe maybe like Algie's clean sheet design: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/algiecompositeaircraft/

If Vesta or Robinson is willing to do the total package engineering to make it safe and operate within reasonable C of G limits, I say power to you. I'd love to see this engine fly on a -10.

My mistake on Thielert owning ECI- it is of course Superior who they have been machining cylinders for the last few years.

TSwezey said:

Well if it's in print it must true. I took the numbers from ECI and the numbers from Vesta for their LS2 conversion and there is less than 100lbs difference.

Click to expand...

That apx 100 lbs will have to be balanced by weight in the rear-----and I think that the CG of the engine may be farther forward also, so even more weight in the rear.

Have someone explain polar momentum to you.

Lucky this in not a taildragger.

And just for the record, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Chevy fan----but I have reservations about the suitability of these engines in the RV "Mission"

Mike

Yes, Great Article, but yet, some are flying

It's a great article, and like any other information, should be considered "opinion" just like the opinions of others who advocate V8s.

There are those who will say, "engineering isn't an opinion" and that's true - however, that would be assumning that every aurgument made in the article is sound engineering - and since I'm not one I can't be sure that that is the case. Most of it is probably accurate - but I do know, from being a computer engineer, that one or two incorrect assumptions can blow your whole premise - so we'll just have to wait and see what real world results are.

If we always took engineering advice as gospel we would still have bi-wing airplanes. Most engineers of the day insisted that a mono-wing plane was "impossible."

As usual, "stay tuned" is the word of the day

Oh, and by the way, I'm rooting for Innodyn

yes, yes. I know the drill. No numbers, no product yet, yada yada yada.

But wouldn't it be cool? Is there a good aurgument for not using a 200lb 255 HP engine in an RV.

Let's not argue about fuel burn, since none of us have any idea what it really is yet.

jrdalton said:

But wouldn't it be cool? Is there a good aurgument for not using a 200lb 255 HP engine in an RV.

Click to expand...

Weight and balance? The airframe was designed around a heavier engine.

Easily solved by moving batteries into the cowling area

That's not really a serious problem to solve is it?

That kind of problem is not to difficult to solve because it's underweight with lot's of extra room in the cowling area. And by moving 2 batteries (because of all electric requiements) it would balance out well. You might even consider a small baggage compartment in the front like the smaller RVs.

eggenfellneraircraft Engines for -10

Just found this site http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/ and it appears many builders are using this engine. Many -7 and -9 builders have been using it for years and have had know known issues with this design and weight will not be an issue not to mention they make the engine mount and forward kit as well for the -10. It could be a proven power plant option to seriously look into. It is a very clean design.

My understanding is that Eggenfellner is developing a turbocharged EZ30 six package for the RV10. This will run very low boost like 34-36 inches for takeoff. A prototype engine mount was completed several months ago and a James cowling will be used apparently. I believe that firewall forward weight even with MT prop, turbos, rads and intercoolers will be within 20 lbs. of an IO-540/ Hartzell.

szutowiczrv10,

I suggest that you review independant builder websites, like Meyette's for example.

Not to start a flame war, but in the 7 and 9 weight is an issue, as is complexity. The "clean" approach is the traditional approach.

The RV10 of course uses an IO-540 commonly which is about 50% heavier than an IO-360. Where the EZ30 installation is heavier than typical IO-360 installations, the basic installation is much lighter than a 540, the longblock weighing around 245 lbs. vs. 400 for the 540. To this is added the redrive weight, rads, coolant, turbos, intake , intercoolers, slightly heavier engine mount, 2nd battery, ducting and an MT prop which is about 20 lbs. lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell.

Overall, I think the weight will be almost identical to a 540 installation with the C of G somewhat further aft if the backup battery is rear mounted in the normal location and the 3 blade MT is fitted. If the experimental 4 blade Sensenich composite prop is fitted, the installation may even be slightly lighter but the battery would probably have to come forward to correct the C of G.

It will be interesting to watch the development of this FF package.

rv6ejguy said:

The RV10 of course uses an IO-540 commonly which is about 50% heavier than an IO-360. Where the EZ30 installation is heavier than typical IO-360 installations, the basic installation is much lighter than a 540, the longblock weighing around 245 lbs. vs. 400 for the 540. To this is added the redrive weight, rads, coolant, turbos, intake , intercoolers, slightly heavier engine mount, 2nd battery, ducting and an MT prop which is about 20 lbs. lighter than the 2 blade Hartzell.

Overall, I think the weight will be almost identical to a 540 installation with the C of G somewhat further aft if the backup battery is rear mounted in the normal location and the 3 blade MT is fitted. If the experimental 4 blade Sensenich composite prop is fitted, the installation may even be slightly lighter but the battery would probably have to come forward to correct the C of G.

It will be interesting to watch the development of this FF package.

Click to expand...

What about an IO-390? I just left Van's last week after flying in there RV with the IO-540 in it. The other RV-10 the have has the continental O-360 in it. The guy that I flew with told me the 540 is to heavy. You have to put weight in the back if no one is sitting in the back. He said it is alot harder to land, do to the fact it won't flare. To my understanding, if you are logging most hours loaded down with the family, the 540 is for you. If your gonna take a bud out for lunch and want the option to take extra people if you want, go lighter. He said the O-360 cont was fairly equal in performance.
The problem is the IO-390 Lycoming is only a four cylinder and the cowling may need modified so you can move the engine forward for CG. Bart at Aero Sport Power thought the IO-390 may be a perfect fit for the RV-10. Light weight, Cheaper to rebuild, underated HP (actually around 213-215HP), better fuel economy, and more room.
Let me know your thoughts!

sellards18 said:

What about an IO-390? I just left Van's last week after flying in there RV with the IO-540 in it. The other RV-10 the have has the continental O-360 in it. The guy that I flew with told me the 540 is to heavy. You have to put weight in the back if no one is sitting in the back. He said it is alot harder to land, do to the fact it won't flare. To my understanding, if you are logging most hours loaded down with the family, the 540 is for you. If your gonna take a bud out for lunch and want the option to take extra people if you want, go lighter. He said the O-360 cont was fairly equal in performance.
The problem is the IO-390 Lycoming is only a four cylinder and the cowling may need modified so you can move the engine forward for CG. Bart at Aero Sport Power thought the IO-390 may be a perfect fit for the RV-10. Light weight, Cheaper to rebuild, underated HP (actually around 213-215HP), better fuel economy, and more room.
Let me know your thoughts!

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the IO-390 would be suitable for the RV10. Lighter, more economical to buy, feed and overhaul. The climb rate would be down quite a bit at gross but still pretty acceptable by spam can standards. Does Vans think this is a good enough idea to do the mount engineering? After reading a lot about the lack of elevator authority in the flare with only 2 in the front seats and full flaps, I moved everything aft that I could in my conversion as I doubt I'll be flying with all 4 seats full very often.

How about the Superior XP-400?

or maybe it's called the IO-400.

Anyway, it's their new engine and it's said to put out 210HP, the same as the Conti - but lighter.

It would be pretty close to perfect from a weight standpoint. I asked Vans about this and they said "the -10 flies behind a six-cyl engine only." That's it.

I just finished building my tail section at synergy air in Oregon in 3 1/2 days. I had Wally Anderson call Van's and Aero Sport Power. They problem vas has is the claim only 2% of RV-10 owners would opt for the smaller engine even though it suits the plane better. They both said the thought of bigger is better isn't always true. It's like putting a 350 chevy in a s10. It goes faster but you sacrafice handeling and fuel. That's why they didn't sell them with big blocks.
As far as vans making an engine mount, it"s not gonna happen. I'm gonna have a guy (who I'll get his name from Wally later) to build mine for the IO-390. I'm set on it and I'll let you know my progress.

sellards18 said:

I just finished building my tail section at synergy air in Oregon in 3 1/2 days. I had Wally Anderson call Van's and Aero Sport Power. They problem vas has is the claim only 2% of RV-10 owners would opt for the smaller engine even though it suits the plane better.

Click to expand...

If engine choices for the smaller are RVs are any indication, Van's is probably right about this on the -10. Keep us posted on your 390 conversion.

I talked to another fellow who is installing a Mazda Renesis in his 10. He'd just finished the mount and custom cowling with 15 inch spinner and twin rads fed by two huge NACA ducts on the cowling sides.

Cool to see some other engines being fitted to these airframes.

RV engine choices....

I really have not read this entire, lengthy thread, but 2 factors come to mind on engine choices and they do not involve CG. First, however, operating CG can be adjusted with barbell weights, etc. strategically placed as necessary, remembering that operating CG also changes as fuel state changes. Second, do you want takeoff and climb performance or fuel economy? If you really fly a lot, and don't need the takeoff performance required on a grass strip, or high and hot runway, etc., you may want the better fuel economy of say an IO-360 than a -540 series engine. The cruise speed sacrifice/difference is negligible. The smaller, lighter engine also leaves more payload available, shifts the empty CG aft, etc..

Any airplane will be adversely affected by a CG near limit, either forward or rearward. I suspect some of the comments I've read about the RV-10 not having enough pitch authority for the landing flare may go to flying with a forward operating CG which can easily be adjusted for a given flight. The Garmin GPS units, others, have a great weight and balance computing function. Just enter the weights by station, moment arms, and you have the airplane's operating CG, including at takeoff and landing fuel state, which at least in my RV6, can be very different.

Link McGarity
RV6/N42GF/bought flying
RV10/N41GF (rsvd)/#40622 building
FD38, Wellington, FL

I'ld go for the IO-360

I've given some thought to the bigger is better arguement lately. I got checked out in 220RV, the Continental-IO-360 version. With 3 on board (my significant other was excited to go along) we were climbing at 1500 fpm and cruising at 160kts on 9.5 gph. This seems to be plenty of power. The plane was wonderfully balanced and trimmed well in all flight regiems. The flare was easy, though it was better with 3 pax than 2. A heavy 540 up front would give better climb and a bit more speed but the plane would not be the delight it is now.

Jekyll

Superior IO-400

Just got home from the Reno Air Races. Looks like my target engine will be the IO-400, stroked and ported for a reported 250HP. Yep you read it correct, 250HP. It will burn car gas and the reported weight is 316 lbs. Now to find that 34K to get it to my garage.

Jekyll said:

I've given some thought to the bigger is better arguement lately. I got checked out in 220RV, the Continental-IO-360 version. With 3 on board (my significant other was excited to go along) we were climbing at 1500 fpm and cruising at 160kts on 9.5 gph. This seems to be plenty of power. The plane was wonderfully balanced and trimmed well in all flight regiems. The flare was easy, though it was better with 3 pax than 2. A heavy 540 up front would give better climb and a bit more speed but the plane would not be the delight it is now.

Jekyll

Click to expand...

You just said what I've been thinking all along. I've pretty much decided that I will not put a Lyc 540 in my RV-10. I want something smaller, lighter, and a little more fuel friendly. My super fast days are behind me.
John

I'm going subi

I have bought the Sub conversion from Jan for my R-10.

I should be getting it in November / December timeframe.

I chose it b/c I get great power at alt. with the turbo, and very good fuel burn. The engines that Jan has running so far show no appreciable wear in an aircraft. Most of the high time guys are getting their oil samples processed every oil change.

Great part is that the parts are cheap. Plugs, turbo, pipes, fuel system....

Price is right too. $40k gets the turbo engine, firewall forward, prop, spinner, and electric prop control, with water based cabin heat, and an AC compressor.

The engines that Jan has running so far show no appreciable wear in an aircraft.

Be suspicious of such claims...when an engine vapor locks, loses a belt, etc, and goes down, that is certainly not showing wear...but....

It is exciting to hear that these are already flying and testing in an RV-10, which I assume since you have been promised delivery in November (2.5 months away). Could you post any examples of the flying prototypes? I would like to see one.

Another way to look at it....

A friend from EAA got me interested in building again since I couldn't find exactly what I wanted. So off in left field my friend told me about the Innodyn. We ran some numbers and found that if you put a plug in the nose about 5-6 feet or so, you get your CG back and not load up the airplane with lead....

Granted it was a quick and dirty sorta SWAG, I have no idea what it would do to performance or handleing, but it would let you save say 100 pounds.... Plus more storage or cargo room....

Just another way around it.

BTW, who builds this IO 400 mentioned?

Well, my engine arrived last Tuesday. Yes, it took forever but it looks like it is put together well. I installed it yesterday. It took about nine hours but should have only taken two. Predator aviation, Chris Opperheim, gave Vesta the layout for the RV-10 firewall holes. Needless to say all the bottom holes were off by 3/8 of an inch. I couldn't find a scale but I was able to lift half the engine off the ground. I'm not the incredible hulk so the engine can't be that heavy. We now have to run the AC lines, the computer lines, gas lines and the coolant lines for the heater. The three bladed prop has not arrived yet. They cowl is different than the standard RV-10 cowl. I will be posting pictures here shortly.

Here are the pictures on the Vesta V8 installed on my RV-10:








As for the weight of the engine. We calculated the weight,using moments, to be approx. 540lbs for the engine, the engine mount and the nose gear.

TSwezey said:

Here are the pictures on the Vesta V8 installed on my RV-10:

As for the weight of the engine. We calculated the weight,using moments, to be approx. 540lbs for the engine, the engine mount and the nose gear.

Click to expand...

Cool. It's coming along. If weight is correct, then only about 50 more lbs. than a Lyco when you add the water. Cowling must have a few bulges to clear this monster?