I am grateful everyday for the decision she made to start building. I am even more thankful she still lets me pretend I am important to the build ;) But yes, I couldn't agree more, Melissa is amazing.
Just ordered my thunderbolt IO-540 first of April. Very informative interview. I know when the crate comes it’ll be Christmas on steroids. Very exciting
The hard part for us will be, when it arrives we won’t be ready to install it. Chris recommend to me the best thing is to leave it packed in the crate where it is well preserved. I’ll want to bring it inside and put it on the couch with us. You can’t tell me not to open the Christmas present. It’s going to be hard.
Excellent interview! In your interview, Chris said the Lycoming EIS has variable timing (at about 14:22) but Russel Gait at Lycoming told me this a couple weeks ago: "The EIS systems that would come on the YIO-390-EXP119 would have fixed timing... If you are interested in variable timing, P-mags would be the way to go." I guess I need to call Chris and ask for clarification.
Concerning the ignition system in my experience working on Surefly electronic mags at a flight school with 29 aircraft, the Bendix/Slick mags with 500hr inspections seems to be way more cost effective then the hassles of initial setup, installation/ 100hr inspection criteria/ dead spot on mag check switching at runup. The most common problem is loose impulse coupling rivets from faulty manufacturing and absolutely no lube in key areas with new Slick mags.
I've never been a huge surefly fan. Our understanding is that with the Lycoming PMag/EMag solution a lot of those issues are not there. And being an experimental aircraft, we don't really have 100hr to deal with since we can't use it for commercial anyways. Of course we will be inspecting the airplane closely at 100hr if we fly that many before condition inspection (aka annual). I've never heard of any Vans owners complain about the Pmag/Emags
Heat cycles. Run 30 seconds and cool 3 hrs, run 5 min, cool 3 hrs, run 10 min, cool 3 hrs.. Check the oil for metal. The cool down is important. Just an old slow way to start them up. I am not in a hurry when it comes to the engine... Use big fans while it is on the stand, or tethered.
Thanks for a great video - very useful! The discussion of break-in was especially useful. It’s too bad that Lycoming doesn’t use a wind tunnel to do a complete and optimal break-in before delivering the engine.
Break in is something I obsessive over, maybe too much. But I had to make sure we talked about it. It’s a fine line of doing the runs on the ground you need to make the first flight safe and not too much that you break the engine in poorly.
Thanks for watching. It’s a video I wish existed before I placed my engine order. But the great thing. Lycoming does a lot to work with each builder to make sure their order is what they need. You are not locked in to your options until they actually start building your engine.
Have they started making your engine? If not. It’s not too late to make changes. Going from. Non-thunderbolt to thunderbolt might not be possible. But other changes are.
I got the YIO-390-EXP119, Dual Pmags with Prop bundle. I think that I am happy with my order. Sometimes I wonder if I should have gotten the Thunderbolt?!? Not sure if I will ever know what the right answer to that question is. I spent over $60K with Steinair on my panel, so I guess that I had to save a bit somewhere. Love your content. Keep producing. Best PH
I bet you’ll be very happy with your choice. Thunderbolt is nice, and we did go that way. But the non-thunderbolt is still a very strong and amazing engine. You’ll be happy.
Follow Mike Bush from savvy for LOP information. No factory will talk about it because there normal and published procedures recommend ROP. As you can imagine, there is a lot of liability that engine manufacturers have to consider.
Great questions and very clear answers, this video was really very interesting for me, thank you for your efforts! Tiziano , RV14-A #141068, slow build, now working on Section 28
Thanks! We put a good amount of work into making this video happen. These are all questions I had and figured lots of others did too. Good luck on your build. We were on Section 28 not too long ago ourselves!
This was an excellent interview, with very useful questions and answers. Tried yesterday to submit a comment that included a link or two, including one to a specific time point in this video; it seems to have been rejected. So I'll try again without links. At about 26:36 into the video, you show the forward part of the tunnel with the fuel selector (Andair Type 7) and Airflow Performance fuel pump, and TS/Flightlines fuel lines. Good choices! Now for a question: I see no fuel filter. Is that because you went with the TS/Flightlines wing root fuel filter kit? If so, have you reached the stage at which you can conduct a fuel flow test? I have one datapoint from a VAF thread that says the fuel flow for the IO-390 on takeoff at sea level can reach 18.5 gph. That means, given the 150% rule, that your fuel system should be able to deliver 27.75 gph to the fuel servo, in a climb attitude. One guy who ran the test got 34.4 gph, but I don't know what fuel filter arrangement he has. The title of the thread on VAF is " Lycoming io390 max fuel consumption". I'm not sure they're talking about the 215HP YIO-390-EXP119, which may have a higher fuel flow than this thread discusses. Looks like most of the commenters are talking about the 210HP engine. Vic S. has expressed concerns about the additional 90-degree elbows such as those used in the TS/Flightlines wing root fuel filter setup, saying they compromise fuel flow. He mentioned it in an article in the May, 2023 Sport Aviation, and in an FAA Wings Program video. To quote the Sport Aviation article: Modifications to the fuel system can be simple things such as adding fuel filters in the wing roots. You might not even think much about it, as adding a fuel filter seems like a good safety investment. I would agree with you, but you need to pay attention to the 90-degree fittings that possibly get added to accommodate the filters. Each 90-degree fitting is like adding about 10 feet of line into the system. It’s best to use two 45-degree fittings if room permits. Asking for a friend... 🙄
Yes we have opted to go with the FlightLines Wing Filter setup. We are still pretty far away from being able to test it. I will discuss this with Steve at FlightLines soon, maybe at Oshkosh and see what data points we can share on this. But right now, we know that several people are flying, in what we assume is a safe condition, with this setup. I feel this is a case of over analysis of details. Of course we will confirm all of this during our build and before we fly. But having talked with Steve in great detail about the overall setup, I know they have put great care into ensuring their system will perform to Lycoming Spec. And if that turns out to not be true, we will be making adjustments to our system.
I wonder why the "lean of peak" conversation was so quickly put to the side? Not complaining, but it would have been beneficial to hear a deeper explanation. Thanks!!
Because Lycoming’s official stance is that you shouldn’t operate LOP. It is a liability thing. If they support that, it could open them up to possible liability. So they publicly won’t say you should do it.
When it comes to the RV-14 you are pretty going with an IO-390 no matter what. So the only real choice is spending a little extra for the Thunderbolt or go Standard EXP119. We went with Thunderbolt because we like the "Premium Feel" of it and at the time we ordered the timeline matched our build very well. If I were starting today, I would look hard at the non-thunderbolt. It is a very high quality engine and a much better timeline. In short. You can't go wrong, you are getting a Lycoming Engine, which we love!
@@N14VE I read about all the issues with lycoming engines. Just curious why you would choose an engine from the 1930's. Why not use a modern engine. Seems strange choosing such an obsolete powerplant. Best of luck.
@@chippyjohn1 what other options have been designed for and proven on the RV-14? 1) the Io-390exp119 is not 1930’s technology. No engine build in the 1930s has the power to weight ratio this engine does. 2) Lycoming engines are proven and reliable. I’ll put something fancy into a boat where if it craps out on me, I just need a tow back 3) the company who is trying to build a turbine engine that will go on the rv-14 is 20-25hp LESS than this engine. Not worth it.
@@N14VE Engines such as the Merlin and DB605 were first used in the early 30's they had power to weight ratios of 1.5/1.6:1. The 390 is only 1.1kw per kg. It's actually more accurately 1920's technology. Don't know much about the RV14 aircraft. I'm just comparing the 390 because of its power, to the engine I am using. I don't think you realise how behind piston aircraft are to those of the 1930's. best of luck in your build.
@@N14VE Buying an engine because of a little more power and unique colours is a bad idea. Lycoming, just like continental suffer a lot of failures. I would not trust these engines with my life. Fly safe.
360 has “flat tappets” grinding into the cam lobes, 390 has roller tappets, I would get the 390 just on that update alone. After sitting in the hangar for a week and all the oil drains off the cam, guess what the lifters do to the cam on start up with flat tappets every time you start it. If you know engines it’s a no brainer which one to chose.
For the RV-14 I would never consider a 360 for lots of reasons... But the reason you mentioned here is one I hadn't thought of yet and a very good one! Can't wait for our 390 to arrive!
As far as I know you can not get any flat tappet engines from Lycoming on any 320/360, they are all roller style, one drawback is any kind of prop strike they must all be replaced regardless of time.
Two years out for a Thunderbolt? That’s insane! Either Lycoming better get their stuff together or they are going to miss out to Barrett, Lycon, Aerosport ect…
The io-390exp119 (non thunderbolt) is still a very good option with a much shorter lead time. Honestly, the thunderbolt is cool but not required. The non thunderbolt is every bit as good just without the custom paint. So if the thunderbolt timeline doesn’t work for you, you can still get an engine on 6 months or less now.
I hope you got your engine before the started "me too-ing" everyone with their prices. They are single handedly trying to destroy everyone's hopes and dreams at this point. I CAN'T WAIT TO GET ONE!!! 🤦♂️
Aviation keeps getting more expensive, and yes, we ordered right before the price increase. But at least the value of our completed planes keep going up as well.
And it's Al-you-min-ium not Al-oo-min-um? As the song goes: You say Lycoming and I say Lycoming. You say aluminium and I say aluminium. Lycoming, Lycoming. Aluminium, Aluminium. Let's call the whole thing off!
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Nicely moderated, good info from Chris of Lycoming. Thanks for putting this together.
Thanks for tuning in during the premiere. Really appreciate all your support by being a loyal viewer of our channel.
This guy is rocket scientist smart, it was all I could do to keep up. WOW!!! Great guest.
We do love Chris, he knows his stuff.
I’m building an RV-10, your wife is an absolute rockstar!!! I love spending time building with my wife
I am grateful everyday for the decision she made to start building. I am even more thankful she still lets me pretend I am important to the build ;) But yes, I couldn't agree more, Melissa is amazing.
Just ordered my thunderbolt IO-540 first of April. Very informative interview. I know when the crate comes it’ll be Christmas on steroids. Very exciting
The hard part for us will be, when it arrives we won’t be ready to install it. Chris recommend to me the best thing is to leave it packed in the crate where it is well preserved.
I’ll want to bring it inside and put it on the couch with us. You can’t tell me not to open the Christmas present. It’s going to be hard.
Thanks for putting this video together, it answered a lot of questions that I've had looking over the options listed.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent interview! In your interview, Chris said the Lycoming EIS has variable timing (at about 14:22) but Russel Gait at Lycoming told me this a couple weeks ago: "The EIS systems that would come on the YIO-390-EXP119 would have fixed timing... If you are interested in variable timing, P-mags would be the way to go." I guess I need to call Chris and ask for clarification.
He did kind of hesitate when answering that part. I think they are fixed timing by default but there is a way to make them variable
It is the flip of a switch and a pressure line to make it variable.
Nice job guys. Good solid questions!
Appreciate it!
Concerning the ignition system in my experience working on Surefly electronic mags at a flight school with 29 aircraft, the Bendix/Slick mags with 500hr inspections seems to be way more cost effective then the hassles of initial setup, installation/ 100hr inspection criteria/ dead spot on mag check switching at runup. The most common problem is loose impulse coupling rivets from faulty manufacturing and absolutely no lube in key areas with new Slick mags.
I've never been a huge surefly fan. Our understanding is that with the Lycoming PMag/EMag solution a lot of those issues are not there. And being an experimental aircraft, we don't really have 100hr to deal with since we can't use it for commercial anyways. Of course we will be inspecting the airplane closely at 100hr if we fly that many before condition inspection (aka annual).
I've never heard of any Vans owners complain about the Pmag/Emags
Heat cycles. Run 30 seconds and cool 3 hrs, run 5 min, cool 3 hrs, run 10 min, cool 3 hrs.. Check the oil for metal. The cool down is important. Just an old slow way to start them up. I am not in a hurry when it comes to the engine... Use big fans while it is on the stand, or tethered.
Thanks for a great video - very useful! The discussion of break-in was especially useful. It’s too bad that Lycoming doesn’t use a wind tunnel to do a complete and optimal break-in before delivering the engine.
Break in is something I obsessive over, maybe too much. But I had to make sure we talked about it.
It’s a fine line of doing the runs on the ground you need to make the first flight safe and not too much that you break the engine in poorly.
Is the run time at Lycoming long enough to break in the cam?
Most informative. That answered quite a few questions that I hadn't of thought of. Thanks guys
You're welcome. We are hoping to get more companies on as guests. Anyone you'd be interested in hearing from?
@@N14VEContinental, avidyne, dynon, aspen.
this helps a ton
Any ideas what direction you’re leaning towards for your engine?
Thanks so much for doing this. I think I am going to add the accessory pad after watching this. Thanks again!
I made sure to add it just in case. Doubt we will do a standby alt at first. But we might later.
Great video, very detailed. Thank you for putting in the time for all of us.
Thanks for watching. It’s a video I wish existed before I placed my engine order. But the great thing. Lycoming does a lot to work with each builder to make sure their order is what they need. You are not locked in to your options until they actually start building your engine.
Nicely done, ... very useful information. Wish I had this content prior to me ordering my engine.
Have they started making your engine? If not. It’s not too late to make changes. Going from. Non-thunderbolt to thunderbolt might not be possible. But other changes are.
I hung my engine two weeks ago 🙂
Kind of hard to change options now then. What did you end up with? What would you change if you could?
I got the YIO-390-EXP119, Dual Pmags with Prop bundle. I think that I am happy with my order. Sometimes I wonder if I should have gotten the Thunderbolt?!? Not sure if I will ever know what the right answer to that question is. I spent over $60K with Steinair on my panel, so I guess that I had to save a bit somewhere. Love your content. Keep producing. Best PH
I bet you’ll be very happy with your choice. Thunderbolt is nice, and we did go that way. But the non-thunderbolt is still a very strong and amazing engine. You’ll be happy.
Good information. Thank you.
You're welcome
Great and informative interview.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good video, would have appreciated more info on operating LOP
Follow Mike Bush from savvy for LOP information. No factory will talk about it because there normal and published procedures recommend ROP. As you can imagine, there is a lot of liability that engine manufacturers have to consider.
very well written questions. Nice job... subscribed.
Thank you for subscribing and watching!
Great questions and very clear answers, this video was really very interesting for me, thank you for your efforts!
Tiziano , RV14-A #141068, slow build, now working on Section 28
Thanks! We put a good amount of work into making this video happen. These are all questions I had and figured lots of others did too. Good luck on your build. We were on Section 28 not too long ago ourselves!
So thunderbolt is port, polish, and basically blue printed and balanced. Worth it just in making the engine even more reliable/safe.
You can get it painted any color you want. Small thing, but a very nice touch
This was an excellent interview, with very useful questions and answers. Tried yesterday to submit a comment that included a link or two, including one to a specific time point in this video; it seems to have been rejected. So I'll try again without links.
At about 26:36 into the video, you show the forward part of the tunnel with the fuel selector (Andair Type 7) and Airflow Performance fuel pump, and TS/Flightlines fuel lines. Good choices! Now for a question: I see no fuel filter. Is that because you went with the TS/Flightlines wing root fuel filter kit? If so, have you reached the stage at which you can conduct a fuel flow test? I have one datapoint from a VAF thread that says the fuel flow for the IO-390 on takeoff at sea level can reach 18.5 gph. That means, given the 150% rule, that your fuel system should be able to deliver 27.75 gph to the fuel servo, in a climb attitude. One guy who ran the test got 34.4 gph, but I don't know what fuel filter arrangement he has. The title of the thread on VAF is " Lycoming io390 max fuel consumption". I'm not sure they're talking about the 215HP YIO-390-EXP119, which may have a higher fuel flow than this thread discusses. Looks like most of the commenters are talking about the 210HP engine.
Vic S. has expressed concerns about the additional 90-degree elbows such as those used in the TS/Flightlines wing root fuel filter setup, saying they compromise fuel flow. He mentioned it in an article in the May, 2023 Sport Aviation, and in an FAA Wings Program video. To quote the Sport Aviation article:
Modifications to the fuel system can be simple
things such as adding fuel filters in the wing roots. You
might not even think much about it, as adding a fuel
filter seems like a good safety investment. I would
agree with you, but you need to pay attention to the
90-degree fittings that possibly get added to accommodate
the filters. Each 90-degree fitting is like adding
about 10 feet of line into the system. It’s best to use two
45-degree fittings if room permits.
Asking for a friend... 🙄
Yes we have opted to go with the FlightLines Wing Filter setup. We are still pretty far away from being able to test it. I will discuss this with Steve at FlightLines soon, maybe at Oshkosh and see what data points we can share on this. But right now, we know that several people are flying, in what we assume is a safe condition, with this setup. I feel this is a case of over analysis of details. Of course we will confirm all of this during our build and before we fly. But having talked with Steve in great detail about the overall setup, I know they have put great care into ensuring their system will perform to Lycoming Spec. And if that turns out to not be true, we will be making adjustments to our system.
that was great! well done ❤
Thank you so much!!
Nice!
Thanks!
I wonder why the "lean of peak" conversation was so quickly put to the side? Not complaining, but it would have been beneficial to hear a deeper explanation. Thanks!!
Because Lycoming’s official stance is that you shouldn’t operate LOP. It is a liability thing. If they support that, it could open them up to possible liability. So they publicly won’t say you should do it.
So what made you choose this engine other than power rating and weight?
When it comes to the RV-14 you are pretty going with an IO-390 no matter what. So the only real choice is spending a little extra for the Thunderbolt or go Standard EXP119. We went with Thunderbolt because we like the "Premium Feel" of it and at the time we ordered the timeline matched our build very well.
If I were starting today, I would look hard at the non-thunderbolt. It is a very high quality engine and a much better timeline.
In short. You can't go wrong, you are getting a Lycoming Engine, which we love!
@@N14VE I read about all the issues with lycoming engines. Just curious why you would choose an engine from the 1930's. Why not use a modern engine. Seems strange choosing such an obsolete powerplant. Best of luck.
@@chippyjohn1 what other options have been designed for and proven on the RV-14?
1) the Io-390exp119 is not 1930’s technology. No engine build in the 1930s has the power to weight ratio this engine does.
2) Lycoming engines are proven and reliable. I’ll put something fancy into a boat where if it craps out on me, I just need a tow back
3) the company who is trying to build a turbine engine that will go on the rv-14 is 20-25hp LESS than this engine. Not worth it.
@@N14VE Engines such as the Merlin and DB605 were first used in the early 30's they had power to weight ratios of 1.5/1.6:1. The 390 is only 1.1kw per kg. It's actually more accurately 1920's technology. Don't know much about the RV14 aircraft. I'm just comparing the 390 because of its power, to the engine I am using. I don't think you realise how behind piston aircraft are to those of the 1930's. best of luck in your build.
@@N14VE Buying an engine because of a little more power and unique colours is a bad idea. Lycoming, just like continental suffer a lot of failures. I would not trust these engines with my life. Fly safe.
360 has “flat tappets” grinding into the cam lobes, 390 has roller tappets, I would get the 390 just on that update alone. After sitting in the hangar for a week and all the oil drains off the cam, guess what the lifters do to the cam on start up with flat tappets every time you start it. If you know engines it’s a no brainer which one to chose.
For the RV-14 I would never consider a 360 for lots of reasons... But the reason you mentioned here is one I hadn't thought of yet and a very good one! Can't wait for our 390 to arrive!
As far as I know you can not get any flat tappet engines from Lycoming on any 320/360, they are all roller style, one drawback is any kind of prop strike they must all be replaced regardless of time.
Two years out for a Thunderbolt? That’s insane! Either Lycoming better get their stuff together or they are going to miss out to Barrett, Lycon, Aerosport ect…
The io-390exp119 (non thunderbolt) is still a very good option with a much shorter lead time. Honestly, the thunderbolt is cool but not required. The non thunderbolt is every bit as good just without the custom paint. So if the thunderbolt timeline doesn’t work for you, you can still get an engine on 6 months or less now.
I hope you got your engine before the started "me too-ing" everyone with their prices. They are single handedly trying to destroy everyone's hopes and dreams at this point. I CAN'T WAIT TO GET ONE!!! 🤦♂️
Aviation keeps getting more expensive, and yes, we ordered right before the price increase.
But at least the value of our completed planes keep going up as well.
Say it with me… Lycom-ING!
And it's
Al-you-min-ium not Al-oo-min-um?
As the song goes:
You say Lycoming and I say Lycoming.
You say aluminium and I say aluminium.
Lycoming, Lycoming.
Aluminium, Aluminium.
Let's call the whole thing off!