Lycoming, similar to Garmin, saw opportunities within the experimental market and decided to start developing products to fit that niche. The main difference with an experimental engine is your ability as a customer to customize your options. In your case you went directly to Lycoming and can get customer colors, different valve cover seals and can install pmags. In my case I went to Barretts for an IO-540 rebuild and had them increase compressions, paint it blue, and a few other minor tweaks. Another analogy between the experimental and certified world. My old 1978 certified plane had an old PAR 36 $7 light bulb, not expensive but it burned out constantly. In theory I should have been able to just replace it with an LED PAR 36 for $20. However, because it's a certified plane it requires an 'FAA-PMA Approved' and STC (supplemental type certificate) to install. Those light bulbs cost $245. I assume you're paying $20 for the light and $225 for the time it took the company to get it FAA-PMA approved and obtain the STC.
Yes this is a great illustration. Flip side is, I have heard guys complain about the cost of certified USB adapters in planes, which can be hundreds of dollars, when you can get one at Bestbuy fo $10. The thing is I have actually seen a $10 USB adapter start smouldering in the cockpit of a friends plane. Luckily that ended well, but it made the case for not getting a $10 USB adapter. That said, Garmin or Lycoming do not make their non certified products less safe, despite being less expensive.
@@FlightChops Can attest to the issue of 12v -> usb crap. Stuff you get from grey import from China, is very often unsafe. Same for random brands you can get at the gas station. They often don't have a 'real' regulator, just a underrated resistor and an underrated zener diode with no fuse or short circuit protection. The proper way to do it, is incredibly simple and rock solid reliable, but it may cost a whopping 50 cents more to produce.
@@FlightChops The cost of certification is the paperwork you get to accompany it. I work in Nuclear and the cost difference between "nuclear grade" and commercial grade is incredible, though the devices may be essentially identical. Liability also comes into play.
@@MichaelSteeves Probably why there hasn't been more then few new nuclear plants built in the last 30 years yet it's the only reliable power generator that does not release CO.
WOW is that engine BEAUTIFUL!! Congratulations, Steve!! As a mechanic, I am blown away at the heft and "beefiness" of the internal parts! I've seen crankshafts and connecting rods of similar girth go into auto engines laying down 700 HP or better! Those are some STOUT components you've got inside there! I'd have no worries flying that one, that's for sure. VERY impressive!! I appreciate you showing all of this, since this side of aviation doesn't get shown a whole lot. Big thanks to Jeff for all that B-roll - that was GREAT! This video was right up my alley. Loved it! Can't wait to see her fly - looks like you're getting very close!
Another A&P here (it's clear MANY of your audience are too!) I love the deceptive simplicity of the mechanical requirements (separate from the paperwork and traceability factors) for an engine to be certified. Now, I haven't been turning a wrench in a while, so I might be a smidge off, but if I remember correctly: ► A new engine must operate at full (TOGA) power, for 50 hours straight, and when torn apart & inspected, must show zero wear. Short sentence; steep engineering challenge. I'm so envious of your Vans build, Steve, and I'm just a few hours down the road from them in Oregon.
My buddy just had his Lycoming rebuilt. They cut a groove in the metal between the engine bottom halves. Then, they put a rubber gasket in the groove. It seems like such a better finished product than just putting thread between the halves, but I guess this way has worked for decades! That is a beautiful engine. I'm getting my Continental O-470 overhauled right now and I hope it looks half as nice.
I would like to see this rubber seal your talking about. The reason they have used thread is because the crankcase halfs need to stay tight together. Anything between the case halfs like rubber or silicone will allow the halfs to move and "freat", meaning the aluminum will rub together causing gaps and then the crankshaft bearings start to move and lots of shit starts to go wrong.
@@quinnjim all be dipped....Ly-Con engine company in California does have the STC to perform that modification for Lycoming Engines and for Experimental Continental Engines. Interesting. Wonder what people's thoughts are on it that have done it? The more you know.....
I have seen multiple engines with the o-ring and have it personally on my Ly-Con built IO-540 for the SX300. It’s fantastic. The crankcase halves never leak. Many of the airshow teams use Ly-Con as well - with the same results. It’s a very tried and true process.
Been a pilot for 45+ years and still prefer the ultralights for personal flight, as there aren't all of the hoops to jump through to get airborn. I got all of my certifications as a new pilot at 17 and I was proud of the accomplishments, but I much prefer the freedom from red tape that ultralights provide, when flying today. I've let my certification slide and fly strictly EAA and ultralights now. And with a fixed income these days, my wallet doesn't miss "certified" flight one bit.
Nice and Shiny! New is always exciting to unbox. Sounds like Lycoming really puts the effort into this being a very balanced engine. You should have many hours of smooth flying with this setup! Good job getting them on camera to discuss your specific engine build. I feel bad I missed them this year. Hope to see you in July at OSH21 if the borders open up Steve!
That engine can sit in my family room as a fine piece of art. The inside is just as beautiful as the outside. I love companies when it's all about quality, and you sure are one.👍🏻
Hi Steve. I really don't know if you're Canadian. But one thing's for sure. The passion you show for aviation, matches the Canadian's known relationship with the subject. Happy landings.
Just out of curiosity (and to show you have veiwers all over the world) 🌎 I'm a Portuguese citizen, living in France, and glad to find an aviation tube channel like flightshopps
Would be cool to have a more in depth comparison between experimental vs certified. All he said was "it's the same, less expensive because less paperwork". But there should be a reason why there is so much paperwork. It raises the question as for why certified stuff still exists.
I'll try to have that discussion more deeply as we get closer to flying the RV-14... But at the end of the day, when dealing with a "real" company like Garmin or Lycoming... Their non certified stuff kind of IS as good as the certified... But I understand your point.
Certified still exists because it’s the only way you buy a new aircraft. If Cessna was allowed to sell a 182 “experimental” direct from the factory and they did it for half the price they would overnight double sells and certified aircraft would be a thing of the past nearly instantly. Regulation has created a market in primary cost of the certified part is not the part itself but the paperwork and pilot aren’t choosing that because they want to, they have no other option except for home builds.
@@MrcaffinebeanI suspect paperwork has extremely specific testing requirements that accompany it. A small change can have unexpected consequences over time. Forms aren't usually expensive.
Great video, keep up the good work! This is a great field for younger people... I believe the best engineers have built from wood and steel, before they begin life as a ‘designer’.
Coming from a race car engine building background, wow those pistons are huge! I also find it very interesting to see how they are optimizing such an ancient architecture. I suppose reliability and service intervals are far more important than maximum efficiency or performance, hence why it's as understressed of an architecture as it is
Might look sweet, 1930s tech. Nothing high tech in a lycoming, no i am wrong farm tractor parts are better. I have watched lycoming for 60 years, They always have problems.
@@pauleyplay Yes it might be 1930s tech - but it has always worked for me. 30 years of flying under my belt, and the Lycoming has always been rock solid.
@@GlenAndFriendsCooking Great ,Glad you have not had any problems. Just check the ADs & general info to see what has been going on over many years. I had the pleasure of working at Alphin aircraft for years. We saw all kinds of airframes & engines. Does not take long to see what has evolved over the years. I wish you many more years of safe & happy flight.
seems like certified piston aircraft engines are a good 100 years behind what is coming out now.(exa. cam in block, pushrod, reverse flow head, greasy thred oil seal, single-digit compression ratios yet still demand 100 octane leaded fuel) its good that lycoming has a launchpad for getting new technologies into certified engines. like the new oil seals to replace the yarn. its one small step on a long road to modernization.
@@ihopetospeed1 aircraft engines are not standard. Actually almost nothing of them is still manufactured other then bare consumables, bearings and bolts for most of them. for most its either deep new-old stocks or just planes getting scraped for parts keeping the fleet going. try rebuilding a franklin, there are no oversized pistons or even a procedure to do that in the documentation. once the stock of barrels run out that's it. or like Beechcraft, the electric motors that run the gear on early bonanzas are just not made any more. companies have to resort to re-winding old cases to keep these planes flying. even a plane as popular as a bonanza dosent warrant the cost of spinning up the tooling again to make new replacements. at least with automotive derived engines there are hundreds of thousands out in the real world other then the few hundred that get sold in the air application. for people who restore ww2 aircraft the number of merlins and alisons made for boats, tanks, and generators has helped keep them going.
Thanks for this, I have been struggling with the cost of these engines considering the technology is sooooooo old. I will do a thunderbolt on the RV-10 if the diesel engine falls through. Good to know what the difference is for sure!
At 09:43 (and at other times in this video) I see the old-fashioned slotted screw fasteners to hold the rocker cover. They look nice, but wouldn't it be better to use a more modern type? Nice engine!
Still not entirely sure what Lycoming (?) Thunderbolt is actually. They appear to build customized aviation engines, but I have a feeling I am missing some introduction part. Building the engine and the whole certified/experimental situation I think I understand.
Hmmm... I guess we assumed most people would know Lycoming is a major aircraft engine manufacturer, and the Thunderbolt is a sort of "up trim / hand crafted" version of the base model engines? I am not even explaining it right now... haha. Anyway maybe this link will help: www.lycoming.com/engines/thunderbolt
You are getting an improved performance over a base model cert. engine and a lower cost. Lycoming has to build certified engines to the exact type design to maintain certification thus can't make all the trick mods without redesigned and recertification of a new engine type. That takes a long time and millions of dollars to do. Experimental class stuff is not subject to these standards.
@@mytmousemalibu If I have to add, the safety standards are the same, as said by the Lycoming guys, the high cost of the certified engine comes with the high capital cost from Lycoming to satisfy the FAA paperwork. The experimental engines don't have to have the same "paper trail" but they are built with the same standards without the high certification cost.
@@2Phast4Rocket Absolutely! With an OEM like Lycoming, you can breathe easy knowing that regardless of cert or not, you are getting trusted, reliable engines & parts. Lycoming has to maintain their place in the market and they aren't going to jeopardize their good name. The EX ticket components has its benefits for sure. I understand both sides of the coin having worked experimental flight test for Learjet/Bombardier. The cost to the road to certification is almost unfathomable.
Missing the second set of washers is super common lol. I hate to say it and hope I'm wrong but unless they've improved that backup alternator installation you're going to hate it. A company I worked for had several of them fall off the engine after they crack around the mount. At the very least make that a required inspection item.
Thanks for the tip to watch for that. I'll ask HET if they've heard of this issue. It probably won't hurt that the Thunderbolt should be fairly low vibration.
@@FlightChops I certainly hope it's not an issue for you! The peace of mind is certainly nice and I'm in favor of anything that gets rid of vacuum pumps
Why is sealant and silk thread not applied to the saddles on the forward, center and rear webs of the crankcase halves on Lycoming engines-? Sealant and silk thread is only applied to the parting surfaces around the periphery of the crankcase halves on Lyc. engs. Continental engines apply sealant and silk thread to the forward, center and rear web parting surfaces. Since there is very slight movement between the case halves parting surfaces in the center of the engine, metal fretting sometimes occurs as well as oil ingression between the parting surfaces which eventually means metal wearing against itself and torque being lost on the thru bolt nuts. Then is is just a matter of time for a premature engine disassembly. On another note, Lycoming engines have their camshaft mounted above the crankshaft which means no oil drip effect from the crankshaft on to the camshaft which results in premature rusting of the camshaft lobe(s) and lifter face(s) if the engine sits inactive for a period of time. Continental engines mount their engine camshafts below the crankshafts and are less prone to rusting of cam lobe(s) and lifter face(s). Having to remove the propeller and starter ring gear on a Lycoming engine to change an alternator belt is a bad design while this is not necessary on most Continental engines since they mount their staters and alternators on the accessory drive case meaning that no drive belt is required.
Gee... it must be nice to only have to hang your engine once. (:P) In the past two days, I have heard from Superior and Barrett. Superior is submitting the AMOC paperwork to the FAA within the week. They will pay for the crankshaft work and all the parts required for the disassembly and rebuild... but I'll have to pay Barrett for the labor, because technically the engine is out of warranty. Good news is that they'll strip it, rebuild it to new, run it on the dyno and then preserve it again. Rhonda at Barrett gave me an estimate and some ideas on the timetable once we get the green light. I won't be able to document the rebuild like I did the first build (thanks again, Covid-19) but I'm hoping they'll do some documentation for me. The crankshaft mod shop is right next door to Barrett, so that's a good thing. I'll probably deliver the engine to them and have them ship it back to me. So... yeah... I'm taking a hit... but the engine will be back to completely fresh and LEGAL.
So Thunderbolt is a branch of Lycoming building non certified engines? Would have also been nice to get some numbers here, like how much more power you can expect and what the price difference actually is compared to a certified engine.
I wanted to stay sort of general and not get super specific about performance or cost because those things depend on a lot of variables, and it would have meant really getting into the weeds. But these links at Vans and Lycoming might help? www.vansaircraft.com/2020/07/vans-announces-new-optional-rv-14-engine-configuration/ www.lycoming.com/engines/thunderbolt
I think, and others will agree and disagree, that experimental means two things: a. the means to test and standardize a plane system b. a means to achieve a personal desire by using a. The only proper experimental planes i've seen so far has to be Alec Wild's DoubleEnder, and Mike Patey's work in general (i'm sure there's others), the rest, are means to an end. Which is not wrong or bad. Smart people have to play it right.
Be nice to have noted the price difference between the same engine that is certified and the experimental engine then what colors are available or the different cylinder covers ......
Thanks for the video! Great news, yet I would still love to learn how the new version of the 390 engine gets affected by the tuning parts they added (emags/airflow). If the maintenance and tbo are the same and if it passes the same quality standards. Thanks!
Your engine looks like a work of art. Great segment on Lycoming engines. Prior to 1995 I found the O-320 and O-360s bullet proof. They had a problem with defective crankshafts when the demand for them being manufactured increased prior to 95. The old school tribal technicians were retired and the new techs didn't have their experience. Glad to see a shop with tribal values back assembling these engines. They are crude to nowadays designed engines. It's a travesty that we are still flying 66 year old engine designs without much improvement. They are fuel guzzlers just like they were in 1955. The big corporations are still farming out critical parts to non tribal manufactures. I was told this by a technician at Bell a couple of years ago. Seems even Bell farmed their gearbox parts out offshore at that time to save money. The primary reason these engines have the safety record that they have, is the fact that tribal parts manufacturers team members know what it takes to build a dependable engine. It's a shame that a $500.00 dollar engine (commodity market raw materials prices) now cost so much to produce. Don't you just love all the progress?
I wonder if the lead times on the TB engines will come down in the future? Or is this the norm? Currently many times longer than the IO390-EXP119 lead time Great video thanks as always
Cant install exp anything in a certified plane. You can than airplane must recert in the experimental catagory. You just cant do it. There is a process to do mods such as engines. Very costly. takes forever. The feds hate it !
I’m an airboat owner, we take old runout aircraft engines and convert them to airboats. The cost, I’ll have to assume, is a lot less than if the engine were going to fly. I have an O-540 AV on my airboat with 10/1 compression pistons and electronic ignition. Around 300 hp at a cost of between 10k-15k. Anyway, my question is will Lycoming build an O-390 specific for an airboat at a comparable price?
I hope they use a proper type of paint. Ca 1990 in the Netherlands I was watching an engineer take of the engine cowling of a similar engine. The private owner had sprayed all the cooling fins with a thick layer of a sticky anti-corrosion liquid. He had spotted the beginning of rust he thought. During the taxi run, he noticed smoke...
Lycoming has been so far behind the technology curve. All those features we have been doing on experimental engines for years. After how many years they finally used Surefly electronic ignitions, polished/ported int/exh, balanced rods and not running the intake pipes thru the oil sump. Looks like they copied or are private labeling parts from all the experimental suppliers.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I could have watched another hour of this conversation while watching the engine assembly process.
Lycoming, similar to Garmin, saw opportunities within the experimental market and decided to start developing products to fit that niche. The main difference with an experimental engine is your ability as a customer to customize your options. In your case you went directly to Lycoming and can get customer colors, different valve cover seals and can install pmags. In my case I went to Barretts for an IO-540 rebuild and had them increase compressions, paint it blue, and a few other minor tweaks.
Another analogy between the experimental and certified world. My old 1978 certified plane had an old PAR 36 $7 light bulb, not expensive but it burned out constantly. In theory I should have been able to just replace it with an LED PAR 36 for $20. However, because it's a certified plane it requires an 'FAA-PMA Approved' and STC (supplemental type certificate) to install. Those light bulbs cost $245. I assume you're paying $20 for the light and $225 for the time it took the company to get it FAA-PMA approved and obtain the STC.
Yes this is a great illustration. Flip side is, I have heard guys complain about the cost of certified USB adapters in planes, which can be hundreds of dollars, when you can get one at Bestbuy fo $10. The thing is I have actually seen a $10 USB adapter start smouldering in the cockpit of a friends plane. Luckily that ended well, but it made the case for not getting a $10 USB adapter. That said, Garmin or Lycoming do not make their non certified products less safe, despite being less expensive.
@@FlightChops Can attest to the issue of 12v -> usb crap. Stuff you get from grey import from China, is very often unsafe.
Same for random brands you can get at the gas station. They often don't have a 'real' regulator, just a underrated resistor and an underrated zener diode with no fuse or short circuit protection.
The proper way to do it, is incredibly simple and rock solid reliable, but it may cost a whopping 50 cents more to produce.
@@FlightChops The cost of certification is the paperwork you get to accompany it. I work in Nuclear and the cost difference between "nuclear grade" and commercial grade is incredible, though the devices may be essentially identical. Liability also comes into play.
@@MichaelSteeves Probably why there hasn't been more then few new nuclear plants built in the last 30 years yet it's the only reliable power generator that does not release CO.
@@FlightChops
Can you do commercial flight activity (tourist sightseeing) with an experimental engine/aircraft?
What is the insurance difference?
WOW is that engine BEAUTIFUL!! Congratulations, Steve!! As a mechanic, I am blown away at the heft and "beefiness" of the internal parts! I've seen crankshafts and connecting rods of similar girth go into auto engines laying down 700 HP or better! Those are some STOUT components you've got inside there! I'd have no worries flying that one, that's for sure. VERY impressive!! I appreciate you showing all of this, since this side of aviation doesn't get shown a whole lot. Big thanks to Jeff for all that B-roll - that was GREAT! This video was right up my alley. Loved it! Can't wait to see her fly - looks like you're getting very close!
Another A&P here (it's clear MANY of your audience are too!)
I love the deceptive simplicity of the mechanical requirements (separate from the paperwork and traceability factors) for an engine to be certified. Now, I haven't been turning a wrench in a while, so I might be a smidge off, but if I remember correctly:
► A new engine must operate at full (TOGA) power, for 50 hours straight, and when torn apart & inspected, must show zero wear.
Short sentence; steep engineering challenge.
I'm so envious of your Vans build, Steve, and I'm just a few hours down the road from them in Oregon.
Red paint would have given your engine at least 5 more horsepower. Fact.
Is that like a K&N Sticker on a car?
@@dasmellyyooper Definitely.
Don't forget the polished valve covers.
Yeah, but the Chrome Rocker covers are 10 horsepower.. so they are good.
That theory hasn't worked for Ferrari this year!
My buddy just had his Lycoming rebuilt. They cut a groove in the metal between the engine bottom halves. Then, they put a rubber gasket in the groove. It seems like such a better finished product than just putting thread between the halves, but I guess this way has worked for decades! That is a beautiful engine. I'm getting my Continental O-470 overhauled right now and I hope it looks half as nice.
I would like to see this rubber seal your talking about. The reason they have used thread is because the crankcase halfs need to stay tight together. Anything between the case halfs like rubber or silicone will allow the halfs to move and "freat", meaning the aluminum will rub together causing gaps and then the crankshaft bearings start to move and lots of shit starts to go wrong.
@@Airplanefish I believe there is an STC for it. It seems like the old way usually gets you to TBO, so probably not worth changing it.
@@quinnjim all be dipped....Ly-Con engine company in California does have the STC to perform that modification for Lycoming Engines and for Experimental Continental Engines. Interesting. Wonder what people's thoughts are on it that have done it? The more you know.....
I have seen multiple engines with the o-ring and have it personally on my Ly-Con built IO-540 for the SX300. It’s fantastic. The crankcase halves never leak. Many of the airshow teams use Ly-Con as well - with the same results. It’s a very tried and true process.
Love to see how the project takes shape over time.
Jeff is a wonderful resource. He was very helpful in getting the Thunderbolt engine configured the way I wanted it for my RV-7A.
Been a pilot for 45+ years and still prefer the ultralights for personal flight, as there aren't all of the hoops to jump through to get airborn. I got all of my certifications as a new pilot at 17 and I was proud of the accomplishments, but I much prefer the freedom from red tape that ultralights provide, when flying today. I've let my certification slide and fly strictly EAA and ultralights now. And with a fixed income these days, my wallet doesn't miss "certified" flight one bit.
Nice and Shiny! New is always exciting to unbox. Sounds like Lycoming really puts the effort into this being a very balanced engine. You should have many hours of smooth flying with this setup! Good job getting them on camera to discuss your specific engine build. I feel bad I missed them this year. Hope to see you in July at OSH21 if the borders open up Steve!
blue, yellow and chrome always look good together on aircraft.
Love the choice to do the backup alt on the vacuum pad, from what I have seen thats the way to go. Great video Steve!
Thanks 👍
Seeing the engine in the airframe has got to be giving you the fizz ! It is for me, and I will never be in control of one. Best of days to all !
Thank you! It was super cool to see the engine assembly
Glad you liked it! Go Canada! :)
That engine can sit in my family room as a fine piece of art. The inside is just as beautiful as the outside. I love companies when it's all about quality, and you sure are one.👍🏻
Couldn't agree more!
I love flightchop videos
That is a sweet engine. Congrats. Looking forward to hearing/seeing it turning in your new plane.
Great job guys
What a gorgeous engine.
Great video! Fun to learn some more on certified vs not, etc! Gotta say that's a pretty sweet looking engine too
understand that the Thunderbolt is a great engine! Thanks for the EMail about this episode.
You bet! Thanks for signing up for the mailing list so we can reach you when RUclips doesn't always do a good job sharing new videos.
Hi Steve. I really don't know if you're Canadian. But one thing's for sure. The passion you show for aviation, matches the Canadian's known relationship with the subject.
Happy landings.
I am indeed Canadian :)
Just out of curiosity (and to show you have veiwers all over the world) 🌎 I'm a Portuguese citizen, living in France, and glad to find an aviation tube channel like flightshopps
"I'm not an interior decorator", a splash of paint on the outside does wonders for the smoothness though!
I talked with Jeff about a week ago and he is awesome to work with. My build is getting a Thunderbolt (black, red)
What a beautiful piece of mechanical art!
Nice video Steve. Good info
Looking forward to the exact specs on the engine and prop that you went with. Also, the alternator redundancy. Great idea, and option.
Awesome update, Steve! 👍🏻
Very informative videos. Thanks for taking the time to do them.
Can't wait to see it fly
Would be cool to have a more in depth comparison between experimental vs certified. All he said was "it's the same, less expensive because less paperwork". But there should be a reason why there is so much paperwork. It raises the question as for why certified stuff still exists.
I'll try to have that discussion more deeply as we get closer to flying the RV-14... But at the end of the day, when dealing with a "real" company like Garmin or Lycoming... Their non certified stuff kind of IS as good as the certified... But I understand your point.
Certified still exists because it’s the only way you buy a new aircraft. If Cessna was allowed to sell a 182 “experimental” direct from the factory and they did it for half the price they would overnight double sells and certified aircraft would be a thing of the past nearly instantly.
Regulation has created a market in primary cost of the certified part is not the part itself but the paperwork and pilot aren’t choosing that because they want to, they have no other option except for home builds.
@@MrcaffinebeanI suspect paperwork has extremely specific testing requirements that accompany it. A small change can have unexpected consequences over time. Forms aren't usually expensive.
Lovely customised Engine 👍
Nice! Love the video! Keep it up!
wow awesome Steve !!
Well... HUGE SHOUT OUT to Jeff a Lycoming for doing that for Steve.
oh hey, i caught this one early, finally! amazing video
That engine is gorgeous.
Smart Looking engine!
Flightchops your videos as always are awesome 😎. Keep going.
Great video, keep up the good work! This is a great field for younger people... I believe the best engineers have built from wood and steel, before they begin life as a ‘designer’.
Coming from a race car engine building background, wow those pistons are huge! I also find it very interesting to see how they are optimizing such an ancient architecture. I suppose reliability and service intervals are far more important than maximum efficiency or performance, hence why it's as understressed of an architecture as it is
I think your assessment is correct.
gotta love the fire extinguisher at 1:09 that is strapped with zip ties so it won't come off...
Good eye - I'll have to point that out to the guys
Up until now I thought my old o 235 locked pretty good.
Nice to see the project moving forward.
Your old 235 is good as it gets. THere is no difference. So its shines, that nice, but nothing has changed.
@@pauleyplay Just got it running again after a top end rebuild and a clean up. The old thing sounds good.
Stay safe
That's one sweet looking engine!
Glen, you're here!
Mr kfc man welcome
Might look sweet, 1930s tech. Nothing high tech in a lycoming, no i am wrong farm tractor parts are better. I have watched lycoming for 60 years, They always have problems.
@@pauleyplay Yes it might be 1930s tech - but it has always worked for me. 30 years of flying under my belt, and the Lycoming has always been rock solid.
@@GlenAndFriendsCooking Great ,Glad you have not had any problems. Just check the ADs & general info to see what has been going on over many years. I had the pleasure of working at Alphin aircraft for years. We saw all kinds of airframes & engines. Does not take long to see what has evolved over the years. I wish you many more years of safe & happy flight.
Nice interview and nice looking engine. Cheers
Back up alternator. That's cool!
I know Jeff! Great guy.
Great colors!
Awesome video as always
seems like certified piston aircraft engines are a good 100 years behind what is coming out now.(exa. cam in block, pushrod, reverse flow head, greasy thred oil seal, single-digit compression ratios yet still demand 100 octane leaded fuel) its good that lycoming has a launchpad for getting new technologies into certified engines. like the new oil seals to replace the yarn. its one small step on a long road to modernization.
Gov't regulations add time and money. Certification is my day job.
@@ihopetospeed1 aircraft engines are not standard. Actually almost nothing of them is still manufactured other then bare consumables, bearings and bolts for most of them. for most its either deep new-old stocks or just planes getting scraped for parts keeping the fleet going. try rebuilding a franklin, there are no oversized pistons or even a procedure to do that in the documentation. once the stock of barrels run out that's it.
or like Beechcraft, the electric motors that run the gear on early bonanzas are just not made any more. companies have to resort to re-winding old cases to keep these planes flying. even a plane as popular as a bonanza dosent warrant the cost of spinning up the tooling again to make new replacements.
at least with automotive derived engines there are hundreds of thousands out in the real world other then the few hundred that get sold in the air application. for people who restore ww2 aircraft the number of merlins and alisons made for boats, tanks, and generators has helped keep them going.
Thanks for this, I have been struggling with the cost of these engines considering the technology is sooooooo old. I will do a thunderbolt on the RV-10 if the diesel engine falls through. Good to know what the difference is for sure!
Glad it was helpful!
Wait… diesel?
@@anthonyserafin4931 Diesel and Jet A are the same thing
At 09:43 (and at other times in this video) I see the old-fashioned slotted screw fasteners to hold the rocker cover.
They look nice, but wouldn't it be better to use a more modern type?
Nice engine!
A good lookin’ wee beastie ya have there Chops...!
Good job💯
Bureaucracy is stifling innovation
Deer season and turkey season are official holidays at the Lycoming factory.
Still not entirely sure what Lycoming (?) Thunderbolt is actually. They appear to build customized aviation engines, but I have a feeling I am missing some introduction part. Building the engine and the whole certified/experimental situation I think I understand.
Hmmm... I guess we assumed most people would know Lycoming is a major aircraft engine manufacturer, and the Thunderbolt is a sort of "up trim / hand crafted" version of the base model engines?
I am not even explaining it right now... haha. Anyway maybe this link will help:
www.lycoming.com/engines/thunderbolt
You are getting an improved performance over a base model cert. engine and a lower cost. Lycoming has to build certified engines to the exact type design to maintain certification thus can't make all the trick mods without redesigned and recertification of a new engine type. That takes a long time and millions of dollars to do. Experimental class stuff is not subject to these standards.
@@mytmousemalibu If I have to add, the safety standards are the same, as said by the Lycoming guys, the high cost of the certified engine comes with the high capital cost from Lycoming to satisfy the FAA paperwork. The experimental engines don't have to have the same "paper trail" but they are built with the same standards without the high certification cost.
The Thunderbolt is a Balanced & Blueprint version of the stock model along with the other custom add on or Take Offs, in Steves’s case.
@@2Phast4Rocket Absolutely! With an OEM like Lycoming, you can breathe easy knowing that regardless of cert or not, you are getting trusted, reliable engines & parts. Lycoming has to maintain their place in the market and they aren't going to jeopardize their good name. The EX ticket components has its benefits for sure. I understand both sides of the coin having worked experimental flight test for Learjet/Bombardier. The cost to the road to certification is almost unfathomable.
I bet you can feel the difference with a balanced rotating assembly.
Engines will last longer and run a hell of a lot happier
I love your videos
Missing the second set of washers is super common lol.
I hate to say it and hope I'm wrong but unless they've improved that backup alternator installation you're going to hate it. A company I worked for had several of them fall off the engine after they crack around the mount. At the very least make that a required inspection item.
14 years with this backup alternator setup and no cracks or fall offs.
Thanks for the tip to watch for that. I'll ask HET if they've heard of this issue.
It probably won't hurt that the Thunderbolt should be fairly low vibration.
@@FlightChops I certainly hope it's not an issue for you! The peace of mind is certainly nice and I'm in favor of anything that gets rid of vacuum pumps
Nice engine. My plane's new engine would have been going down the line about the same time as yours.
Why is sealant and silk thread not applied to the saddles on the forward, center and rear webs of the crankcase halves on Lycoming engines-?
Sealant and silk thread is only applied to the parting surfaces around the periphery of the crankcase halves on Lyc. engs.
Continental engines apply sealant and silk thread to the forward, center and rear web parting surfaces.
Since there is very slight movement between the case halves parting surfaces in the center of the engine, metal fretting sometimes occurs as well as oil ingression between the parting surfaces which eventually means metal wearing against itself and torque being lost on the thru bolt nuts. Then is is just a matter of time for a premature engine disassembly.
On another note, Lycoming engines have their camshaft mounted above the crankshaft which means no oil drip effect from the crankshaft on to the camshaft which results in premature rusting of the camshaft lobe(s) and lifter face(s) if the engine sits inactive for a period of time. Continental engines mount their engine camshafts below the crankshafts and are less prone to rusting of cam lobe(s) and lifter face(s).
Having to remove the propeller and starter ring gear on a Lycoming engine to change an alternator belt is a bad design while this is not necessary on most Continental engines since they mount their staters and alternators on the accessory drive case meaning that no drive belt is required.
Daaaaamn! Thats a purdy motor!!!
Cool!
What a growing brand.
Innovation that excites
Gee... it must be nice to only have to hang your engine once. (:P) In the past two days, I have heard from Superior and Barrett. Superior is submitting the AMOC paperwork to the FAA within the week. They will pay for the crankshaft work and all the parts required for the disassembly and rebuild... but I'll have to pay Barrett for the labor, because technically the engine is out of warranty. Good news is that they'll strip it, rebuild it to new, run it on the dyno and then preserve it again. Rhonda at Barrett gave me an estimate and some ideas on the timetable once we get the green light. I won't be able to document the rebuild like I did the first build (thanks again, Covid-19) but I'm hoping they'll do some documentation for me. The crankshaft mod shop is right next door to Barrett, so that's a good thing. I'll probably deliver the engine to them and have them ship it back to me. So... yeah... I'm taking a hit... but the engine will be back to completely fresh and LEGAL.
Glad to hear you're getting through it - and don't jinx us :P. Hopefully that was the one and only time we need to hang it :)
More fuel efficiency and FADEC is where it’s at. Rotax knows this. But this is still a nice engine
They even got a guy that looks kinda like you in the b roll assembling it
I think that dude is better looking than me :P. But thanks :)
love this thanks..... from an engine guy
Im more curious about the paint used on the engine, i have a air cooled flat 6 in my car but they never painted those engines.
Nice looking motor.
Need to add a nitrous system nice for high altitude takeoffs high density altitude.
So Thunderbolt is a branch of Lycoming building non certified engines? Would have also been nice to get some numbers here, like how much more power you can expect and what the price difference actually is compared to a certified engine.
I wanted to stay sort of general and not get super specific about performance or cost because those things depend on a lot of variables, and it would have meant really getting into the weeds.
But these links at Vans and Lycoming might help?
www.vansaircraft.com/2020/07/vans-announces-new-optional-rv-14-engine-configuration/
www.lycoming.com/engines/thunderbolt
at 8:13 the guy put some kind of string on the edge of the bottom engine block, what is that for? seal?. nice engine!
Sexy engine and great video about engines which are a deep love of mine.
I like how he has a mouse straight out of 2003
Every time I watch a vlog, I can't not notice that Steve's mouse is from 2000
I swear by the KISS concept :)
@@FlightChops respect ;D
I think, and others will agree and disagree, that experimental means two things: a. the means to test and standardize a plane system b. a means to achieve a personal desire by using a.
The only proper experimental planes i've seen so far has to be Alec Wild's DoubleEnder, and Mike Patey's work in general (i'm sure there's others), the rest, are means to an end. Which is not wrong or bad. Smart people have to play it right.
I prefer a special flat black paint, test have shown cooler temps.
yes, always go for highest emissivity.
mystery of why 'certified' costs more is solved...they use 'expensive' paper! thanks flight chops ;)
Happy to share!
Be nice to have noted the price difference between the same engine that is certified and the experimental engine then what colors are available or the different cylinder covers ......
can you build a helicopter engine that can produce 90 house power and keep it an unitelite aircarft
Thanks for the video! Great news, yet I would still love to learn how the new version of the 390 engine gets affected by the tuning parts they added (emags/airflow). If the maintenance and tbo are the same and if it passes the same quality standards. Thanks!
Your engine looks like a work of art. Great segment on Lycoming engines. Prior to 1995 I found the O-320 and O-360s bullet proof. They had a problem with defective crankshafts when the demand for them being manufactured increased prior to 95. The old school tribal technicians were retired and the new techs didn't have their experience. Glad to see a shop with tribal values back assembling these engines. They are crude to nowadays designed engines. It's a travesty that we are still flying 66 year old engine designs without much improvement. They are fuel guzzlers just like they were in 1955. The big corporations are still farming out critical parts to non tribal manufactures. I was told this by a technician at Bell a couple of years ago. Seems even Bell farmed their gearbox parts out offshore at that time to save money. The primary reason these engines have the safety record that they have, is the fact that tribal parts manufacturers team members know what it takes to build a dependable engine. It's a shame that a $500.00 dollar engine (commodity market raw materials prices) now cost so much to produce. Don't you just love all the progress?
Why are the balanced rods/shafts and pistons not part of the certified engine range? Can't we benifit from those too?
What’s TBO time?
TBO = Time Before Overhaul
@@FlightChops OH okay! Thank you! I can definitely see why you would want to make that as large as safely possible.
I wonder if the lead times on the TB engines will come down in the future? Or is this the norm? Currently many times longer than the IO390-EXP119 lead time
Great video thanks as always
What's the story with the BMW Lycoming cover in the background.
This companys new log should be
"If its good enough for Mike Patey its good enough for you" :-)
Looked like you had a governor on it! Gonna have a blue knob?
Heck yes!
Can you engine swap an experimental airplane power plant for a 2JZ race car engine?
Does using an experimental/non certified engine equate to higher insurance costs?
NO it voids the policy !
@@pauleyplay Does this mean that those using these engines are flying without insurance? That seems like a lot of guys are taking a big risk.
Cant install exp anything in a certified plane. You can than airplane must recert in the experimental catagory. You just cant do it. There is a process to do mods such as engines. Very costly. takes forever. The feds hate it !
Very nice engine! What Magnetos is this engine running?
How does certified vs experimental affect insurance?
Wait, at 5:33...is that a Mosquito behind him?
Yup :)
@@FlightChops WONDERFUL!!
The longer I fly the more I wish I owned experimental.
I’m an airboat owner, we take old runout aircraft engines and convert them to airboats. The cost, I’ll have to assume, is a lot less than if the engine were going to fly. I have an O-540 AV on my airboat with 10/1 compression pistons and electronic ignition. Around 300 hp at a cost of between 10k-15k. Anyway, my question is will Lycoming build an O-390 specific for an airboat at a comparable price?
How does painting affect the cylinder cooling? And do different colours promote better heat transfer?
I hope they use a proper type of paint. Ca 1990 in the Netherlands I was watching an engineer take of the engine cowling of a similar engine.
The private owner had sprayed all the cooling fins with a thick layer of a sticky anti-corrosion liquid. He had spotted the beginning of rust he thought.
During the taxi run, he noticed smoke...
Lycoming has been so far behind the technology curve. All those features we have been doing on experimental engines for years. After how many years they finally used Surefly electronic ignitions, polished/ported int/exh, balanced rods and not running the intake pipes thru the oil sump. Looks like they copied or are private labeling parts from all the experimental suppliers.
amazing