What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

New IO-0390-EXP119 Option for RV-14/14A

greghughespdx

Well Known Member
Advertiser
New IO-390-EXP119 Option for RV-14/14A

We've just announced a new supported engine option for the RV-14/14A, utilizing the Lycoming Engines IO-390-EXP119 (a variant of the IO-390C). Check the news post at the link to get all the details, but the short version is more power, lower weight and improved performance! We will post additional information about this in the near future, so stay tuned. Engines may be ordered now, and the finish and firewall-forward kits will be available to order beginning September 1st.

The details: https://www.vansaircraft.com/2020/07/vans-announces-new-optional-rv-14-engine-configuration/

We'll share some more details and photos/video of the new configuration soon.
 
Last edited:
That's a big performance gain!

A 2.5% horsepower increase and 10 lb. engine weight decrease yields almost 15% in ROC and 6%-7% speed gain? Am I missing something?
 
Very impressive - especially all the specific changes including Airflow Performance fuel injection.

Well done Van's!
 
A 2.5% horsepower increase and 10 lb. engine weight decrease yields almost 15% in ROC and 6%-7% speed gain? Am I missing something?

You're kind of missing something [:D] because calculating based solely on rated HP doesn't necessarily get you where you think it might. So it's not quite an apples/apples situation.

The EXP119 engine is a variant of the 390C, and the rated horsepower advertised on the EXP119 actually comes from the 390C testing (a new test was not conducted for the EXP119 version). The 390C did not include the new AFP fuel servo used on the EXP119 engine. While we don't have specific metrics related to that change, we know the flow capacity of that servo is higher. (note: edited for clarity)

The 390A model used originally (and which is still available, of course) on the RV-14 is a great off-the-shelf configuration that was not designed specifically for the RV-14. The new 390-EXP119 engine represents the first time Van's has dedicated time to work with Airflow Performance and Lycoming to develop a system tailored to the airframe. We evaluated and tested multiple exhaust systems, induction systems, and a variety of other ideas before settling on our final configuration.

In addition, and importantly, there are a number non-engine-specific changes that impact the final results. Van's engineers worked with Lycoming in designing the new exhaust system used on the 390-EXP119. The Van's-provided crossover exhaust is specifically designed for the application, and makes a difference in optimizing power output. In combination with this new exhaust, we took advantage of the opportunity to reduce drag related to the cowl exit area. Specifically, we designed a new exhaust ramp cooling flap and a new lower cowl, which is significantly different in shape.

It's the sum of the changes that drives the end result, rather than any single technical change. This project has been a terrific experience for us, in that the three companies worked closely together to achieve a substantial performance result.
 
Last edited:
Greg, will the newly developed snorkle work for those of us with the fm-150 on a “old”-390?
 
I should note that the oil cooling system parts (baffle rear wall and flange, five-inch SCAT tube, and the associated interface to the oil cooler) are becoming standard kits parts on all RV-14 kits.

Prior to this change, the cooling tube was a four-inch diameter tube. If the owner of an existing aircraft would like to increase its oil cooling air flow on a 390A engine, they'll be able to order the new five-inch cooling components for a simple retrofit on their finished airplane. More on this soon.
 
You're kind of missing something [:D] because calculating based solely on rated HP doesn't necessarily get you where you think it might.

I'm missing it too. ;)

The 390C on which the certification horsepower tests were conducted did not include the new AFP fuel servo used on the EXP119 engine. While we don't have specific metrics, we know the flow capacity of that servo is higher.

Did you mean to say 390A?

Given appropriate intake flange diameters (no reduction adapters), the carb loss difference between an RSA-5 type and the FM-200 would ballpark at 6 to 8 inches H20, or roughly 0.5" Hg. That's not insignificant. However, the RSA-5 sized intake was on earlier 390 models with the standard unitary sump and intake plenum. The 390C has the separate intake plenum with a flange for the RSA-10, and the difference between and RSA-10 and an FM-200 would be less than 1" H2O at 390 flow rates. I would much rather have the FM-200 (mine has been bulletproof), but I would not expect a big performance boost based solely on swapping throttle bodies. Actually, the C and 119 both seem to be rated at 215.

Do the C and the new 119 in fact use the same #42A28515 intake plenum? All this stuff is gonna show up in the parts catalogs anyway.

In addition, and importantly, there are a number non-engine-specific changes that impact the final results.

Hey, we have photo posting now......
 
Last edited:
Did you mean to say 390A?

Nope. I was trying to explain that the fuel servo on the 390C (this engine is a variant of that specific model) is not the same that is on the EXP119. Point being, the original testing on the 390C (which is where the rated HP statement comes from for the 390-EXP119, there was not a new test run) was conducted before any of the changes I mentioned were made. I'll edit that post to make it more clear.

Do the C and the new 119 in fact use the same #42A28515 intake plenum? All this stuff is gonna show up in the parts catalogs anyway.

Yes, it does use the same intake plenum.

Importantly, the exhaust is significantly different and was designed specifically for this engine application, in consultation with Lycoming. While we have not dyno'ed the final setup, it's pretty safe to say it makes a meaningful difference.

Hey, we have photo posting now......

Yeah - and it's frickin amazing!! :D

Photos/video coming soon. Honestly it's been everything I can do to keep up with the workload recently (lots going on around here!), but some sort of visuals are coming soon to a VAF theater near you!
 
Any of this adaptable to existing 390A

Thanks for the update Greg. I suppose that these improvements can’t be bolted on to existing 390A installations on RV-14s. For example, could the new exhaust and exit ramp be used? How about the FM-200 with new snorkel and lower cowl? Just curious if the Thunderbolt that was delivered to me last month could benefit from these improvements.
 
Thanks for the update Greg. I suppose that these improvements can’t be bolted on to existing 390A installations on RV-14s. For example, could the new exhaust and exit ramp be used? How about the FM-200 with new snorkel and lower cowl? Just curious if the Thunderbolt that was delivered to me last month could benefit from these improvements.

No, these changes and parts are specific to the 390-EXP119 engine, which has a different geometry for exhaust and intake pipes. It's an all-or-none option, engine included. To use the new exhaust ramp cooling flap you need the new cowl, so you need the new crossover exhaust, so you need to be using the EXP119 engine, etc. The kit components will not fit on the IO-390A.

The parts that ARE useable with the 390A are the rear-right-side baffle wall and tube attach flange, the 5" SCAT tube that runs to the oil cooler, and the metal components that mate it to the oil cooler. Those are now being changed to the standard parts in the 14/14A kits, and we can supply them to people who already have the 4" tube components, of course, as a retrofit.

- greg
 
Last edited:
What's the preferred propeller for this new engine?

You can use the same propellers as currently listed for the RV-14. We will be updating prop information our web site with the new engine compatibility in the next day or two.

Note that on our web site we state 210 HP at the highest HP for the applicable propellers right now, but that is based on applicable engine/aircraft combos as approved for sale by Van's. The propeller manufacturer's type certificate documentation is what officially governs (pun not intended) max RPM and HP for any given propeller.
 
Very Tempting

First time builder here and want to place an engine/prop order this week. Wonder if I can get it into an RV8, with the "custom" exhaust and all?
Guess I have some phone calls to make...
 
Nope. I was trying to explain that the fuel servo on the 390C (this engine is a variant of that specific model) is not the same that is on the EXP119.

Yep, and I'm just sayin' the carb loss difference is less than a tenth of an inch of mercury, C vs 119, not enough for a noteworthy performance increase. There would however be a notable difference between a 390A and the 390C or 119.

Importantly, the exhaust is significantly different and was designed specifically for this engine application, in consultation with Lycoming. While we have not dyno'ed the final setup, it's pretty safe to say it makes a meaningful difference.

It's not hard to estimate the difference. Consider the performance comparison posted here. Rate of climb is basically (excess power * 33,000)/ weight. Since the comparison is based on the same 2050 gross with the same prop, we can turn the equation around and find it takes about 11 more installed HP to bump the climb rate from 1500 to 1680. That's not crazy for an A vs 119. Heck, I'm aware of A's from the same builder, on the same dyno, coming in anywhere from 205 to 215, so I have no trouble believing the prototype 119 installation made 11 HP more than a prior 390A.

Yes, it does use the same intake plenum.

And the C model's intake tubes too?
 
First time builder here and want to place an engine/prop order this week. Wonder if I can get it into an RV8, with the "custom" exhaust and all?
Guess I have some phone calls to make...

You can use the engine, but the rest of the RV-14 parts do not fit an RV-8. All of the information/stipulations we released recently regarding the RV-8 and use of the 390A apply to the EXP119, with the additional comment that with the cold air sump on the 390-EXP119 there are a couple more physical differences to account for.

Personal note: If it was me and I was putting a 390EXP-119 on my RV-8, I'd probably call clint at Vetterman and ask him about a custom trombone exhaust or similar option for that configuration and see if he could help. No idea what his answer would be, but that's what I would do (I have the trombone Vetterman exhaust on my IO-360 project, it's a work of art - and it has mufflers which as a bonus can deliver much better cabin heat capability when its cold out).
 
I'm excited to see this engine, and the 'probability' that some RV7 and RV8 owners will be wanting it. So with that in mind, once we get some requested data, Steve and I will come up with a modifed hose package.

Tom
 
CG

Very interested to hear about the impact on CG and choices on props.

We are currently just finishing the build of an RV-14 and using the Whirlwind Three (3) Bladed composite prop with the current IO-390 Thunderbolt (not the new one just announced). Folks have hinted at this set-up (light prop) creating a rear-heavy CG in some configs - so, we are mitigating, just in case, by moving the ELT forward, NOT using the light-weight earthX battery, using a new sam james cowling with a 1.5" prop extension, and a few other things as well (adding a back-up alternator, light-weight flyboys tail wheel, etc). We feel all these combined should certainly address any rear-ward CG issue.

That said, losing another 10 pounds from Van's new engine does not help any potential CG issue (which, again, is likely not a big issue to begin with - there have been conflicting opinions on the forum about this). Our bigger concern is that for those who want a composite blade for all the usual reasons - losing another 10 lbs up front isn't helpful.

Just to summarize, our config is:

1. "Current" 10-390 thunderbolt with dual p-mags (should get us 220 -225 hp according to the thunderbolt guys)

2. Three (3) bladed Whirlwind comp prop: Should be smoother operating, with better climb over two-bladed and same top end (according to Whirlwind) but, it is 26 pounds lighter than the 2-bladed hartzell metal prop that Vans was recommending in the past (hence the CG discussions).

3. Sam James cowl: Should be less cooling drag (hence more speed). And, it looks very nice - especially with the three-bladed prop.

We think these things will give us very good numbers relative to a 'stock' RV-14. We will know soon, as our project is being painted now and test flights will happen in August - first with the stock cowling, and later with the sam james (we want to get performance numbers based solely on the cowling difference). I will post pics and results then.

Finally, just an FYI - I am building down at SynergyAir in Oregon. These guys have been amazing to work with and their knowledge, expertise, and quality of work is amazing. If you've built here, or seen one of their projects, you know what I mean. The plane is simply stunning. Can't wait to re-assemble it (just getting finishing touches on the paint this week) to show it off.
 
No data on the new EXP119 yet, but I spoke with Lycoming yesterday and their backlog has come down significantly. Earlier I saw a post saying that backlogs for Thunderbolts had crept up to 11 months. The gentleman I spoke with said an order today would be delivered in December or January so we're talking 5-6 months now.
 
Scott, would a muffler be an option on the new exhaust?

No
The new exhaust design is a 4 into 2 system with with each of the exit pipes passing through their own exit tunnel that is molded into the new design lower cowl.

The cowl fits quite tightly to the exhaust so there is no room for mufflers. Even if they could be squeezed in they would probably impact cooling airflow because all cooling air exits the cowl through the two tunnels that the exhaust pipes exit through, unless the cowl flap is open.
 
Heck, I'm aware of A's from the same builder, on the same dyno, coming in anywhere from 205 to 215, so I have no trouble believing the prototype 119 installation made 11 HP more than a prior 390A.


I thought 390's were designed after the FAA changed the rule for stated HP being:

minus 0%, plus 5%.

So shouldn't they come in at 210 to 220 HP?


Unlike the earlier IO360 AV 200 HP which was plus/minus 2.5% (195-205 HP)
 
I thought 390's were designed after the FAA changed the rule for stated HP being:

minus 0%, plus 5%.

So shouldn't they come in at 210 to 220 HP?

Unlike the earlier IO360 AV 200 HP which was plus/minus 2.5% (195-205 HP)

The 390 was created by Monty Barrett as a way to boost angle valve HP without raising compression very much...basically 580 cylinders on a modified 360 case. That was way back, 20 years ago or more. Lycoming cut a deal and kitted the engine with a new case, rather than the 360 case. Under the terms, Barrett had an exclusive for X years, after which the kit sales would spread to a total of six engine shops. They were all experimental engines, not subject to certification regs. Certification came later, after Lycoming cut off the supply of engine kits to the independent shops and started Thunderbolt.

I'm pretty sure of the numbers...
 

Attachments

  • Gearheads.JPG
    Gearheads.JPG
    75.7 KB · Views: 291
Last edited:
I am curious as well as to what a customer is to do should he/she decide on installing a B/U alternator? Someone must have the answer.:cool:

I actually asked Lycoming specifically about this the other day. There is not a location for a B/U alternator on the EXP119 engine. Many newer certified aircraft have moved to using a second, dedicated backup battery rather than a backup alternator. Also, adding the accessory pad back to the lighter-weight engine would negate a significant amount of the weight savings you get with the EXP119 version.

It's technically possible to take the induction system parts used in the EXP319 (intake tubes, cold air sump, servo, etc.) and bolt it onto a 390A (which technically would allow the Van's components to fit), but the significant weight savings you get with the EXP119 isn't there in that scenario. The power benefits would be there, of course.
 
Pictures Please!

The new exhaust design is a 4 into 2 system with with each of the exit pipes passing through their own exit tunnel that is molded into the new design lower cowl.

The cowl fits quite tightly to the exhaust so there is no room for mufflers. Even if they could be squeezed in they would probably impact cooling airflow because all cooling air exits the cowl through the two tunnels that the exhaust pipes exit through, unless the cowl flap is open.

Pictures, or it didn't happen! ;)
 
A quick teaser photo showing a fairly clean view of the affected area of the aircraft - the newly designed lower cowl and the exhaust ramp cooling duct (which is in the closed position in this photo). This depicts the final configuration and was taken during some recent performance testing flights.

We'll have more visuals published soon.
 

Attachments

  • 20200718-IMG_0353.jpg
    20200718-IMG_0353.jpg
    453.9 KB · Views: 862
Last edited:
I actually asked Lycoming specifically about this the other day. There is not a location for a B/U alternator on the EXP119 engine. Many newer certified aircraft have moved to using a second, dedicated backup battery rather than a backup alternator. Also, adding the accessory pad back to the lighter-weight engine would negate a significant amount of the weight savings you get with the EXP119 version.

It's technically possible to take the induction system parts used in the EXP319 (intake tubes, cold air sump, servo, etc.) and bolt it onto a 390A (which technically would allow the Van's components to fit), but the significant weight savings you get with the EXP119 isn't there in that scenario. The power benefits would be there, of course.

Thanks Greg - this is interesting. So you are saying that the INDUCTION side could potentially be retrofitted to an existing 390A swapping out intake tubes, cold air sump, servo, etc. . . would the new exhaust also fit once the new induction system was installed? Of course new lower cowl needed as well . . .
 
Thanks Greg - this is interesting. So you are saying that the INDUCTION side could potentially be retrofitted to an existing 390A swapping out intake tubes, cold air sump, servo, etc. . . would the new exhaust also fit once the new induction system was installed? Of course new lower cowl needed as well . . .

Yes, if it was done with the correct set of Lycoming and AFP engine/fuel system parts the new Van's parts would conceivably fit. Give me a week or two, and I will see what I can find out as far as real-world feasibility (or lack thereof) for people who might want to "go custom" etc. I'd already had one conversation along these lines, and so I will chase it down on my end when I am able.
 
Last edited:
Here's a pic from a Van's email today:

3e445cf9-66ec-4644-8264-c73c840ac4db.jpg
 
Scott McDaniels----I'll bet you have a ball getting to play with new stuff like this. They bring you a new engine variant and say-Hey Scott, take this and put it in a 14A an make everything fit under this. Oh---and the exhaust hasnt been designed yet, and the induction hasnt been done either. Have fun.---

Lucky guy---

Tom
 
Can the new cowling and exhaust be use on the 390A?

I think that's where you got most of your speed increase............
 
Can the new cowling and exhaust be use on the 390A?

I think that's where you got most of your speed increase............

Yes, if it was done with the correct set of Lycoming and AFP engine/fuel system parts the new Van's parts would conceivably fit. Give me a week or two, and I will see what I can find out as far as real-world feasibility (or lack thereof) for people who might want to "go custom" etc. I'd already had one conversation along these lines, and so I will chase it down on my end when I am able.

If the proper part changes are made, as Greg alluded to.

The exhaust requires that the new version induction tubes be used... the exhaust is a very tight fit to the engine for the new cowl profile and it would have an interference with the 390A induction tubes.
 
Back
Top