YIO-390-EXP119 with No Accessory pad question

So I ordered this engine: YIO-390-EXP119 with No Accessory pad

Can someone please explain the difference in no accessory pad and accessory pad? I plan on having glass avionics with dual P mags but honestly I am not sure if I've made the right decision?

Can someone please educate me? Sorry for my ignorance.

Does someone have a photo of the back side of the EXP-119 engine? Would be interesting to see what the accessory housing cover looks like.

An accessory pad allows you the option of installing a stand-by alternator on the vacuum pump pad.

McCoy said:

So I ordered this engine: YIO-390-EXP119 with No Accessory pad

Can someone please explain the difference in no accessory pad and accessory pad? I plan on having glass avionics with dual P mags but honestly I am not sure if I've made the right decision?

Can someone please educate me? Sorry for my ignorance.

Click to expand...

That's where a backup alternator is mounted. Eliminating it, saves a little weight. Won't effect the P-mags. Pad is just above the starboard mag location. My IO-360-M1B has a cover on it.

My understanding is the pad is still there, just not machined out , therefore doesn’t require a cover.

Cover

Ron B. said:

My understanding is the pad is still there, just not machined out , therefore doesn’t require a cover.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Doesn't sound like a weight savings. Seems like it would be more useful to have it available with a cover.

If weigh saving is your primary goal for not getting the accessory pad, please be aware that the 14 needs the weight up front and the EXP119 is already lighter than the standard so this may work against you unless you can think of moving things forward which I am not sure what stuff you can move forward.

The accessory pad gives you option to install a backup alternator.

Can you change your order?

As others have said, it leaves you the option to mount a standby alternator. So the question is, why would you want to leave that option off the table? It’d be better to to have it and not need it rather than the other way around. For the little bit of weight savings it offers, I wouldn’t delete it. I think it’d be worth a call to Lycoming to see if you can add it back on.

Do it to have a b/u electrical source

Not for W&B. Having a backup electrical source to get one home would be a nice option and if you are thinking of having an electrical dependent engine priceless. Vans used a IO360 (Angle valve) in their non-A model I believe and although I don't have the W&B handy eliminating the nose gear and adding weight in the tail (tailwheel) must have moved the W&B further aft. My airframe has a 40-amp alternator as the main and a very light WW composite prop plus Earth X batteries on the firewall. I do not have the lightweight Skytech starter. (I would advise not using this starter) Everyone was advising me that it would have issues making W&B but when I ran the theoretical numbers it seemed to me would be ok. Plan B was to limit baggage weight. Today after paint the CG is fine using extremes for fuel and pilot and co-pilot weights and 100 lbs. of baggage for utility class. Yes, I can't do acro with 100 lbs. of baggage, (And be within CG limits) but nobody does that. (I hope)