Another Engine Delay

[bertschb]

We want the airplane that Van's designed.

What would be cool is if Vans designed their kits (FWF, cowlings, etc) with multiple factory engine options (e.g. Lycoming/DeltaHawk/Rotax). The unskilled builders like me could get a fully engineered solution and wouldn't have to design everything from scratch to get the non-Lycoming engine to work. Hey, I can dream!

The problem is DeltaHawk is even more expensive than Lycoming and Rotax doesn't yet make a high HP engine for the late model RV's. I do agree with a previous comment that Lycoming probably can't keep prices where they are for the long term. I would think at some point either demand catches up and sales drop because of the high prices or competitors arrive and take market share.

 

[N8DAV8R]

The problem is DeltaHawk is even more expensive than Lycoming and Rotax doesn't yet make a high HP engine for the late model RV's. I do agree with a previous comment that Lycoming probably can't keep prices where they are for the long term. I would think at some point either demand catches up and sales drop because of the high prices or competitors arrive and take market share.

Just to add, I'm not sure all of us are hyper fixed on the price point. Savings some money would always be nice and we have included the high cost in this discussion, but the original context of this thread was a delay. Along with that there is a sprinkling that all this high cost and time still results in arguably outdated engine, fuel system, and ignition package.

It would be easier to tolerate the cost if I knew I could place the order closer to actually needing it, with some confidence in what the lead time would be. It's really tough for me to deposit $16k on an engine order with zero confidence on how long that will be tied up, when all I have is a wing kit. I can do that money shuffle a little easier when I'm looking at a whole airframe. This forces me to build myself into a corner. I'm a little envious of the folks that are able to tolerate these compounding risks better than me.

Anyway, just wanted to make the point that it's not all about the cost. Availability and innovation in the product line are important factors.

 

[bertschb]

It would be easier to tolerate the cost if I knew I could place the order closer to actually needing it, with some confidence in what the lead time would be.

Agreed! Loooong and changing lead times (along with Vans bankruptcy) have made my build very challenging with long gaps in the build process.

I thought I was planning in advance when I ordered my engine at the same time I ordered my kits. In hindsight, I should have ordered my engine at least a year before ordering my first kit. Of course, ordering my prop when I ordered my engine/kits was also a mistake because it has now timed out and will need to be sent in to be re-packed. My avionics will likely be ready this month after a four month lead time and I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that Garmin will update the G3X with something newer before I get my engine - and I delayed ordering avionics for almost three years thinking I'd install it right before the engine just in case Garmin updated the G3X. As good as the G3X is, I'm not excited about installing a piece of electronics that is already 12 years old.

There is basically no way to schedule ordering anything with these airplanes and get the timing right.

Still watching my Inbox for my dreaded "engine delay" email....

 

[Mark Dickens]

We have the same discusion in our household - when to commit to an engine. On the one hand, you don’t want to wait and be the last in line. On the other, I have a gut instinct to wait until the final fuselage comes out so that we can weigh the pluses and minuses (W&B, installation clearances, engine mount configuration, etc…) between various engine choices. Yes, although it is designed around an IO-390, there are probably other engines that will work fine as well…but we won’t know that until the final design comes out.

And so….we debate….

And when to buy the prop! I have learned from reading all the stories about props that sit around for years before they are mounted. I have not ordered my prop and will not until I get the engine shipping notice from Lycoming. I figure I have at least a couple of months of FWF work before I need the prop. Of course, I take the risk of prices going up...

 

[Mark Dickens]

Agreed! Loooong and changing lead times (along with Vans bankruptcy) have made my build very challenging with long gaps in the build process.

I thought I was planning in advance when I ordered my engine at the same time I ordered my kits. In hindsight, I should have ordered my engine at least a year before ordering my first kit. Of course, ordering my prop when I ordered my engine/kits was also a mistake because it has now timed out and will need to be sent in to be re-packed. My avionics will likely be ready this month after a four month lead time and I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that Garmin will update the G3X with something newer before I get my engine - and I delayed ordering avionics for almost three years thinking I'd install it right before the engine just in case Garmin updated the G3X. As good as the G3X is, I'm not excited about installing a piece of electronics that is already 12 years old.

There is basically no way to schedule ordering anything with these airplanes and get the timing right.

Still watching my Inbox for my dreaded "engine delay" email....

Back in the day, you'd ask Vans how long it would take to finish a kit and they'd say something like "1200 hours"....this was predicated on you actually having the kits available to work on. Their delays on my -14 kit dwarf the time I've spent on the project getting it to this point.

What they ought to say is that "it will take many years because we and our suppliers can't get our acts together. In fact, you sir may be dead before you get all of the necessary pieces. We don't recommend anyone starting a kit after age 40 AND a full top to bottom physical!".

 

[Clayvt]

As far as new engines, Spirit somehow managed to do it for their little one seater.

 

[bertschb]

As far as new engines, Spirit somehow managed to do it for their little one seater.

Good point!!

 

[mic2377]

Yeah the Austro’s are great. Multiple SB’s, MSB’s and the latest AD’s for piston replacement. Fortunately, most of the engine failures have occurred on the twins (DA42 & 62) and not on the single DA40NG. Another automotive conversion with questionable reliability. Maybe they will get there one day, but they’re not there yet.

I completely agree that the Austro's are not yet a mature system. The fleet size is pretty big though at something like 5500 engines and 5 million+ flight hours. That is a lot bigger than anything else that has tried to compete with Lycoming/Continental in the past, short of Rotax demolishing the small engine market. It was more the point of the relative engine cost compared to the traditional engines.

I agree it really is more about the time delay than the $$$, as callous as that is to say. Experimentals have evolved from scratch built single seaters with a VW engine screwed together in a garage to IFR glass panel machines that are basically customized, better performing aircraft barely different than their certified cousins. Lycoming realizes that this market has changed and are pricing accordingly. But gosh darn it they really need to be able to make enough cylinders, cost be damned, to keep engines in service running.

 

[Carlos151]

What I don't understand is why another business (or three) doesn't see an opportunity for the experimental engine market and just build a Lycoming clone. It isn't difficult to build a 75 year old VW engine. Just guessing here but it seems like they would still be highly profitable at half the price without the liability overhead for producing certified engines. Clearly I'm wrong because nobody else is really competing with Lycoming. If they were, we wouldn't have this thread

Lyclone motors like Mattituck and Superior have come and gone. Deep Chinese pockets have bought them out and merged them into companies like Continental / Titan. Same thing that's happening to companies like Cirrus, Piper, Mooney and others. Hartzell anyone? It's not as easy as you think it is.

 

[esco]

.... I have not ordered my prop and will not until I get the engine shipping notice from Lycoming..."

Good call!
I went the other way, bought the "prop bundle" for the discount... and now have a prop-shaped anchor sitting in my garage...

 

[Jonnyb]

Good call!
I went the other way, bought the "prop bundle" for the discount... and now have a prop-shaped anchor sitting in my garage...

I’ve ordered my prop, the chances of getting priced out were too high, and I have 6 years before I need to get it resealed if I haven’t used it by then.

 

[Jetmart]

I’ve ordered my prop, the chances of getting priced out were too high, and I have 6 years before I need to get it resealed if I haven’t used it by then.

Have you confirmed it is 6 years for a new prop unmounted and not used?

 

[M McGraw]

I’ve ordered my prop, the chances of getting priced out were too high, and I have 6 years before I need to get it resealed if I haven’t used it by then.

Are you sure it’s 6 years? I called Hartzell then cancelled my prop because of the required 2 year reseal if the prop is not installed. I even considered installing it on my -14 temporarily. That reseal cost more than the bundle savings.

 

[DanH]

A few thoughts t to echo IO390's comments...

All this talk of crazy $$$ over valued is leaning me heavy towards A&P....slowly gathering my own parts and building my own on the next go around. God willing. Wishful thinking?

No, it's not crazy or wishful, with a caveat or two. If you have the skills, it is entirely possible to build up your own 390.

Start with an IO-360A donor engine. All the early Barrett scratch-built 390's, as well as the Lycoming kit 390's and converted Superior 400's, were built with a small main 360 crank. The early Barrett builds were modified 360 cases. You would need to order a set of 390/580 cylinders and pistons of course. All else is common component choice. Nothing wrong with a small main 390. I've been flying a Lycoming kit for 15 years.

Plan B? Do a modified 360 angle valve. It wouldn't be hard to get close to original 390 power levels. W&B would remain the same, as would all the firewall forward hardware and routings. Gotta be a dead Mooney with your name on it somewhere. Oddly enough, they may be among least desired used engines, in particular the A3B6D dual mag models. You would probably ditch the dual mag and install EI anyway. I built one like that 25 years ago, for an RV-8A.

Once upon a time the standard path was to find and rebuild an engine for a project. Nothing has changed, except perspective.

 

[Jonnyb]

Are you sure it’s 6 years? I called Hartzell then cancelled my prop because of the required 2 year reseal if the prop is not installed. I even considered installing it on my -14 temporarily. That reseal cost more than the bundle savings.

Its an MT, but the dealer has confirmed this:

You get 2 years storage from date of release on the form 1. Then the calendar life of 6 years starts.

So, you can install but may only say have 5 years till its due an LPIP or overhaul.

To be fair, I would be utterly amazed if its lasts 6 years or 2400 hours with out some sort of maintenance.

 

[RVbySDI]

Well, all the discussion about Lycoming and Vans holding us “proverbially” hostage on engines is a very interesting perspective. Those who have posted about having someone open up shop and start competing with Lycoming is the environment we not too long ago left. Once upon a time in a “Galaxy Close Close to Home!” (pardon me for slightly altering a statement from Star Wars), there were many competitors to Lycoming selling clones that were, for the most part, configured the same as Lycoming engines to the point where it didn’t matter if you bought your engine from them or from Lycoming. They fit on the airplane the same. Matituck, ECI, Superior, LyCon, and others are pretty much all shut down, or have been bought out. Others have posted that they understand why Lycoming is doing what they are doing now. The demand is high now. Higher than supply. Exactly because they have a captured market. Truthfully, this business environment is pretty close to the same as it was 20+ years ago when looking at new engines. It is why those companies opened their doors many years ago. It is now what it was then.

There is, however, some difference in us the consumer. Back in the day, (that “not so long ago” time) there were builders that did not shy away from “experimenting” with building their own engines themselves, or, who looked at these alternate engine manufacturers and decided it shouldn’t be that difficult to make it work if they installed an engine that was not a factory built Lycoming. As far as firewall forward design changes from one (320, 360, 390) to another, the modifications one may have to make are not that drastic. Many of us have done it in the past. You can do it also. There really are some companies out there still doing this (https://www.bpaengines.com/ was mentioned by Dan. It is just one of those still out there).

Live Long and Prosper!

 

[Mikeyb]

The NTSB thought power plant failure was the leading cause of EAB accidents in 2012 report. The EAA reports that EAB fatal accidents are down 50 percent in the last 15 years. Does the change to more factory built engines used in EAB’s figure into that reduction?

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1201.pdf

 

[sansoneservices]

Oh no! When did you order your engine? I have a feeling I'll be getting the same email soon. If my Thunderbolt 390 gets delayed another six months, I'll need to pick up another hobby. At my age, I'm running out of new hobbies :-(

Agreed, my age is keeping me from building a -9

 

[bertschb]

I'd seriously consider building a -15 if I knew I could get every kit, the engine, prop and avionics within 30 days of ordering. My -14 build is my first and last because of this. I still haven't got my "engine delay" email from Vans yet which is really odd.

 

[sansoneservices]

Looks like I am not the only one that is very disappointed and unhappy. I received the same noticed today for another 2-6 months delay, I wish I could understand the whole thing and how the businesses have changed just from a decade or so ago.

Almost nationwide shutdown for the flu, we are still experiencing severe labor/material shortages

 

[David Z]

Well, all the discussion about Lycoming and Vans holding us “proverbially” hostage on engines is a very interesting perspective. Those who have posted about having someone open up shop and start competing with Lycoming is the environment we not too long ago left. Once upon a time in a “Galaxy Close Close to Home!” (pardon me for slightly altering a statement from Star Wars), there were many competitors to Lycoming selling clones that were, for the most part, configured the same as Lycoming engines to the point where it didn’t matter if you bought your engine from them or from Lycoming. They fit on the airplane the same. Matituck, ECI, Superior, LyCon, and others are pretty much all shut down, or have been bought out. Others have posted that they understand why Lycoming is doing what they are doing now. The demand is high now. Higher than supply. Exactly because they have a captured market. Truthfully, this business environment is pretty close to the same as it was 20+ years ago when looking at new engines. It is why those companies opened their doors many years ago. It is now what it was then.

There is, however, some difference in us the consumer. Back in the day, (that “not so long ago” time) there were builders that did not shy away from “experimenting” with building their own engines themselves, or, who looked at these alternate engine manufacturers and decided it shouldn’t be that difficult to make it work if they installed an engine that was not a factory built Lycoming. As far as firewall forward design changes from one (320, 360, 390) to another, the modifications one may have to make are not that drastic. Many of us have done it in the past. You can do it also. There really are some companies out there still doing this (https://www.bpaengines.com/ was mentioned by Dan. It is just one of those still out there).

Live Long and Prosper!

Those shops still exist, or most of them do, even if it's under a different name and ownership.

One can still call up Aerosport Power and order an engine. Same with the above mentioned shops' new owners.

 

[Jkalpine]

I am Rotax centric. So understand where I am coming from. Edge Performance has been supporting upgrades and retro fit kits to the Rotax world for 10 plus years and have developed a 185 hp engine built around the 916is the EP918Ti. Available in the US, most of the engine is stock Rotax with stock parts. Last price I saw was $57K mid 2025. Biggest change is in the ECU and larger pistons and intake port changes. Specs below. Edge Performance is well known in the gyrocopter world for their big bore kits and has a growing influence in the STOL market. Biggest issue as mentioned before is weight, this 185 hp engine is more than 100 pounds lighter than the IO-390 though it develops a bit more torque than the 390. All this means until a fuselage and more definitive W&B info is available for the RV15 a substitute engine choice is just going to have to wait, but the door is open to other engines whether its a Rotax, DH, ULPower, or custom built Lycoming clone, almost all with shorter lead times,

EP918Ti
An engine producing 185HP built from the Rotax© 916iS.
– Technical Engine Data

Engine Displacement: 1352ccm3
Bore x Stroke: 84.00×61.00mm
Gearbox reduction ratio: 2.54:1
Engine weight w/gearbox w/overload clutch, turbocharger, intercooler, exhaust system: 81.5Kg / 179.6lb
Engine suspension frame: 2Kg / 4.4lb
External Alternator: 3Kg / 6.6lb
Air Guide Baffle: 0.4Kg / 0.8lb
Fuel Pump Assy: 1.6Kg / 3.5lb
Power output: 185HP (133Kw)
Torque: 266Nm (113ft/lb) @ 5300rpm
PTO Torque: 592Nm (436ft/lb)@ 5800rpm
Fluids: 50/50 Glycol/Water mix (silicate free), XPS 5W-50
– Operating Limitations

Idle speed: 1800rpm
Max rpm: 5800rpm (max 5 minutes)
Max cont. rpm: 5500rpm
Cruise rpm: 4000-5400rpm
Critical Altitude: MAT max 50°C – 15.000’ Note – The max.cont. power is available up to critical altitude
Operating Altitude: 23.000’
Acceleration: -0.5G (max 5 seconds)
Static roll angle: 40°
Intake air temp: 50°C (120°F)
Manifold pressure: Max 54In/Hg (Max.cont. 42In/Hg)
Fuel: AKI 93 / 98 RON / E10 (Alternatively AVGAS 100LL)
Oil pressure below 3500rpm: 0.8-5Bar (11.6-72.5psi)
Oil pressure above 3500rpm: 2.0-5Bar (29-72.5psi)
Oil temp ground ops: 100°C (-4 – 212°F)
Oil temp: min 50°C before max power, limit 130°C (120 – 266°F)
Coolant temp ground ops: -20 – 90°C (-4 – 194°F)
Coolant temp normal operations: 40 – 120°C (104 – 248°F)
Fuel pressure: 2.5-4.0Bar (36-58psi)
EGT limits: 950°C (1742F°)
EGT-split: 200°C below 3ltr/hr, 500°C above 3ltr/hr
Ambient temperature: Ground -20 – 50°C (-4 – 120°F)
Ambient temperature: Flight -40 – 50°C (-40 – 120°F)
Oil consumption: Max. 0.06 l/h (0.13 liq pt/h)
–
Description & Key Features

Fully sequential ignition and fuel control
Closed loop EGT
Adaptive knock control
High Boost / Low Boost function
CAN data stream
EFIS compatible
4-Cylinder
4-stroke liquid-/air-cooled engine with opposed cylinders
Dry sump forced lubrication with separate oil tank, automatic adjustment by hydraulic valve tappets
Redundant electronic fuel injection and ignition
Fully programable dual Engine Management System
Dual alternators (15/35Amp)
Electric starter (12 or 24 volt)
Propeller speed reduction gearbox (2.54:1)
Flow optimized equal lenght air intake system / intercooler
Turbocharger / stainless steel exhaust
TBO 2000 hrs
Maximum operating altitude 23.000 feet
Maintenance in accordance with the Rotax® 916iS LMM/HMM. (Supplementary EP917/918Ti MM

• Tested To 220HP
• Dual ECU, Fully Redundant, Full FADEC
• CAN Aerospace – Communicates with Garmin, Dynon…
• Same Mounting Points And Dimensions As 915/916iS
• Sea Level Power Up To 15.000’
• Service Ceiling 23.000’
• Fully Sequential Fuel & Ignition Control
• Closed Loop EGT & Injector Control
• Adaptive Knock Control For Max Efficiency
• Fully User Tunable And Programmable ECU (2D/3D/4D)
• In-Flight High / Low Boost Setting
• Based On The Already Prooven 916iS
• Gyrocopter, Fixed wing, Helicopter, UAV, Airboat
• TBO 2000
• Available With Hyd.Governor Intake & Stubby Intake

I’ve seen a few and they are very nice motors. I only worry about the TBO and reliability. I don’t know anyone that has put many hours on one. If I were building a STOL competitor I would put one in without question (I run a stock Rotax 916IS currently).

 

[Jkalpine]

I have a Titan OX-370 on order. I was quoted 11-12 months. In general the Continental engines have a shorter lead time.

I am not sure what configuration this is, or if this would be suitable for an RV, but Continental has IO-370's that are STC'ed as a 172 swap on a 70 day lead time. I would also assume that Continental parts (IE cylinders) are more available as well, compared to the 2+ year wait for Lycoming cylinders.

Personally I think the engine and rebuild wait times are indicative of a systemic issue at Lycoming. They are so long that if one has the extra $$$, it would really pay to have a spare new engine preserved in a crate. The costs have gone up so fast that I can't imagine this couldn't be easily sold down the line if it is unused.

Just heard from them. A loaded Titan IO-370 is about 12 month delivery and $56k. 10k less, lighter, and available, so maybe a consideration.

 

[bertschb]

Well, I just got my update from Vans. The email I received didn't mention the 2-6 month delay. It actually shows a new estimated ship date of 9/2/26. It was most recently listed as 5/17/26. Pretty sure I won't see my engine this year.

No way I would have started this build if I knew it took a minimum of 3.5 years to get an engine.

 

[N10KE]

Well, all the discussion about Lycoming and Vans holding us “proverbially” hostage on engines is a very interesting perspective.

Wasn’t terribly long ago that a popular airplane kit maker held about 1800 or so customers “hostage”.

What would be cool is if Vans designed their kits (FWF, cowlings, etc) with multiple factory engine options (e.g. Lycoming/DeltaHawk/Rotax). The unskilled builders like me could get a fully engineered solution and wouldn't have to design everything from scratch to get the non-Lycoming engine to work. Hey, I can dream!

It’s not much of a stretch to assume that Lycoming helped Van’s through bankruptcy in exchange for “exclusivity” (RV-12 excepted, of course).

 

[rdt7]

Well, I just got my update from Vans. The email I received didn't mention the 2-6 month delay. It actually shows a new estimated ship date of 9/2/26. It was most recently listed as 5/17/26. Pretty sure I won't see my engine this year. I'm tempted to sell what I have and move on

No way I would have started this build if I knew it took a minimum of 3.5 years to get an engine.

Received my email as well. Order date: 4/7/23 New estimated delivery date: 7/13/26 which is a 4 month delay from the previous notification. What also bugs me is there is a note on my email that says: "Waiting for final payment." I've been ready to pay since the day I ordered it. I thought what they were waiting for was crankshafts..... I've asked the kit department for clarification.

 

[bertschb]

What also bugs me is there is a note on my email that says: "Waiting for final payment."

They want a final payment 5 months in advance???

 

[Mark Dickens]

So, I go out to dinner and get a notification that my engine ship date is now June 25th...my head is spinning trying to keep up with all the changes...we'll see! At least for me, this is some good news.

 

[calvid]

They want a final payment 5 months in advance???

My engine was originally supposed to ship this week. Now it's scheduled for May. Vans emailed me today and offered to refund my final payment (it will be due again in March I imagine). They asked for it about 2 months in advance originally.

 

[esco]

My engine was originally supposed to ship this week. Now it's scheduled for May. Vans emailed me today and offered to refund my final payment (it will be due again in March I imagine). They asked for it about 2 months in advance originally.

For this year my "target ship date" went from 2/2/26, to 2/24/26.
Monday 2/2 the "crankshaft forging" delay pushed it to 6/24/26 (sic.)

Today I received & accepted the offer to refund final payment.

 

[Mark Dickens]

Well, I just got my update from Vans. The email I received didn't mention the 2-6 month delay. It actually shows a new estimated ship date of 9/2/26. It was most recently listed as 5/17/26. Pretty sure I won't see my engine this year.

No way I would have started this build if I knew it took a minimum of 3.5 years to get an engine.

I know you're getting a TB engine, but the last I saw they were shipping before the base models, which is what I ordered. It sounds like Lycoming is shuffling things around internally. 3-1/2 years for an engine is just eye watering. Any of these lead times are incredible. Who knows? It may change in a week

 

[VA Maule]

Seems like an encore of the Phœbus Cartel!

 

[Blake]

My thunderbolt 390 just got extended almost 3 months. Was supposed to be 6/15/26 now it’s 8/27/26

 

[Bavafa]

With the recent experiences, I am just wondering how reliable these new dates are?

 

[bertschb]

With the recent experiences, I am just wondering how reliable these new dates are?

Based on all the delays I've been given over the last year, I'd say zero chance they are reliable.

 

[acpilot]

I just ordered my engine (IO-390 A3B6) last month 10/01/2026 . Just working on slow build fuselage so I figured at my build base an 18-24 month timeline would be about right. Disappointed with the email, however, an extra few months of spare change in the coffee can may be helpful. I also declined the $1000 prop bundle discount, not enough savings for me to have a prop sitting around for 3 years that would need to be serviced. Also, who knows may find someone who wants to sell a prop etc.

 

[Full Throttle]

I just ordered my engine (IO-390 A3B6) last month 10/01/2026

I guess October comes early in Canada.........Just kidding.............

 

[Chukill]

I feel like with how bad engine production and over hauling lead times are getting now would be a great time for modern new motors to come. Seems like if someone could develop something easy to produce that ran alternate fuels for future proofing it could be lucrative.

Check out UL Power engines
Non geared, air cooled, ECU with Fadec, ASTM certified, much lighter than Lycosaur
Placed an order last week for one.
Delivery date is April 9 2026
no tariffs on aircraft engines

 

[IO390]

Check out UL Power engines
Non geared, air cooled, ECU with Fadec, ASTM certified, much lighter than Lycosaur
Placed an order last week for one.
Delivery date is April 9 2026
no tariffs on aircraft engines

I owned one for a while. Definitely don’t recommend it for an RV. The design is not mature enough and has been having too many problems, also no provision for a hydraulic CS prop. No hydraulic lifters either, so you have to adjust the tappets regularly.

 

[Chukill]

There is a reason that there is not hydraulic lifters as explained in there literature. The adjustments are easy to do at annual time and electric constant speed props are available. The engines have been in production well over 20 years and very popular in Europe and the rest of the world. Runs on a avgas or Mogas, even with 15% ethanol
Can you tell us what problems you have had and when?
It was very difficult to find negative criticism on the forums.
Check out this interactive installation manual.
Just like the one that came with your Lyc?
thanks

 

[IO390]

There is a reason that there is not hydraulic lifters as explained in there literature. The adjustments are easy to do at annual time and electric constant speed props are available. The engines have been in production well over 20 years and very popular in Europe and the rest of the world. Runs on a avgas or Mogas, even with 15% ethanol
Can you tell us what problems you have had and when?
It was very difficult to find negative criticism on the forums.

I'm not being tribal about it - I have no loyalty to either brand. Just some personal experience. A few things I'd say, from my experience and otherwise just my personal opinions...
Firstly, ULP engines are not popular in Europe (where I am). They are still an unusual choice here. Rotax and Lyc dominate by far, and Rotax has totally cleaned up the UL market here which is full of 600kg mtow factory built aircraft. That category does not exist in the US.

Things I liked on ULP:
- The parts were pretty cheap, and almost all automotive so they were even cheaper when you sourced them from automotive suppliers
- Started right up every time, regardless of whether it was hot or cold
- Looks nice (for whatever that's worth)
- No worries about vapour lock
- Overall simple design, no gearbox which was a bonus compared to the Rotax

Things I disliked:
- Real world power output is WAY lower than expected. This is because the power is quoted at 3300rpm which you will never use. I had the UL260i which is rated at 97hp, yet the aircraft underperformed quite badly when compared to the same type with an 80hp Rotax 912UL. A local guy has converted a Sling 2 to operate on a UL350 in place of the usual 100hp Rotax, and it's an absolute slug. Not what you'd expect for a supposedly 30hp increase?
- It was far louder than the Rotax
- Electric CS props are very slow to actuate and no good for aerobatics or formation
- The ECU isn't exactly bullet proof. Yes I know you can make a reliable dual electrical system, but it's a lot of extra work. Look what happened to the beautiful RV7 PH-MNX. Loss of power to the ECU, sure that could be just down to the builder making a mistake, but if I had a total electrical failure in my RV... the engine would just keep on running. Personally an electrically dependent engine is a step too far for me in my homemade plane. Others will have different opinions which are all valid.
- The ECU, not a fadec (still has manual throttle control) is open loop and doesn't actually give very good fuel consumption. It's no better on fuel than a leaned Lycoming, and my 260 was considerably more thirsty than a carb Rotax.
- Lots of issues reported over the years, see this website for example http://www.myulpower.com/
- Quite a few issues with pistons, they've used a number of different designs over the years. In the last couple months a UK ULPower owner had a piston crack in half. This might be resolved now with latest design revisions but I didn't want to be a beta tester.

Finally, my last straw with UL Power is their attitude towards problems or complaints. They are totally dismissive of any problems. For example, there's been problems with leaking seals such as on the pushrod shrouds and crank position sensors. Once they finally acknowledged this, they said it was a "small number" of engines (basically every single one in reality). Their solution in the SB was to just add some silicone RTV to the O ring seals.

Another example, I tried to speak to them at Aero Friedrichshafen about which propeller type they recommended. The guy was immediately defensive and said "we are not a propeller manufacturer"... Sure, but you make aircraft engines, which only work with propellers, so can't you offer any advice? Nope.

Yea, I know Lycoming are similar when it comes to problems with their engines. But as they are the industry standard product there is oodles of support and experience, with virtually zero unknowns.

Hopefully that explains why I do not want to own another ULP engine. I wish you the best of luck with yours but it's not a suitable replacement for a Lyc IMO.

 

[czechsix]

No, it's not crazy or wishful, with a caveat or two. If you have the skills, it is entirely possible to build up your own 390.

Start with an IO-360A donor engine. All the early Barrett scratch-built 390's, as well as the Lycoming kit 390's and converted Superior 400's, were built with a small main 360 crank. The early Barrett builds were modified 360 cases. You would need to order a set of 390/580 cylinders and pistons of course. All else is common component choice.

Just a note that for those of us with a sissy nosegear on our RV-14A, a front mounted governor is required. A fairly small fraction of angle valve IO-360's were produced with this configuration. The few that I've seen available at salvage yards had 6000 hrs TT and a prop strike, and they still wanted $25-30k for it...smh. Found a very low time one out of a late model Husky and they wanted more for it than the new price thru Vans. Very different scenario from when I got a decent O-360 core for my RV-8A back in early 2000's for about $6k and had multiple options for cylinders and other aftermarket parts competing with Lycoming, so my complete overhaul from Aerosport was in the mid teens.

Nothing wrong with a small main 390. I've been flying a Lycoming kit for 15 years.

You're probly right but there has been one RV-14A with a Barrett IO-390 that had a crank failure (broke at the 3rd rod journal) using a small main crankshaft (aka IO-360 crank). The crank was brand new when installed. No idea if this is an isolated failure or if there have been more than that, so it's just a data point FWIW. I have not heard of any crank failures with the full size IO390 crank.

Plan B? Do a modified 360 angle valve. It wouldn't be hard to get close to original 390 power levels. W&B would remain the same, as would all the firewall forward hardware and routings. Gotta be a dead Mooney with your name on it somewhere. Oddly enough, they may be among least desired used engines, in particular the A3B6D dual mag models. You would probably ditch the dual mag and install EI anyway. I built one like that 25 years ago, for an RV-8A.

If you're referring to high compression pistons to bring an IO-360 up to comparable power with the 390, Barrett and other engine builders told me that most of them don't make TBO due to accelerated connecting rod bearing wear and/or case cracking (which is a problem with higher time IO-360 cases even with standard compression). Then there's the additional uncertainty about the future of avgas and high compression eliminates any possibility of running less than 100 octane.

Once upon a time the standard path was to find and rebuild an engine for a project. Nothing has changed, except perspective.

Nothing has changed...except dramatic increase in prices, an ever dwindling pool of 'good' cores (most of them from salvage were built in 60's & 70's), less competition for Lycoming from the aftermarket, long lead times for many key parts, etc

For my part, after lots of looking, I gave up trying to acquire a good overhauled 360/390 and for now am just waiting to see what DeltaHawk comes up with (final price, warranty, weight, TBO, perf specs, etc). If they price it out of reach or can't deliver on their promises I'll go groveling back to Van's/Lycoming and find another hobby for 3-4 years while I wait for the 390 to show up...

 

[skirting_virga]

Nothing has changed...except dramatic increase in prices, an ever dwindling pool of 'good' cores (most of them from salvage were built in 60's & 70's), less competition for Lycoming from the aftermarket, long lead times for many key parts, etc

This. The pool of used engines people drew from in the past has dried up - in part because so many people built RVs. Certified shops are rummaging airplane scrapyards, who are pumping prices in response to demand. Lycoming is turning the screws on engine parts prices in response to demand. Overhauling an engine can cost >50k, and the price goes up if the core has any bad parts.

Telling builders they are being prissy for buying a new engine in 2026, instead of scraping together one from used parts, is out of touch. All of the options have unreasonably long lead times and cost twice what they should. It's simply historic demand and price gouging instead of increased supply

From personal experience, a budget overhauled engine almost killed me. An experienced builder trying to get creative and save a buck had consequences. There aren't many good deals to be had, and taking advantage of them requires specialized knowledge. I think the super knowledgeable A&P guys, and builders remembering what it was like 10+ years ago are missing that detail.

 

[Jonnyb]

Is there such a thing as a budget overhaul these days? When a new crank is $13k, if you can get one?

 

[Jetmart]

I contacted 4 different engine shops last week. One has got back to me so far. They aren't hungry.

 

[Blake]

I talked with chris at lycoming this morning. He told me that there were over 200 io-390 crankshafts that came defective. He said they are trying to find other resources to make up for this loss. He did say that prior to this they were shipping out 4 thunderbolt engines a week. I also asked about getting a deposit back and he was informing me that’s a vans aircraft thing. I have built 4 vans so far and I wish there policy’s were different. And that’s why I put my rv-14 kit for sale last night. This was going to be my 5th build

 

[Jetmart]

I talked with chris at lycoming this morning. He told me that there were over 200 io-390 crankshafts that came defective. He said they are trying to find other resources to make up for this loss. He did say that prior to this they were shipping out 4 thunderbolt engines a week. I also asked about getting a deposit back and he was informing me that’s a vans aircraft thing. I have built 4 vans so far and I wish there policy’s were different. And that’s why I put my rv-14 kit for sale last night. This was going to be my 5th build

Wow that's a lot of cranks. He told me yesterday a Non-Thunderbolt 390 was about a 15 month delivery???

 

[czechsix]

I talked with chris at lycoming this morning. He told me that there were over 200 io-390 crankshafts that came defective.

What really sucks about this is not only the additional delivery delays, but that the customers ultimately end up paying for those 200 crankshafts that were manufactured and then scrapped, sorta like we ultimately pay for all of the parts written off in Van's LCP debacle.

 

[DanH]

All good points. I tend to look at the core acquisition task as a need to buy before it gets into the parts distribution chain, much as I bought trucks from owners and leasing companies before they went to auctions and dealers. Here at 08A, I recently watched four airplanes go to a salvage house (meaning five engines) at $5K apiece.

That said, I think Mark's point about the need for a front governor is particularly valid. I had not considered that detail, and yes, it really cuts into the number available.

 

[PhatRV]

I talked with chris at lycoming this morning. He told me that there were over 200 io-390 crankshafts that came defective. He said they are trying to find other resources to make up for this loss. He did say that prior to this they were shipping out 4 thunderbolt engines a week. I also asked about getting a deposit back and he was informing me that’s a vans aircraft thing. I have built 4 vans so far and I wish there policy’s were different. And that’s why I put my rv-14 kit for sale last night. This was going to be my 5th build

200 defective crankshafts are a lot for a small production line like Lycoming. I wonder how the QC was maintained at the subcontractor. If these are destined for certified engines, I wonder if the FAA will get involved.