I can't decided if I should designate my TCM IO360 a KB (195hp at 2600rpm) or a DB (210hp at 2800rpm). I don't have a high performance endorsement, it will cost more to insure with a higher HP engine, and the more complete logbook is for the KB. But in reality I will be running 2800rpm for max power no matter what paperwork I use.

Does it make any difference? Any reason to go one way over the other? Does having high performance airplane time in your log book make any difference when looking for a flying job?

My opinion is always get the most power you can afford.

In the backcountry especially power improves safety and ability.

I rarely hear anyone complain of how powerful their airplane is, but my 180 HP fixed pitch Maule and I have wished for more juice many times in the mountians.

You can always run a powerful engine at 55% and get the burn of a smaller engine, but once firewalled, that's all the lower rated engine will have to give.

My opinion is that it might matter to somebody so I would want my logbooks to reflect exactly what is in the plane. I'm not sure if you would save any on insurance, but should an Incident occur it's possible your policy would be void if it were for a 195hp plane that they found out had a 210hp engine.

By the way if you have specific questions about experimental insurance or want a quote, I'd suggest Jenny Estes

Jenny Estes
Light Aircraft Sales Manager

Gallagher Aviation
Formerly NationAir Aviation Insurance
Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc.
Direct: 877-648-8267| Mobile: 636-357-7232 I Fax: 636-532-3646
http://www.ajg.com/lightaircraft | http://www.ajg.com

The first year my RV was about $1800 with no time in type and by the second year I had about 100 hours and it dropped to $1100. Currently in. My first year on my 182 and it is about the same.

whee wrote:I can't decided if I should designate my TCM IO360 a KB (195hp at 2600rpm) or a DB (210hp at 2800rpm). I don't have a high performance endorsement, it will cost more to insure with a higher HP engine, and the more complete logbook is for the KB. But in reality I will be running 2800rpm for max power no matter what paperwork I use.

Does it make any difference? Any reason to go one way over the other? Does having high performance airplane time in your log book make any difference when looking for a flying job?

All the flying jobs I've ever seen looked at time in type and total hours, not HP time. I wouldn't go out of my way to pay higher insurance rates if I had the option.

Mountain Doctor wrote:My opinion is always get the most power you can afford.

In the backcountry especially power improves safety and ability.

I rarely hear anyone complain of how powerful their airplane is, but my 180 HP fixed pitch Maule and I have wished for more juice many times in the mountians.

You can always run a powerful engine at 55% and get the burn of a smaller engine, but once firewalled, that's all the lower rated engine will have to give.

Thanks Doc. I'll have 210hp no matter which model designation I use.

Hoeschen wrote:My opinion is that it might matter to somebody so I would want my logbooks to reflect exactly what is in the plane. I'm not sure if you would save any on insurance, but should an Incident occur it's possible your policy would be void if it were for a 195hp plane that they found out had a 210hp engine.

The logbooks will reflect what is installed. If I install the KB that is what the logbooks will show but the fuel pressures and the prop governor will be set in accordance with the DB specs so I'll still be getting the 210hp.

Thanks for the insurance agent recommendation. I have been happy with the agent I've used in the past but I might give Jenny a call.

Hammer wrote:All the flying jobs I've ever seen looked at time in type and total hours, not HP time. I wouldn't go out of my way to pay higher insurance rates if I had the option.

That's my thinking but wasn't sure if I was missing something.

So, if the engine is identified as a KD but is configured as a DB (gov rpm and fuel flow), and an accident or incident were to occur where that came to light during an investigation what would be your explanation when on the witness stand in a liability case. I do understand that this is an experimental aircraft, but I think there would be some explaining to do. You can tell from by post by this time that i think if you want 210 hp get the sign off and if required pay the little extra insurance.

Tim

They're gonna subpoena your A&P to show them all the STCs and make sure you're not out of conformity with the type certifi.... Lol.

Are you building an experimental or certified engine? I think regardless you'll have bigger problems on your insurance premium because it's a Bearhawk.

Your right Tim, I do what 210hp but I also what to use the KB logbooks because they are the most complete and almost all of the parts that will be used to put the engine together will be from the KB engine. An STC exists to run the KB at 2800 during takeoff but that really doesn't do me any good, I want to keep the engine/prop combination a approved combination so I can't just self proclaim it a 210hp engine. If I were on the witness stand I'd tell the truth: The engine installed is rated at 195hp and because it is experimental I can set it up however I choose. I imagine all the guys with Rotax 912s with Big Bore Zipper kits aren't calling up their insurance agents and telling them their engines are now X hp. Also, I'm sure it depends on the policy but I asked the insurance agent I used to use if my policy would be void for airworthiness (keep in mind that for EAB aircraft there is no such thing as "airworthy") issues and she said no. I asked specifically about installing bushwheels and a Catto prop on a Luscombe without approvals. She reviewed my policy, as did I, and said there was nothing in the policy that said the aircraft had to be airworthy. I had a Global policy at the time.

I do want the rating and paying a couple hundred bucks more in insurance premiums isn't a big deal but if it makes no difference why pay it?

Zzz wrote:They're gonna subpoena your A&P to show them all the STCs and make sure you're not out of conformity with the type certifi.... Lol.

Are you building an experimental or certified engine? I think regardless you'll have bigger problems on your insurance premium because it's a Bearhawk.

HA! The engine I'm building will not be modified from its certified design. I want a 25hr phase 1.

whee wrote:

Zzz wrote:They're gonna subpoena your A&P to show them all the STCs and make sure you're not out of conformity with the type certifi.... Lol.

Are you building an experimental or certified engine? I think regardless you'll have bigger problems on your insurance premium because it's a Bearhawk.

HA! The engine I'm building will not be modified from its certified design. I want a 25hr phase 1.

I didn't realize a certified engine got you a shortened Phase 1... wow.

I really enjoyed doing my HP and Complex endorsements a few years ago. Do it for your next BFR. To those who will correct me and say that only a rating, not an endorsement, can take the place of a BFR-- I realize that. But a BFR is whatever you want/agree to in order to demonstrate proficiency with a CFI.

Has to be a certified engine/prop combo.

Wont affect your hiring prospect at all. I never even looked at HP or Retract time when I was hiring.

whee wrote:... The engine I'm building will not be modified from its certified design.....

I don't know that I'd agree. It sounds like you are mixing and matching parts from the KB, DB, and who knows what else. That's fine, it's an experimental so that's one of the advantages. Just don't think you can say it's certified. Esp if you OH it yourself without an A&P signoff.

I would use the dataplate for the way it will be configured. If it'll be a 210 hp engine, use the 210hp dataplate. I know a guy who owned a C172, he told me (several times) that it had a 160 hp (higher compression) engine "but they never did the paperwork". Yeah, right. I say do the paperwork if you want a future buyer to believe it's the hgher hp version.

I find it hard to believe that it'll make much if any difference on insurance costs. Those are based on pilot's time and experience, and statistics for aircraft type. The only bummer might be if they ever pass some sort of medical reform (aka drivers license medical) and it's limited to under-200hp like the original AOPA/EAA proposal.

Headoutdaplane wrote:Wont affect your hiring prospect at all. I never even looked at HP or Retract time when I was hiring.

Cool. Thanks.

hotrod180 wrote:

whee wrote:... The engine I'm building will not be modified from its certified design.....

I don't know that I'd agree. It sounds like you are mixing and matching parts from the KB, DB, and who knows what else. That's fine, it's an experimental so that's one of the advantages. Just don't think you can say it's certified. Esp if you OH it yourself without an A&P signoff.

I would use the dataplate for the way it will be configured. If it'll be a 210 hp engine, use the 210hp dataplate. I know a guy who owned a C172, he told me (several times) that it had a 160 hp (higher compression) engine "but they never did the paperwork". Yeah, right. I say do the paperwork if you want a future buyer to believe it's the hgher hp version.

I find it hard to believe that it'll make much if any difference on insurance costs. Those are based on pilot's time and experience, and statistics for aircraft type. The only bummer might be if they ever pass some sort of medical reform (aka drivers license medical) and it's limited to under-200hp like the original AOPA/EAA proposal.

According to the overhaul and parts manuals I have all the parts to put together either engine. Actually, I've yet to find a part that isn't interchangeable or re-configurable to use in either engine but I'm sure there has to be something. As far as assembling it myself I don't know the answer. Sure I couldn't put it in a certified plane without a signoff but I don't think that matters. From what I know after talking to the DAR that covers my area as long as the engine and prop have data tags and haven't been modified from their type design then the plane will qualify for a 25hr test period.

As far as future buyers...I don't really care. One day I may have to sell it but that isn't in the plans. I have tried to look up the STC for the Hawk XP that increases the hp of the KB to 210 and as far as I can tell it is just adjusting fuel flow and the prop governor; there really isn't and internal difference between the KB and the DB.

Couple years back when I was getting quotes to insure a Bearhawk it was $2600/yr for a 180hp plane and 2800/yr for a 235hp plane. Not a significant difference but a difference none the less.

So, now that I know it doesn't matter for future jobs I'll give EAA a call and see what they say. I want the 210hp and will do whatever I need to so I'm 100% legal. I have no intention of trying to fly under the radar.

Mountain Doctor wrote:My opinion is always get the most power you can afford.

In the backcountry especially power improves safety and ability.

I rarely hear anyone complain of how powerful their airplane is, but my 180 HP fixed pitch Maule and I have wished for more juice many times in the mountians.

You can always run a powerful engine at 55% and get the burn of a smaller engine, but once firewalled, that's all the lower rated engine will have to give.

this^

high HP cars can get you in trouble/hurt, high HP airplanes are generally a lot safer - at least in my experience living at 6600ft ground elevation, it's real hard to have too much power up here

Without regard to the cost of insurance or any other issues, if you're going to fly a 210hp airplane, you need a high performance endorsement to satisfy the FAA, and perhaps your insurance company. The issue will be important if you were to have an accident or incident that they investigate. So my suggestion, just get it during your next BFR--it's sure not very difficult, but you'll have to rent a 182 or 180 (or XP which has the STC'd power increase). Or rent a 182RG and get both the high perf and complex endorsements done at the same time.

My view, which the FAA does not share, is that high perf and complex endorsements are silly. The difference in operation of an airplane that has 195hp or 210hp is almost non-existent. Going from 195hp to 1500hp, OK, but just having the high perf endorsement won't qualify any pilot to fly the 1500hp monster. And being able to operate a CS prop, retractable gear, and flaps in a Cutlass RG won't make a whit of difference in whether a pilot can fly a 210. Then there are us old farts who logged high perf and complex time before August 1997 who don't need the endorsement at all. But as I used to tell clients when they'd complain about some silly law, I don't make the law, but I do have to follow it.

Cary

I agree with getting the endorsement and do plan to get it at my next BFR.

More horsepower is always better but that really isn't part of this discussion because 210hp is the max for my engine and I've always planned to run it at that power. This discussion is about the paperwork and the experience that goes with flying a "high performance" aircraft. Since the experience doesn't really matter the discussion is now about the paperwork.

It doesn't matter, the insurance company never asked me how much hp my engine has, when you fill out the paperwork to certify you can just put IO-360 and leave the the rest of the engine letter designation off.

What really drives your insurance rates up are 1. It's experimental 2. It's a taildragger 3. It's 4 place 4. What kind of ratings do you have 5. How much time in type and how much time is on the airplane.

I guess what I'm saying is what you're wondering about classifying the engine as will probably have little or no impact to your insurance rates. At least in my experience.

Whee, I don't think you will find many if even any different internal engine parts. I believe that the 195 is a derated 210 at the request of the Cessna marketing department so as not to compete directly with the 182. FAR 36 (noise) may have also played a part as that is about the time the O470U engine with a max of 2400 rpm came out.

Tim

Direct answer to your question: High Performance-Does it Matter? Answer: No.

MTV