What's new
Van's Air Force

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

IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine

W

Whiskey Charlie

Well Known Member
Has anyone considered the IO-360-A1A 200 hp angle valve engine.

I hear it's very smooth running.

You could put the batteries up front on the firewall and save a few pounds with less battery cable and 2 less cylinders. CG should still be fine.

You might loose 5-10 mph cruise speed but save a few gallons/hr
of fuel.

So what if it take 5-10 more minutes to reach my 500
mile destination.

Does anyone know who might build custom engine mounts
or who builds them for Vans.

Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
 
First thought in my mind.

That's the first thought I had for powering my 10. If 180hp gets most 4 seaters in the air, then 200hp will be more than enough for a clean design like the 10. Fuel, weight and $$ savings are all factors. The down side is that right now, Vans finish kits are all designed around the 540. I'm hoping that by the time I need that kit (figure 3 yrs) that the choices will have opened up some more - perhaps even support for a diesel ...
 
Small engines

There is no advantage of using a small engine when the job calls for a larger one. There would be substantially more than 5 or 10 mph loss of cruise as well as top speed. Climbs will suffer, and the smaller engine will be struggling. In the case of Lycoming, smoothness of the 4 cylinder has no comparison with a six cylinder. It's not rocket science. A crankshaft of the four set at 180 deg intervals, versus a six cylinder with crank spacing at 120 deg. Sixed will always be smoother. While the smaller engine is struggling to maintain performance of an airframe that requires more power, fuel consumption will suffer, as will the engine be over stressed. In the end, there would not be a savings, but instead, and added expense. It would be like having a Corvette with a Geo engine.
 
I was going by Van's own numbers!

I was going by Van's own numbers.
There 210hp RV-10 is only 9-10 mph slower.
It's on their website.
 
Whiskey Charlie said:
I was going by Van's own numbers.
There 210hp RV-10 is only 9-10 mph slower.
It's on their website.
Click to expand...


lots of same cat of aircraft use io-360 lyc mooney arrow comanche are a few
with the price of gas i was thinking same thing last few weeks i bet a new io-360 with flowed cyl electronic spark and power flow type exshast and maybe a few more rpm w/ const speed prop would produce 230hp and w/ fuel burn would make up for time on long x/c with less fuel stops
bob
/
 
vanlle2000 said:
But in the real world, all Lycs are going to burn very close to the same amount of fuel per hp per hour. In fact, virtually all piston gasoline engines are very close)
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good approximation, yeah.

In theory, an engine that's running at wide open throttle has a lower SFC than one that's throttled to produce the same power, which argues for a smaller engine. However, the differences seem to be very small in the real world of Lycoming airplane engines.

For example, from the Piper Arrow POH, with an IO-360-C1C6 engine. At 55% power, leaned to peak EGT, the SFC is 0.4364 lbs/hp-hr. At 75%, it's 0.4360 lbs/hp-hr, a difference of 0.1% (i.e. well within the measurement error.)

So pick a smaller engine for whatever reasons you like, but I wouldn't expect a lot of fuel savings just from the smaller displacement. I think there's significant savings to be had from things like electronic ignition and fuel injection, which allow you to lean more aggressively.

If you could make an injected 360 work, vs. a carbureted 540, yes, you might save some fuel. Dan Checkoway has written some of his comparative fuel burns from formation flights with other RV, and it's real. The CAFE Foundation has a series of articles on their fuel savings realized with EI, too.

Cheers,
Martin
 
Small engines

MG,
Excellent points. Yes there would be savings with the use on electronic ignition. Had an Arrow with LASAR, and consumption reduced dramatically.
The smaller engine as with autos, bike,. etc, will deliver better fuel consumption, but to a point.
You are correct that there would be little, if any fuel savings with the smaller engine, and performance will suffer.
Hp/weight ratios are not too far apart, but more importantly engine displacement, to weight ratio is more significant. The smaller 360 looses some 60% advantage, which in the end will not save fuel, instead use more of it, overburden the smaller engine, and loose performance.
I'm reminded, years ago, when I had my first motorcycle. My Dad and I drove from Chicago to Milwaukee, a distance of 90 miles. Dad was a stickler for fuel consumption. His bike a 1937 500cc, mine a new 1956 125cc. I could not maintain 70 mph, so I had to draft dad closely, in order to maintain 70. When we arrived, dad suggested that we fill up, so that we could make a quick exit. Dad took exactly 1 gal (yes, 90mpg), I had already turned on the reserve, and used 1 and 3/4 gal. Considering 1 fourth the size, and not being able to mailtain speed, the little engine just couln't cut it.
Later on when I learned to fly. I rented a 150, made a short flight of .9 hours, and used 9 gallons. On the same day, frustrated since the 172 I had reserved was not available, I checked out in an early Warrior. With an instructor, doing all sorts of maneuvers, we flew .9 hours. You guessed it, fuel used 9 gallons. I have no doubt that the smaller engine would burn less fuel, but in the real world, it's not necessarily so. Displacement to weight ratios are perhaps more significant to performance, as well as fuel economy.
 
fuel burn vs more hp

I believe this has been stated many times somewhere on these forums, but will give my experience...
my friend has an 8 with an io360 a1b6 200hp and i have 6 with io320 ... we fly lots together and for hours...Me wide open and him pulled back to run with me... after 2 hrs we land and fill up.. i take 2 more gals than he does.. (all the time) we both run fuel injected engines so leaning should be close..(he taught me how to lean, so I should be close to his numbers)... point is the 200 hp pulled back running same speed as 160hp wide open burns less fuel...my next plane will have more hp to use when i want it.

jeff H
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top