What's new
Van's Air Force

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

angle valve 200 HP

Paul Walter

Active Member
I am currently looking at an RV4 with a angle valve 200 hp with hartzel cs prop. This combo is very heavey/nose heavey solo and as this prop is in need of replacement i am wondering if anyone has this engine in an RV 4 with a wood or composite cruise pitch prop and if so how it handles for weight. Would this combination be similar to a 180 hp with a metal sensench or cs set up ?. Do the experts think it is a feasible option ?
 
Hi Paul

I think that you'd be very happy with a Catto prop, maximized for cruise speed. The airplane will be as fast, if not faster, with a lot of weight off the nose. I had a Catto three-blade on my -6A and many hours in a friend's 160 HP -4 and his two-bladed Catto...a wonderful combination.

Best,
 
I have an O-360 Non angle valve, It was also very nose heavy, I tried a few things to help the CG that helped a little but when I switched to the WW RV-200 prop I got the balance I wanted.
 
No subsitute?

Paul,

I have done 2 pre-buys on IO-360 A1B6 (angle valve) equipped RV4's one with a Hartzell, the other with a Catto 3 blade. I test flew them both extensively for the customers and reported the following:

Aircraft A (Hartzell) had a 28 lb concorde aircraft battery installed in the baggage compartment lightweight starter/alt, vacuum system, full IFR. It flew very nose-heavy solo with 1/2 fuel. The perfect RV4 CG occurs with a 50lb tail-wheel weight in level flight attitude. This one had 28 lbs. At full aft trim and 60 knots it required 5-8 lbs of aft stick pressure to hold level flight. It cruised at 200 MPH indicated at 24 squared 11GPH.

Aircraft B (Catto) weighed almost 100 lbs less due to an Odessey PC625 battery (center console), no interior, minimum panel and one coat of light grey paint. It used one of Air Tec's Lexus starters (same as mine) and a B&C mini alt on the accessory case. Level flight Tailwheel weight was 48 lbs. It's performance was stellar, nearly equal to my 290HP HR2 on takeoff. Cruise was at normal RV4 VNE 210 MPH. However, the flying qualities were much better balanced and was much smoother in-flight.

The A1B6 is a tight squeeze under the cowl but if it was engineered well, no worries. All things considered, it's a strong engine, counterbalanced crankshaft, heavy duty everything (Mooney ordered it originally for the 201) and lots in service. The big single mag isn't a problem if you install a flywheel pickup electronic ignition, then you have 1/2 mag for redundancy if the other half breaks away from home. If you can buy it right, go for it. Check the lower Rudder for cracks, elevator as well. Make sure the lower engine mount longerons aren't cracked, something I see alot on big engine RV's. There are many ways to lighten it up, email me offline if I can help.

Questions?
Smokey
[email protected]

PS:My personal favorite airplane was the A model F16, lighter weight nose.The C has much more thrust, cool avionics and digital flight controls and a better Combat machine for today's environment. For me however it boils down to which one flies better when you "sling it around under G". That applies here too.
 
Last edited:
I BOUGHT A RV-4 200 HP C/S PROP ORIGINALY BUILD BY JOHN HARMON I FLEW IT A COUPLE OF YEARS AND LOVED IT (HAVE PERSONALLY OWNED 9RV'S ) THE PLANE WAS A LITTLE NOSE HEAVY BUT WAS VERY EASY TO LAND ESPECIALLY WITH A PASSENGER I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT PUT A FIXED PITCH PROP ON NEXT TO MY HR2 IT WAS MY FAVORITE
 
@Smoky: +1 on the F-16 A model! Especially the Block 10 small tail widow maker! YEE - HA!

Pardon the interruption. Now back to your regularly scheduled RV-4 thread...
 
Depends??

Mine with IO-360 A1A, Sky Dynamics cold air intake, Sky Dynamics magnesium oil sump, light weight starter, Odyssey 680 battery and MTV 15 B composite CS prop and has an empty CG of 59.69? and weighs 1065Lbs. As to what Smoky mentioned the tail wheel ways 50Lbs in level.

Some of these engines have balancing weights on the crank shaft witch does not help, the A1A does not. My -4 is balanced perfectly as it is. The Builder went to considerable expense to make this balance by taking weight out of the engine/prop installation, a Hartzell would not be an option, however I would also not consider a fixed prop.
 
Some of these engines have balancing weights on the crank shaft witch does not help, the A1A does not.

I wouldn't dismiss them that quickly. Those "balance weights" are pendulum absorbers. They cancel crankshaft torsional vibration at their tuned orders, and thus are very desirable with certain propellers.
 
I wouldn't dismiss them that quickly. Those "balance weights" are pendulum absorbers. They cancel crankshaft torsional vibration at their tuned orders, and thus are very desirable with certain propellers.

Hi Dan,

You miss understand, we are talking about obtaining the proper C of G, for this installation more weight is adverse, I was only speaking in terms of C of G, otherwise I’m sure the counter balanced engines are very good, the IO-360 A1A was specifically chosen for my -4 because it does not have these "absorbers" and as such is lighter weight.
 
Last edited:
A fellow at my airport once bought an RV-4 with a 200+hp angle valve IO-360, and Hartzel CS prop. It had extra high compression pistons (10 or 11 : 1)and was probably well north of the original 200hp. On his way home from the west coast to bring the plane home after purchase, he had a hot start incident when the engine suddenly roared to life on startup and despite the stick all the way back, it nosed over and suffered a propstrike. After teardown/rebuild, he had a much lighter MT composite 3-blade CS prop installed instead, which helped the noseheaviness considerably. That plane was ridiculously overpowered and a handful to fly and land, so he sold it after keeping it only a couple years.
 
A fellow at my airport once bought an RV-4 with a 200+hp angle valve IO-360, and Hartzel CS prop. It had extra high compression pistons (10 or 11 : 1)and was probably well north of the original 200hp. On his way home from the west coast to bring the plane home after purchase, he had a hot start incident when the engine suddenly roared to life on startup and despite the stick all the way back, it nosed over and suffered a propstrike. After teardown/rebuild, he had a much lighter MT composite 3-blade CS prop installed instead, which helped the noseheaviness considerably. That plane was ridiculously overpowered and a handful to fly and land, so he sold it after keeping it only a couple years.

Interesting, I wonder what the problem was, mine is a joy to fly, very easy, no bad habits, just like any RV-4 but with more power. If this plane was over powered what does this say for an HR2?
 
Ok, thanks for the help guys. This is a project that I am keen to persue. I will be going with a Catto fixed pitch cruise prop. So, if as Rob has stated I have a battery central in the console area, and a light weight starter. Can the group give me a list of weight saving mods for the angle valve 200hp that will trim this beast down even more ?.
The fat controller with the stick in his hand could shed a few Kilo's - that would be a good (but unlikeley) start but apart from that what would help this bird excell at yank and bank ?.

Paul
 
Thanks Russ, what about electronic ignition ? will this help also, if so which unit is best for this engine.
Really enjoy this group, hope to meet some of you someday - Oskosh presumably.

Paul
 
Interesting, I wonder what the problem was, mine is a joy to fly, very easy, no bad habits, just like any RV-4 but with more power. If this plane was over powered what does this say for an HR2?

The HR2 has a lot of thought and engineering put into the RV-4 mods in order to take on the big engine, changed weight distributions, and high speed operations.

My friend's plane was just a standard RV-4 with a big honkin' heavy engine simply bolted onto the nose without much other consideration. It was basically an overweight, noseheavy "How quickly to you want to hit Vne?" machine that, while beautiful to look at, lacked certain grace, was a bit ill-mannered on landings if you tried to 3-point it, and roasted cylinders and exhaust valves pretty regularly.
 
Thanks Russ, what about electronic ignition ? will this help also, if so which unit is best for this engine.
Really enjoy this group, hope to meet some of you someday - Oskosh presumably.

Paul

I have my eye on a set of P-mags however my plane was built with Slick mags and I?m still currently running Slicks, they require some maintenance but have not been too problematic.
 
My friend's plane was just a standard RV-4 with a big honkin' heavy engine simply bolted onto the nose without much other consideration. It was basically an overweight, noseheavy "How quickly to you want to hit Vne?" machine that, while beautiful to look at, lacked certain grace, was a bit ill-mannered on landings if you tried to 3-point it, and roasted cylinders and exhaust valves pretty regularly.[/QUOTE]

Ya this is not the way to go and definitely not what Lee did when building the - 4 I now own.
 
I don't mean to hijack this thread because I have a RV7A, but I do have the IO-360-A1B6. At least it started as an A1B6 until I sent the crank in and it was condemed due to a crack.

Since I was quoted north of 18grand for a replacement crank I replaced it with a ECI AEL36101-1 crank that does not have counterweights. The counterweights are in the neigborhood of 12 pounds. I was concerned about nose heavy, so I went with the skytec flyweight starter, plane power alternator, superior cold air sump, and the Catto 3 blade prop.

It was quite light on the nose and now I worry about aft cg when it comes back from paint. I just sent in the Catto prop for re-pitching and it only weighed 23 pounds in the box. One of the reasons I went with the Catto was that it absorbs a lot of vibrations and the counterweights that are no longer there are for 6th and 8th order harmonics that affect some prop installs.

I had a 68 x 74 prop, and I will be getting back a 68 x 75. I was turning over 2900 rpm in cool air. we will see how that works out.
 
SD-8 Only

I forgot to mention one more little trick to save weight, my -4 uses an SD-8 alternator from B&C in place of the vacuum pump and has no traditional alternator. Might not work for some but for my simple day night VFR airplane it works just fine.
 
Last edited:
I'm happy with mine

I bought my RV-4 in May 2006 from the original builder. It had about 300 hours on it then. After my flight this afternoon it shows 1079 hours on the hobbs. IMHO, the airplane is a delight to fly even though the numbers do tend to show a forward cg when I run W&B.

I did a refit in 2008 in which I removed the vacuum system and gyros, installed a new glass based instrument panel, installed a lighter starter and alternator, removed the inverted oil system, and generally cleaned up the wiring and plumbing. At that time, I also replaced the Concord battery with an Odyssey PC680 and moved its mount from behind the baggage compartment to between the rails behind the firewall. Even with the battery move, the CG didn't shift much due to the other weight I had removed from the front. I didn't notice much (if any) change in flying characteristics.

I really love the short takeoffs, quick climbs, and easy high-speed cruise. If I were building another RV-4, I'd put a similar engine in it. However, I'm not likely to do that since I just started a Harmon Rocket build.

Here's my weight and balance spreadsheet:
WeightAndBalance.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top