VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 11-14-2017, 10:30 AM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwranda View Post
There's part of me that really likes the electronic FI and ignition choices that have been debated lately on VAF. The other part of me says you're a newbie so keep it simple stupid. The building of the electrical system of the plane is probably my weak link of the whole project and I honestly don't trust myself in putting together an all electric system. A man's gotta know his limitations and I believe that's mine. I don't have a lot of builders around here to pop in and critique or help with it so trying to keep it simple as possible. Pmags will help in that respect I believe.

I understand your apprehension to going with a fully electronic setup. I think that anything you can do to help bring the older Lycomings into the modern age, including simply upgrading to electronic mags, should help with performance and economy. Have you decided if you will go with the 360? Do you have any good engine candidates?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-14-2017, 11:02 AM
David-aviator's Avatar
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwranda View Post
I'm an engine buying novice trying to learn all I can. I'm on Barnstormers everyday looking at engines and the more I look the more I am getting confused. I am building a 9A. I suppose the easy route is order new from Vans, but I'm trying to be as frugal as possible yet safe and hopefully reliable. Here are a few of many questions I have.
1. To burn mogas do you need lower compression pistons(7 vs 8.5) or is it more of an ignition issue? Is electronic ignition better in this regard than mags? Burning mogas intrigues me if it is available. I guess to boil it down would a 160 HP 320 with pmags be able to burn mogas? Does FI or carb matter?
2. HP? Obviously most everyone wants more. I've read the discussions of too much HP on a 9 but a 360 with 7.0 compression pistons to come in about 170 HP also intrigues me. Who out there has done that?
3. wide deck/narrow deck? From what I can tell from my research the narrow decks are older right? Does it matter or should I not be worried at looking at the older ones if they are in an overhauled engine? Does a high total engine time matter with an overhaul?
I've got to stop now so I'm not writing a novel.
Thanks for any input from the braintrust!!!
If you depart Vans recommendation for an engine for the 9, there are gazzilions of choices. It does complicate the entire build process.

Are any of the choices better, who knows? You sure can get side tracked bringing an old engine back to life.

Builders tend to go crazy spending money on modern glass but get cheap when it comes to an engine. It is not the best way to go.

I'd rather fly behind a new engine and a six pack panel than the other way around.
__________________
David Domeier
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...#83261 flying as of 6/16/2014
RV-3 ....fan

I'm in, dues paid 2017 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-14-2017, 01:27 PM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 42
Default Frugal

Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator View Post
If you depart Vans recommendation for an engine for the 9, there are gazzilions of choices. It does complicate the entire build process.

Are any of the choices better, who knows? You sure can get side tracked bringing an old engine back to life.

Builders tend to go crazy spending money on modern glass but get cheap when it comes to an engine. It is not the best way to go.

I'd rather fly behind a new engine and a six pack panel than the other way around.

I think that we are all in agreement that the best route would be to buy a brand new engine. The original poster stated that he was attempting to be as Frugal as possible and looking for a used engine. Several builders have gone that route with great success. Even Van himself is not against this idea.
Several builders have also deviated from original plans with great success. There are plenty of 200hp 4s, 540 powered 8s, not to mention Rockets.
I think purchasing a good used engine is much better than not being able to afford to complete a project, but of course, if able, purchasing a new engine is best.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:24 PM
YellowJacket RV9 YellowJacket RV9 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clearwater, FL / KZPH
Posts: 1,000
Default

I have a fixed pitch, 150HP 9A, and if I had to do it again, still on a budget, I would probably try to do as Mahlon suggested, and find a used (I)O-360 and a fixed pitch prop. If it tells you anything, I bought my engine from a VAFer upgrading his 9A to 180HP. I'd probably want a composite Catto prop to help compensate for the added weight up front, but that's just because I am big on keeping weight off the nosewheel. None of this is to say I am unsatisfied with my performance, just that a 360 seems a fairly cost-neutral way to add some performance, and easier to do it from the outset than later on.

True that it's hard to beat a brand new engine, however if you're like me, that's an unrealistic amount of money to spend. Finding a quality used engine takes legwork (I spent 6 months looking), but they are out there, and can save you a LOT of money that can be spent on other important things. I would also argue that the reliability of a well-maintained engine with a few hundred hours is, at least initially, better than a brand new engine. Look for an engine that has flown frequently and recently, with some recent oil analysis. Engines from dry climates would be a plus. There is no guarantee of course, but my 700-hour O-320 hasn't missed a beat in the 2 years I've been flying. I did rebuild the mags and carb.

The idea that you have 2000 hours ahead of you in a new engine sounds nice, but at the rate most people (not Vlad) fly (50-100 hours/year), that's 20-40 years of flying, and I highly doubt most people will own or fly their planes that long, and it is well past the recommended years between overhaul, anyways.

As a counterpoint to a previous post, I would feel more confident behind a frequently flown and well maintained, 500 hour engine, with the extra $10k spent on a nice redundant IFR panel and autopilot, than I would with a brand new engine and a six pack VFR panel.

Chris
__________________
Chris Johnson
RV-9A - Done(ish) 4/5/16! Flying 4/7/16

Last edited by YellowJacket RV9 : 11-14-2017 at 02:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-14-2017, 02:44 PM
dwranda dwranda is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Jamestown,NY
Posts: 194
Default

Any input from anyone on the narrow/wide deck choice? I've seen some overhauled narrow decks that look good at first observation. I would LOVE to buy a new engine, but with tuition bills from a son in college and not wanting to drain the savings account(and stay happily married) an overhauled is most likely the outcome. Now if I were to get the wife involved in the decision maybe she will say the heck with the money, we only live once and I want to be behind something new. Who knows?
I do plan on a glass panel because to me that is a safety factor. The technology in them is too much to pass up. So, I guess I am doing what one of you said was not wise. Glass panel/used engine!! This could bring up a whole new discussion. Which has the greatest safety improvement......new vs overhauled engine or round instruments vs glass panel?
__________________
9A in progress
Working on fuse

Dues paid Dec 16
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-14-2017, 03:07 PM
dwranda dwranda is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Jamestown,NY
Posts: 194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowJacket RV9 View Post
I have a fixed pitch, 150HP 9A, and if I had to do it again, still on a budget, I would probably try to do as Mahlon suggested, and find a used (I)O-360 and a fixed pitch prop. If it tells you anything, I bought my engine from a VAFer upgrading his 9A to 180HP. I'd probably want a composite Catto prop to help compensate for the added weight up front, but that's just because I am big on keeping weight off the nosewheel. None of this is to say I am unsatisfied with my performance, just that a 360 seems a fairly cost-neutral way to add some performance, and easier to do it from the outset than later on.

True that it's hard to beat a brand new engine, however if you're like me, that's an unrealistic amount of money to spend. Finding a quality used engine takes legwork (I spent 6 months looking), but they are out there, and can save you a LOT of money that can be spent on other important things. I would also argue that the reliability of a well-maintained engine with a few hundred hours is, at least initially, better than a brand new engine. Look for an engine that has flown frequently and recently, with some recent oil analysis. Engines from dry climates would be a plus. There is no guarantee of course, but my 700-hour O-320 hasn't missed a beat in the 2 years I've been flying. I did rebuild the mags and carb.

The idea that you have 2000 hours ahead of you in a new engine sounds nice, but at the rate most people (not Vlad) fly (50-100 hours/year), that's 20-40 years of flying, and I highly doubt most people will own or fly their planes that long, and it is well past the recommended years between overhaul, anyways.

As a counterpoint to a previous post, I would feel more confident behind a frequently flown and well maintained, 500 hour engine, with the extra $10k spent on a nice redundant IFR panel and autopilot, than I would with a brand new engine and a six pack VFR panel.

Chris
Wow Chris every point you make is what I am thinking. Love the 3 blade Catto prop and want the safety factor of the panel technology.
__________________
9A in progress
Working on fuse

Dues paid Dec 16
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-14-2017, 03:42 PM
ty1295 ty1295 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Posts: 220
Default

About to buy an engine myself. Will Van actually sell you a 360 for an RV9 if you ask?

I know they officially don't recommend it, but as posted the concern can be resolved with proper flying techniques.
__________________
Jeff Scott
Proud to have flown with P. Wagstaff and some odd Russian.
RV9A #91247/#91434
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:54 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 497
Default RV-9 with 180hp

I have a RV-9 with IO360 horizontal injection engine with the BA Hartzell constant speed prop. All in, straight and level at 3500 ft msl, 192- 196 mph TAS. Cruise between 150-180 mph TAS. On takeoff, its off the ground once the throttle is all the way in. I'm never sorry I got more hp. I confess, I'm addicted to the CS prop. The takeoff and climb is what I wanted and boy did I get it. With it being a Tailwheel, I can handle a little bit more nose weight.

All things considered, this is my plane in that I know how to pull throttle back to avoid the danger zone. If you are kinda new at flying a RV, then get the 320 and you will have a fine plane, especially with fixed pitch Catto. High hp coupled with fixed pitch prop and nose pointed down equals excessive speed to the new RV pilot. If I didn't already have a motor when I built my machine, I probably would have taken Vans advice and got and io320 and constant speed prop. It's a really good combination and we really don't need any more -9 hot rods flying.....(.makes the other RV guys look bad)....😜

Seriously, good luck on the build and do something every day. It's a great flying machine.
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-6a Sold
RV-9 Built & Flying
Twin Comanche Flying
RV-10 Thinking about it...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:31 PM
gyoung's Avatar
gyoung gyoung is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwranda View Post
Any input from anyone on the narrow/wide deck choice? I've seen some overhauled narrow decks that look good at first observation. I would LOVE to buy a new engine, but with tuition bills from a son in college and not wanting to drain the savings account(and stay happily married) an overhauled is most likely the outcome. Now if I were to get the wife involved in the decision maybe she will say the heck with the money, we only live once and I want to be behind something new. Who knows?
I do plan on a glass panel because to me that is a safety factor. The technology in them is too much to pass up. So, I guess I am doing what one of you said was not wise. Glass panel/used engine!! This could bring up a whole new discussion. Which has the greatest safety improvement......new vs overhauled engine or round instruments vs glass panel?
I've got a narrow deck O-360 on my -6. As you noted, they are an older design so you'll find some minor differences. The baffle kit needed some trimming to fit. The alternator is mounted using the case bolts rather than the boss mount of the later cases. That means a different bracket and brace to the starter. The cylinders are the big difference and take a different base wrench if you need to pull one. No big deal and new ones are available if/when needed.

I would caution against buying a core to overhaul. I did that and about all I got to reuse were rods and gears. If you want a fresh O/H, get one of the established builders to create one from parts they source so you don't risk buying bad parts.
__________________
Greg

1950 Navion - flying
RV-6 - 15 yrs and 96.3% done
3.5 L-2 projects on deck
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:59 PM
bret's Avatar
bret bret is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Gardnerville Nv.
Posts: 2,659
Default

When I started the build I also wanted a NEW engine but the $ thing was a big factor for me, found a deal on B S, a certified engine and prop out of a Mooney, spent more on the avionics than the power plant. don't forget about the long or short motor mount if deciding to go with a 360, the 7 and 9 share the same fuse and I went with the SJ cowl and 3" extension for the CS prop.
__________________
7A Slider, EFII Angle 360, CS, SJ.
2017 gladly supported
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:50 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.