What's new
Van's Air Force

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

I0360 install

DaveO

Well Known Member
Is anyone considering mounting a I0360 on your RV 14?

I was told that a 360 could be increased to 200-210 HP I do not know the truth.
I know about 200 hp 360's but what would a 10HP decrease do to the performance. Is it worth considering?
Any thoughts
 
The issue isn't the HP but the LB's.

The parallel IO-360 is just too light. However, you can install an IO-360 angle valve in a -14.

Van's prototype -14 (taildragger) has this engine and is a bit faster than the IO-390 powered RV-14A.
 
Hmmm ... Up until very recently, I had an RV-8 with a parallel valve IO-360 that had 10:1 pistons installed by LyCon when the engine was brand new. That engine has 1940 Tach hours on it now and is still going strong. Never had a cylinder off or any other major work done to it.

Although TBO doesn't mean much for Experimental airplanes, can you provide a reference for your statement that "... it also shortens the TBO from 2000hrs to 1000hrs."?

I'd have to refer you to Barrett Precision Engines. It was in some of the info I got from them when I was deciding on my engine. I opted for the 8.7:1, not for the difference in TBO, but for the desire to burn 91UL.
 
engine

Maybe you could find a Angle valve that needs overhauling buy new cylinder kits and have the case machined for larger cylinders and have a 390 engine.Cylinders for the 390 are cheaper than angle 360.
Bob
 
A stock Io 360 A1A is 200 HP. 10 HP is not that significant unless you are going to Reno, at altitude I loose a lot more than 10 HP, but she is still happy :D
 
I can't see why you would

Van's numbers on their site are slightly skewed because they publish the numbers for the IO-360 on the -14 as instead of the -14A. Having the nose gear eliminated helps improve performance a bit, almost making up for the 10hp difference, making the IO-360 looks faster. It's not, it's the missing nosegear. Apples to Apples on the equivalent air frame, you climb faster and will be able to go faster with the IO-390. However I don't think that really the reason to choose the IO-390.

My RV-14A runs fantastic on the IO-390. My CHTs run between 300 - 315 (IO-390 has excellent cooling). Mid 300's on extended VY climbs. I loiter around at 55% - 150kts TAS burning 7.5 gph. The price of the IO-390 and Angle Valve IO-360 are about the same. The angle valve will run hotter (possibly less longevity) and not climb as well for very little savings in money. You can't go wrong with the IO-390 on the -14/A
 
Van's numbers on their site are slightly skewed because they publish the numbers for the IO-360 on the -14 as instead of the -14A. Having the nose gear eliminated helps improve performance a bit, almost making up for the 10hp difference, making the IO-360 looks faster. It's not, it's the missing nosegear. Apples to Apples on the equivalent air frame, you climb faster and will be able to go faster with the IO-390. However I don't think that really the reason to choose the IO-390.

My RV-14A runs fantastic on the IO-390. My CHTs run between 300 - 315 (IO-390 has excellent cooling). Mid 300's on extended VY climbs. I loiter around at 55% - 150kts TAS burning 7.5 gph. The price of the IO-390 and Angle Valve IO-360 are about the same. The angle valve will run hotter (possibly less longevity) and not climb as well for very little savings in money. You can't go wrong with the IO-390 on the -14/A

The IO-360 installed in the tail dragger prototype cools equally as well as the IO-390 in the trigear RV-14.
Your good cooling performance is for the most part related to the cooling system design than it is to it being an IO-390.

I do agree that the performance difference between the two engines will mostly show up in take-off and climb...... but differences are not very large between the different engines.
 
Is anyone considering mounting a I0360 on your RV 14?

I was told that a 360 could be increased to 200-210 HP I do not know the truth.
I know about 200 hp 360's but what would a 10HP decrease do to the performance. Is it worth considering?
Any thoughts

There are two different Lyc IO-360's so it depends on which you are talking about......

As Bill already mentioned, the parallel valve IO-360 which is normally rated at 180 HP is quite a bit lighter than the angle valve engine the airplane was designed around, so it wont work.

The angle valve IO-360 (200 HP) or the IO-390 (210 HP) are what you need for an RV-14(A).
 
Scott,

I know you don't usually deal in "what-if's", but can you indulge me this one time?

How much longer would the engine mount for the -14 need to be to put the CG where it would work for the parallel valve (I)O-360 and what would you expect the performance hit to be?
 
Scott,

I know you don't usually deal in "what-if's", but can you indulge me this one time?

How much longer would the engine mount for the -14 need to be to put the CG where it would work for the parallel valve (I)O-360 and what would you expect the performance hit to be?

I think the weight delta is about 40 lbs.

Assuming that is correct, a quick W&B calc shows that for the lighter engine to have the same moment it would have to be 6" further fwd. This would not be accounting for the fact that the prop weight was pushed further fwd as well, so the actual required might end up being about 5".

If it was an unmodified 180 HP parallel valve engine, cruise speed diff. would probably be in the neighborhood of 10 kts slower compared to the 200 HP IO-360 and a little bit more, compared to the IO-390.

The difference that would be more directly noticeable would be take-off and climb performance.
 
...

The difference that would be more directly noticeable would be take-off and climb performance.

And the look. A long nosed RV-14 would look kind of funny.

I suspect most people are asking about sticking an IO-540 up front, not a smaller engine.
 
alt engine heresy

It's a shame that RVers are so Continental-averse. A C--IO360 is 210 HP, no heavier (usually lighter) than an angle valve Lyc 360, and smoooooth.....

Yes, shorter TBO & more cylinders to purchase, but...
 
Be careful with each change you consider , TIME in building increases!

Every mod to the Vans plans has cost me. Considerable TIME! If you love building and are young and don?t care she you fly next, then mod al you like. My # of 14A is very low so while waiting for early kits I built up an IO360. No changes needed to fit right in the IO390 spot. So with electronic ignition, Lycon port and polish and 10-1 I have far more than the 10 hp goal. BUT there are down sides; increased build time, research time, sending off parts for reman etc.. and resale someday is an unknown but cold cost. Then while you have a spank-in new REBUILD it is not a spank-in new engine with zero hours! I would likely not do it again. Good education but longer time building when my goal is to fly the xxxxxx thing !!
 
I was told that a 360 could be increased to 200-210 HP I do not know the truth. I know about 200 hp 360's but what would a 10HP decrease do to the performance.

Angle valve 360's average around 195HP stock, despite the 200 horse label. Monty Barrett developed the 390 in an attempt to deliver 210+HP without loss of TBO, which was was indeed down to 1000 hours or so among performance-oriented customers. Classic formula; add cubic inches, and not so much CR.

BTW, just for fun, do a little math.

390 / 360 = 1.08
195 HP x 1.08 = 210 HP

The originals were built on modified 360 cases. The buzz was good enough to interest Lycoming, who undertook design of a new 390 case and put together a kit for assembly by independent shops. The deal gave Barrett an exclusive for several years, followed by expansion to (IIRC) five other vendors. Things rocked along nicely until Lycoming suddenly ended the kit engine program. Today 390's are sourced from Lycoming only.

The price of the IO-390 and Angle Valve IO-360 are about the same. The angle valve will run hotter (possibly less longevity) and not climb as well for very little savings in money.

There is no notable cooling difference between the 360 angle valve and the 390 angle valve. Same basic cylinder, slight bore difference, 5.125 vs 5.319. FWIW, any angle valve Lycoming will indicate lower CHT as compared to a parallel valve cylinder.
 
"FWIW, any angle valve Lycoming will indicate lower CHT as compared to a parallel valve cylinder.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390"

Regarding the difference in CHT's between angle valve and parallel valve, does this change the acceptable operating temperatures or is it a "freebie"? In other words, is it just as acceptable to run an angle valve at 380-390 CHT in climb on a hot day as to do so on a parallel valve?
 
Back
Top