What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-9A with 180 hp ?

A

Agent Cooper

Member
Please folks I need help I am looking at buying an RV 9A but it has a 180 hp engine fitted. According to Van's it's not a good idea.
Must say though we opparate at 5500 ft here in South Africa, what do the knowledge boffins think.
The a/c is clean and I like what I see myself I am not the lightest guy on earth but would still like to be safe.
Van's made a comment about the W & B being heavy up front.
Owner of the a/c says it stalls at 52 MPH and will cruise at 180 MPH.
 
Below is my original post. I found my comments regarding Vne are in error. See my post #8 on this thread for the correction.
N941WR said:
I just replaced the engine in my RV-9 tail dragger with an O-360.

The fuselage of the -7 and -9 are the same and the engine mount is made of the same size tubing, so from a structurally standpoint, I don't think (but I don't know) there is an issue. Up high, you may have to pull back on the large engine to keep from passing the Vne, which is a true airspeed, not indicated.

The numbers the owner gave you sound about right.

The O-360 is only ~21 pounds (9.5 Kg) heavier. Thus, an O-360 with a FP prop should be lighter than an O-320 with a CS prop.

Check his W&B numbers, if it works like mine does, you can haul two 250 pound people (if they will fit) and 100 pounds of baggage and stay within CG. Over gross but within CG.

There are a number of RV-9(A)'s with the O-360 and none have fallen out of the sky.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not a problem

W&B is more to do with the prop than the engine.

If it has a FP prop (or a lightweight variable pitch prop) then its a non issue. The FP (unless its a climb pitch) version won't be making 180HP anyway.

The 360 weighs about 30lb more than the 320 and as long as its withing W&B its not an issue.

There are a number of 9's running around with 360's..at least one has a C/S prop and makes over 200mph.

I wouldn't worry about it...I mean if you can hang a 540 on a 7 or 8 then a 360 on a 9 is peanuts by comparison.

Frank
 
I built my 9A with a 185 HP ECI IO-340 with a 3 blade Cato prop. The prop weight was only 12 lbs. I am not sure about your engine weight but the ECI 340 is only about 8 lbs heavier than an IO-320. I love my plane with the extra HP. The concern is at the top end of the speed range. With extra HP you can easily bust the Vne on the airframe. I never come close to that on my airplane. I also wanted the extra climb capabilities and the 185 HP definitely delivers on that. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Graham, there's nothing wrong with 180 HP (if you can make that) in a -9A

....at 5500'. On a hot day, you'll love the extra few horses when DA starts around 7,000'. Just because the power's there, doesn't mean you have to use all of it:)...but it's nice to have in reserve, compared to the other way around. If there's forward CG issue, put a toolbox as far back as you can.

Enjoy,
 
Hi Graham,

Lots in the archieves about the 180/9(a) combo--you might start with this thread:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=25306&highlight=rv9+360

I have 300+ hrs in just such a plane---and here in Prescott, AZ (ele 5100ft) the extra power comes in handy in the summer. There are at least 3, maybe 4, 9a's here in Prescott with the 180 in them.

As you can see in my contribution to the above noted thread--I love the combo and would do it again without hesitation!

Cheers,

db
 
266 hours on an O-360 / RV9A

My 9A has an O-360 with lower compression pistons so I can run mogas. According to Superior, my O-360 has 172hp.

266 hours, no problems, stalls at 47kts, f/p cruise prop. My monthly runs Tucson to Socal are at 143kts. The plane burns 7gph approx @ 2400 rpm.
 
N941WR said:
...The fuselage of the -7 and -9 are the same and the engine mount is made of the same size tubing, so from a structurally standpoint, I don't think (but I don't know) there is an issue. Up high, you may have to pull back on the large engine to keep from passing the Vne, which is a true airspeed, not indicated...
Click to expand...
I was just informed that the HP limitation has nothing to do with Vne (not directly anyway).

It is because of Vno, Maximum Structural Cruise speed. The wing is the limiting factor for gust loads.

The RV-9 is not an aerobatic airplane, so the gust load limitation is a lot more a factor than some of the other models because it has much less of safety margin.

Just wanted to make that clear.
 
My RV-9A, Superior O-360 modified by Lycon dyno'd at 200+ HP, Hartsell C/S, IFR, weighs in at 1,234 empty. Previous owner installed ten pounds of lead in the tail. I believe he did this to meet maximum nose gear weights. Plane flies well at all weights with no CG issues. Performance is excellent with cruise speeds at 8-10K of 150+TAS at about 55% power while burning 7.5-8.5 GPH. Yes, I can go a lot faster but I like the 150TAS area and I thnk the plane does to.

The RV-9 with an O-320/160 is probably a great plane and so is the O-360/180+.

Ken Day
N63EB
Surprise, AZ and Sunriver, OR
 
Sunriver Ken said:
My RV-9A, Superior O-360 modified by Lycon dyno'd at 200+ HP, Hartsell C/S, IFR, weighs in at 1,234 empty. Previous owner installed ten pounds of lead in the tail.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a 9A with O-360 and Hartzell prop that was at my airport for a while. I helped them do the W&B.

Seems like they had gross weight issues as well but they put so much stuff in the plane (including two batteries), that you could predict the outcome (forward CG without the tailcone weight and reduced payload).
 
My 9A is 1152 empty, including fire extinguisher and first aid kit and a bunch of radios (lightweight Classic Aero designs interiors, Odyssey batt. and weight saving wherever I could).

Problem is CG and nose wheel static weight, because I fall shortly within limits and I have an O-320 and a Hartzell constant speed prop. Maximum weight limit states that I may carry a maximum of 58 lbs of baggage with both pilot and pax and full gas.

If I had 20 or 30 lbs. more on the nose I guess I should add some ballast in the tail (I guess at least 8 lbs.). Overall weight will increase of 28-38 lbs., thus reducing your useful load. In addition, static nose wheel weight may go fore and you may not be able to go gross weight within Van's limits.
 
Camillo said:
My 9A is 1152 empty, including fire extinguisher and first aid kit and a bunch of radios (lightweight Classic Aero designs interiors, Odyssey batt. and weight saving wherever I could).

Problem is CG and nose wheel static weight, because I fall shortly within limits and I have an O-320 and a Hartzell constant speed prop. Maximum weight limit states that I may carry a maximum of 58 lbs of baggage with both pilot and pax and full gas.

If I had 20 or 30 lbs. more on the nose I guess I should add some ballast in the tail (I guess at least 8 lbs.). Overall weight will increase of 28-38 lbs., thus reducing your useful load. In addition, static nose wheel weight may go fore and you may not be able to go gross weight within Van's limits.
Click to expand...

Why not just move the battery aft of the baggage compartment? Simple fix with a big CG shift. I'm not a fan of adding weight to an aircraft for balance when we already have quite a few items that can be located wherever we like to take advantage of lever-arm for CG purposes (like battery, strobe power packs, ELT, ADAHRS magnetometer, etc).
 
I already have ADAHRS, strobe power pack and ELT in the tail cone (and the elevator trim motor).
I thaught about moving the battery aft, but I have all spar holes and upper decks space full. In addition, I read on The Aeroelectric bible that the more the distance of the battery from the starter, the lesser is the voltage at the starter. I made no calculations (and I am not able to do them) but I guess that moving the Odyssey in the baggage compartment or so would imply upgrading to a Concorde, to get the same cranking effectiveness. Consider also the weight of #2 or #4 gauge wires from the firewall to the baggage area. I think 8 lbs ballast in the aft part of the tail is quicker and more efficient for one who wants an upgrade to an O-360.
 
Camillo said:
I think 8 lbs ballast in the aft part of the tail is quicker and more efficient for one who wants an upgrade to an O-360.
Click to expand...

Quicker and easier - yes. More efficient - no.

You wouldn't need to change the battery size if the current one handles the job - you just need enough wire to carry the maximum load (starter current) from the battery to the FWF.
 
N941WR said:
I was just informed that the HP limitation has nothing to do with Vne (not directly anyway).

It is because of Vno, Maximum Structural Cruise speed. The wing is the limiting factor for gust loads.

The RV-9 is not an aerobatic airplane, so the gust load limitation is a lot more a factor than some of the other models because it has much less of safety margin.

Just wanted to make that clear.
Click to expand...
Here are the numbers for the RV-9(A)
Vno (max structural cruising speed, top of the green arc): 180 mph
Vne (Never exceed, top of the yellow arc): 210 mph
Va (Maneuvering Speed, max structural speed for full control deflection): 118 mph
 
Bill,

First, what the heck is a "dragon tail"?

Second, Vne is a true airspeed not indicated airspeed. So how do we realistically monitor it? I simply created a chart where I index indicated airspeed to standard density altitude which will result in a true airspeed. When I fly at a specific cruise altitude I simply ensure my IAS is less than that IAS that would exceed the max TAS.

Yes, my O-360 with C/S will go fast enough to exceed the Vne TAS but no one forces us to do it. I for one like the extra power that is there when I need it or want it.

Fly safe,
Ken Day
N63EB
 
Sunriver Ken said:
. . .Vne is a true airspeed not indicated airspeed. So how do we realistically monitor it? . . .
Click to expand...
One of the very functional benefits of having computerized glass panels in our cockpits. Since True airspeed is a mathematical calculation taking multiple input parameters into consideration, what better tool to do this with than a tool specifically designed to calculate mathematical equations with great speed and accuracy. Dynon, GRT, MGL, Garmin, etc., pick one and you will have all the tools needed to monitor true airspeed just as easily as you do indicated airspeed.
 
My plane is totally glass but I am not sure the builder configured it to do TAS. I will ask him. I know the OAT sensor is in the NACA on the passenger side and seems to read 5-7F high while in flight. Any suggestions on where to relocate it and how difficult would that be?

Ken
N63EB
 
Sunriver Ken said:
My plane is totally glass but I am not sure the builder configured it to do TAS. I will ask him. I know the OAT sensor is in the NACA on the passenger side and seems to read 5-7F high while in flight. Any suggestions on where to relocate it and how difficult would that be?

Ken
N63EB
Click to expand...
I have mine located under the left wing. It is in the same bay as the first access plate, just a few inches from the access hole, making it easy to get to. I do not have any temp problems in this location. It is also very easy to access. The only issue is routing the wiring from your instrument on the dash down to the spar and out to the wing. I planned this location during the build so in my case it was easy to route while building but it should not be very difficult to route the wiring even after the plane is flying especially if you already have some wiring routed to the wing from the instrument panel. You should be able to run the wiring in the same location as the other wires.
 
Sunriver Ken said:
My plane is totally glass but I am not sure the builder configured it to do TAS. I will ask him. I know the OAT sensor is in the NACA on the passenger side and seems to read 5-7F high while in flight. Any suggestions on where to relocate it and how difficult would that be?

Ken
N63EB
Click to expand...

Ken,

There are many threads on this topic. Try doing a search with "OAT probe location".

BTW, the OAT sensor in the NACA vent seems to be one of the worst locations in terms of accuracy.
 
I am very happy with the IO-360 in my 9A in terms of high-altitude performance. There is no fuel penalty - I typically cruise at 14-18000 feet at 175 mph and burn 6-6.5 gph. The weight can be dealt with if you relocate the battery to aft of the baggage compartment and maybe make a few other adjustments if necessary.

My OAT is under the HS and seems to be accurate there. Wiring is simply down the center tunnel.

Ken, the Dynon automatically calculates TAS. You probably just don't have it displayed (and the temp probe may make it off a bit).

greg
 
Greg Arehart said:
I am very happy with the IO-360 in my 9A in terms of high-altitude performance. There is no fuel penalty - I typically cruise at 14-18000 feet at 175 mph and burn 6-6.5 gph. The weight can be dealt with if you relocate the battery to aft of the baggage compartment and maybe make a few other adjustments if necessary.

My OAT is under the HS and seems to be accurate there. Wiring is simply down the center tunnel.

Ken, the Dynon automatically calculates TAS. You probably just don't have it displayed (and the temp probe may make it off a bit).

greg
Click to expand...

Greg - I'm at the point of building my battery box now, I'm looking at the ES PC680 box mounted on the back of the baggage compartment aft wall - how did you do yours?
 
nothing to worry about

Camillo said:
I read on The Aeroelectric bible that the more the distance of the battery from the starter, the lesser is the voltage at the starter. I made no calculations (and I am not able to do them) but I guess that moving the Odyssey in the baggage compartment or so would imply upgrading to a Concorde, to get the same cranking effectiveness. Consider also the weight of #2 or #4 gauge wires from the firewall to the baggage area. I think 8 lbs ballast in the aft part of the tail is quicker and more efficient for one who wants an upgrade to an O-360.
Click to expand...

The #2 battery lead in my RV-8, going from rear baggage compartment to starter relay on firewall, weighs 2.4 lb. The voltage drop through that conductor while cranking is insignificant. The Odessy PC-680 works great.

I would really recommend putting the battery in the back to take weight off the nose gear on a RV-9 w/ (I)O-360.
 
scsmith said:
...I would really recommend putting the battery in the back to take weight off the nose gear on a RV-9 w/ (I)O-360.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what prop you use. My O-360 powered -9's W&B is perfect. I can lift two 220 pounders, 100 pounds of baggage and stay w/in CG no matter how much fuel I have. On the other side, a 140 pound pilot can fly it w/o worrying about the CG.

Now if I had a metal CS or FP prop up front, there might be an issue.

Remember, the RV-9 is weight limited to a 1750 GW. Build them as light as you can.
 
N941WR said:
It all depends on what prop you use. My O-360 powered -9's W&B is perfect. I can lift two 220 pounders, 100 pounds of baggage and stay w/in CG no matter how much fuel I have. On the other side, a 140 pound pilot can fly it w/o worrying about the CG.

Now if I had a metal CS or FP prop up front, there might be an issue.

Remember, the RV-9 is weight limited to a 1750 GW. Build them as light as you can.
Click to expand...

Bill - what prop do you have? I'm planning a WW200RV for mine, to keep the weight down a bit. Yes it's heavier than a wood FP, but quite a bit lighter than a metal CS, and I want the CS prop so I have to deal with the CG by moving items aft.
 
airguy said:
Bill - what prop do you have? I'm planning a WW200RV for mine, to keep the weight down a bit. Yes it's heavier than a wood FP, but quite a bit lighter than a metal CS, and I want the CS prop so I have to deal with the CG by moving items aft.
Click to expand...

Greg,

I have a Catto two blade. The WW200RV is the way to go, as they are light and perform well. WW lists the weight of the "system" at 38 lbs, which is very close to a FP metal prop. Maybe someone has an O-360 with a Sensenich on it and will post their W&B numbers.

You do have the option of putting on the Catto and then adding the WW later on, if you still want it.


BTW, here are my numbers:
Empty:__ 1068 lbs
Gross:___1750 lbs

CG Empty: 76.76"
FWD Limit: 77.95"
AFT Limit: 84.84"

and here are some sample loadings:
Full fuel, two people, and 100 lbs of baggage
Desc___Gals__Weight____Arm___Moment
Plane__________1068______76.76___81979.68
Fuel_____36_____216______76.75___16578.00
Pilot____________220______92.70___20394.00
Co-Pilot_________140______92.70___12978.00
Baggage________100______122.00___12200.00
Totals:________1744______________144129.70___82.64 w/in CG

Minimum fuel, small pilot, no baggage, and no passenger
Desc___Gals__Weight____Arm___Moment
Plane__________1068______76.76___81979.68
Fuel_____10______60______76.75____4605.00
Pilot____________140______92.70___12978.00
Co-Pilot___________0______92.70_______0.00
Baggage__________0______122.00______0.00
Totals:_________1268______________99562.68___78.52 w/in CG
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much for all those positive answers to my question, I to have learnt a lot and believe thats the way I will go.
As said one must just fly on the numbers and never exeed these..
Will keep you posted when the deal is done.
 
scsmith said:
The #2 battery lead in my RV-8, going from rear baggage compartment to starter relay on firewall, weighs 2.4 lb. The voltage drop through that conductor while cranking is insignificant. The Odessy PC-680 works great.

I would really recommend putting the battery in the back to take weight off the nose gear on a RV-9 w/ (I)O-360.
Click to expand...

Thank-you, Steve. This data is useful.

I am planning on adding a second PC680 aft of the baggage.
This will bring back c/g and allow me to run 30' with MEL with alternator off. This is required from LSA for an aircraft being operated under IR.
 
Greg Arehart said:
I am very happy with the IO-360 in my 9A in terms of high-altitude performance. There is no fuel penalty - I typically cruise at 14-18000 feet at 175 mph and burn 6-6.5 gph. The weight can be dealt with if you relocate the battery to aft of the baggage compartment and maybe make a few other adjustments if necessary.

My OAT is under the HS and seems to be accurate there. Wiring is simply down the center tunnel.

Ken, the Dynon automatically calculates TAS. You probably just don't have it displayed (and the temp probe may make it off a bit).

greg
Click to expand...

Greg, may you also please send me instructions on how to add the second battery aft of the baggage area?

Thanks.
Camillo
 
I Don't understand

Camillo said:
Thank-you, Steve. This data is useful.

I am planning on adding a second PC680 aft of the baggage.
This will bring back c/g and allow me to run 30' with MEL with alternator off. This is required from LSA for an aircraft being operated under IR.
Click to expand...

It makes sense that a second battery might be more beneficial than 8-9 lbs of lead in the tail cone (unless that is what you have to do to get the nose gear weight within limits). But what does "run 30' with MEL with alternator off" mean? Also, what does LSA mean? I am guessing it isn't Light sport Aircraft.
 
Yes, you are right. I meant VLA and not LSA. Since I'm asking a permit to fly which allows the airplane to perform IFR flights, italian rules require that the battery itself should allow a 30' flight with essential loads (included Pitot heat).

On the chart, my PC680 should be able to do that, also because I have the SkyView backup battery and the ADI backup battery, so ship's battery only has to give juice to GNS430, elevator trim, battery contactor and Pitot.

But I guess that it will be hard to reach 30 minutes. So, since I have a nose heavy* RV9A, it maybe makes sense adding a second battery. I will avoid placing a 2,5 kg. ballast in the most aft part of the a/c and the tradeoff is +5,5 kg. (total weight increase = 8 - ballast saving 2,5 = 5,5). But I will end with double cranking power and reserve current.

*I said nose heavy but maybe it is not true. I can land with no force on the stick (trim half down --> nose up), but when main gear has touched the ground, I have to apply quite a lot of force on the stick to maintain the nose up and approx. at 40 knots it goes down, even with full stick. I'm based on an airstrip and I would like to have a nose-up like airplane to add extra margin.
 
Last edited:
Camillo,

I took a piece of 0.063 Al (approx 30 cm x 60 cm) and bolted it vertically between the center upright and the bulkhead immediately behind the baggage bulkhead using countersunk bolts. It is useful to add a couple of stiffeners on this piece of Al, as the battery is fairly heavy. I then mounted the standard PC680 battery box and master solenoid on this piece of Al (facing backward). I ran the battery cable forward under the seat pans and through the spar and firewall to the starter solenoid etc. I could still put the baggage bulkhead in place. Let me know if you need more description. I would be happy to send my piece to you if you would like (I no longer need it for my airplane), but it is probably more expensive than fabricating your own.

If I was careful, I could keep my nose off the ground down to about 35-37 mph (32 kts). I could go to lower speed, but then when it dropped, it dropped fast and I was worried about potential damage.

greg
 
Titan 0-340 & FP prop

Based on the last date of this thread this is old news, but I'm in the beginning stages of analyzing the various RV models. I'm tending to the 9A because it really delivers what I need and near as I can tell, I can build it for at least $20k less than the 14A.

I've read all the pros and cons of a bigger engine and the possibility of exceeding Vne. I've also read the articles posted on Van's site. I've read many of the posts with owners of the bigger 180hp engines. I also understand that if you go with the 160HP engine and CS prop you get better climb and best/efficient cruise of FP prop. If you go with a FP prop and the 160HP engine you have to make a compromise, speed vs climb.

So here's my thinking, if you go with the 180 Titan engine (any 180hp) and a FP prop and you have the prop pitched for a balance of climb vs speed, wouldn't you be getting similar performance to a CS prop on a 160HP? And the similar performance should keep you within the design capabilities of the plane. I like simplicity so I like the idea of a FP prop but don't want to give up any performance.

This may be too much for one thread, but the Titan I0-340 seems like a really good engine for this plane. Thoughts/experiences.
 
ronsno said:
If you go with a FP prop and the 160HP engine you have to make a compromise, speed vs climb.
Click to expand...
How much "climb" do you need? I have a 160hp 0-320 with a FP prop pitched for cruise and, even while living in the mountain west, have never wished I had more climb performance. Although I'm sure there are probably circumstances in which you could get yourself in trouble and need more climb to get out of it, that's a whole different issue.

If you happen to be coming from the certified world, you might check out any RV's climb performance, with or without a climb pitched prop, before you feel the need to put 180hp on it. It's not like the Cessnas or Pipers you may be used to.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
With a 160-horse IO-320 and Catto FP prop, I've seen at least 1400 fpm climb at 80 KIAS (just me aboard, with full tanks). I really hate not being able to see over the nose, so I typically cruise-climb at 100 KIAS and still get 700 fpm on a significantly hotter-than-standard day.
 
Engine availability

Ron, if money is no object, the 340 would be a fine engine for the -9. I really like the io320 and constant speed prop combination. I have this on the twin Comanche and with no prop / rpm restrictions, it's a sweetheart of a combination. I probably would have gone the 340 or 320 route if I didn't already have an io360 motor. With the higher horsepower motors, you have to be a pilot and watch TAS when pointing downhill, and also in some of the very clean -9 in level flight. That said, having the ability to climb like a bat is liken to acceleration in a corvette. You really don't need all that power, but man when you put the pedal to the metal, well, there is just something about having it available.
Good luck and wish you much success!



ronsno said:
Based on the last date of this thread this is old news, but I'm in the beginning stages of analyzing the various RV models. I'm tending to the 9A because it really delivers what I need and near as I can tell, I can build it for at least $20k less than the 14A.

I've read all the pros and cons of a bigger engine and the possibility of exceeding Vne. I've also read the articles posted on Van's site. I've read many of the posts with owners of the bigger 180hp engines. I also understand that if you go with the 160HP engine and CS prop you get better climb and best/efficient cruise of FP prop. If you go with a FP prop and the 160HP engine you have to make a compromise, speed vs climb.

So here's my thinking, if you go with the 180 Titan engine (any 180hp) and a FP prop and you have the prop pitched for a balance of climb vs speed, wouldn't you be getting similar performance to a CS prop on a 160HP? And the similar performance should keep you within the design capabilities of the plane. I like simplicity so I like the idea of a FP prop but don't want to give up any performance.

This may be too much for one thread, but the Titan I0-340 seems like a really good engine for this plane. Thoughts/experiences.
Click to expand...
 
In the end I most likely will end up with the 320 and a CS speed or a composite prop and the performance will be great. But I'm really enjoying the research aspects and love the idea of a truly customized plane. The abililty to punch it and climb like a bat out **** is incredibly attractive. Thanks for the replys.
 
My IO360 and CS prop is absolutely wonderful, I wouldn't trade for it. As for exceeding Vne, I have default autopilot rates set at 1000 fpm (both climb and descent) and I cruise WOTLOP in the low-to-mid teens. For descent at 1000 fpm from cruise I stay LOP and pull the throttle to 20" or less, and that holds me right at 180 KTAS, and it obviously needs to be pulled back a little again every so often as you descend into thicker air. 15" will easily keep you away from Vne on descent.
 
The Dynon also has a nice feature to have the Vne displayed as TAS right on the airspeed indicator tapes. Red line will always be correct for your current condition since it moves. I find this very useful. The overspeed warning is based off TAS when you select Vne to use it so you will get the warning at the correct time instead of possibly way too late if you base Vne off of IAS.
 
Last edited:
ronsno said:
Based on the last date of this thread this is old news, but I'm in the beginning stages of analyzing the various RV models. I'm tending to the 9A because it really delivers what I need and near as I can tell, I can build it for at least $20k less than the 14A.

I've read all the pros and cons of a bigger engine and the possibility of exceeding Vne. I've also read the articles posted on Van's site. I've read many of the posts with owners of the bigger 180hp engines. I also understand that if you go with the 160HP engine and CS prop you get better climb and best/efficient cruise of FP prop. If you go with a FP prop and the 160HP engine you have to make a compromise, speed vs climb.

So here's my thinking, if you go with the 180 Titan engine (any 180hp) and a FP prop and you have the prop pitched for a balance of climb vs speed, wouldn't you be getting similar performance to a CS prop on a 160HP? And the similar performance should keep you within the design capabilities of the plane. I like simplicity so I like the idea of a FP prop but don't want to give up any performance.

This may be too much for one thread, but the Titan I0-340 seems like a really good engine for this plane. Thoughts/experiences.
Click to expand...
I have the IO-340 with Catto 74X68 3-blade prop on my 9A. Finished it in 2010. I tell everyone who is willing to listen about the performance of this combination. To me this is a no-brainer configuration for the 9A. You get the performance of a 360 with the weight of a 320. I have absolutely loved the IO-340 and Catto prop combination. I fly with several RV7 guys with 360's on their planes. My plane climbs with them, cruises with them, and, oh yes (hi Figs), does it on less fuel.

PM me or send an email anytime if you want to talk details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top