What's new
Van's Air Force

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

IO-360 200hp

I have heard and seen 200hp 360s on the rv9, but not the angle valve.

I think you may run into a CG issue due to the extra weight of the angle valve engine.
 
DON'T DO IT!!!

if you do you will die a horrible death and the Taliban will kill your entire family! ;)

The CG will be your biggest issue and the -9 is already GW challenged.

If you want 200HP -9, build up a parallel valve 360. They are easy to bump up to 200HP.

My 180+ HP -9 can easily cruise in the yellow but I typically fly it at around 150 to 155 KTS while burning 7.2 GHP. When I'm screwing around I can easily burn over 12 GPH. That is where you are going to have an issue with a 200 HP -9 because they only hold 36 gallons. You can always make tanks out of the outboard leading edges but if you do, re-read my first two paragraphs.
 
Last edited:
I've heard some reports (though I can't find them now with a quick search) that the angle-valve 360 will not in the cowling of the 9, so you are realistically limited to the parallel valve unless you want to do some major cowling work.

I'm a proud and well-armed Infidel, not really worried about the Taliban, let 'em come...
 
I've heard some reports (though I can't find them now with a quick search) that the angle-valve 360 will not in the cowling of the 9, so you are realistically limited to the parallel valve unless you want to do some major cowling work.

I'm a proud and well-armed Infidel, not really worried about the Taliban, let 'em come...
I'm not sure that is true. The -9 has the same firewall as the -6 and -7. So, a -7 cowl will fit as will a Sam James cowl.

As far as being a "well-armed Infidel," you live in TX so I'm very inclined to believe you!
 
You'll have the fastest climbing RV-9 ever!

I have a brand new >200hp parallel IO-360 for sale if interested.
 
Thinking about it

I have a low time io360 angle valve sittin in the corner of hanger and I was thinking about hanging it on the -9.

I'd also be interested if anyone else has tried it and what their feedback was.

Has anyone installed a angle valve IO-360 on a RV9?
 
I have a low time io360 angle valve sittin in the corner of hanger and I was thinking about hanging it on the -9.

I'd also be interested if anyone else has tried it and what their feedback was.
Go look at all of the 9As that have flipped.
All except one in Alaska on a gravel rutted runway had O-360's installed....:eek:
See post #3
 
-9

Yea, those nosewheel models with heavy engines do have a nasty record. However, I was specifically referring to the -9, which is the Tailwheel version. Also, post #3 doesn't speak to the original question.


Go look at all of the 9As that have flipped.
All except one in Alaska on a gravel rutted runway had O-360's installed....:eek:
See post #3
 
Also, post #3 doesn't speak to the original question.

Huh? How does an article recommending against a 180 in a RV9 not apply to a 200 in a 9????

Of course, it is experimental and you may do as you wish. Do your passengers have the same choice and forewarning in the matter?
 
margins

Van owns the margins, I get that. And, I agree with it too.
That being said, it would be nice to hear from -9 owners who are running the 200hp deal. What's their feedback. It really is a simple question. Just trying to get feedback from those who have traveled this road.
 
"If you want 200HP -9, build up a parallel valve 360. They are easy to bump up to 200HP."

Very True. My Parrallel I-O360 with 9:5:1 Lycon Pistons pumped out 215HP on test
 
I suppose this is a contrarian response but I can not resist.

A IO360 200 HP in the RV-9 or 9A does not make much sense. If you want verification that statement ask Van. I did a long time ago (re 180 HP) and was really put down on the subject. They go to a lot of trouble designing an airplane to meet a specific mission and get a little testy when asked to comment on the subject.

Hopefully, guys who have done it will respond with honest answers as to the wisdom of doing it.

Seems like we all have an engine in mind or on hand and want to make it fit into an airplane that did not have provision for it from the beginning. With the model choices from Vans, why not pick an airplane to matches the engine and mission?

The 9 is a wonderful flying machine as is with the 0320. Yes, I know, this an experimental effort, anything is ok. But to seek endorsement for out of the box ideas is risky for anyone offering it.

I once endorsed the Subaru engine when I was having fun with it and a few guys ordered it as a result - wish I had never done that - the effort came unglued before they ever had a chance to fly and their money was gone.
 
Exactly

Thanks David. This is exactly what I think adds value to this question. Hopefully the honest experience will be shared and this tread will be useful for the newbie 10years from now who has an engine not recommended for his kit and can read about folks who have tried that route.

Hopefully, guys who have done it will respond with honest answers as to the wisdom of doing it.
.
 
Last edited:
A IO360 200 HP in the RV-9 or 9A does not make much sense. If you want verification that statement ask Van. I did a long time ago (re 180 HP) and was really put down on the subject. They go to a lot of trouble designing an airplane to meet a specific mission and get a little testy when asked to comment on the subject.

Hopefully, guys who have done it will respond with honest answers as to the wisdom of doing it.
You just demonstrated that there is no wisdom in doing it...:confused:
 
My ECI-O-320, 160 hp, gets the mission done in my -9. If I ever considered putting 200 hp in my -9, I'd just build an airplane designed to handle it....like a -7.
Just a thought....
 
...Hopefully, guys who have done it will respond with honest answers as to the wisdom of doing it...

What wasn't "honest" about my earlier post to this thread?
...
My 180+ HP -9 can easily cruise in the yellow but I typically fly it at around 150 to 155 KTS while burning 7.2 GHP. When I'm screwing around I can easily burn over 12 GPH. That is where you are going to have an issue with a 200 HP -9 because they only hold 36 gallons. You can always make tanks out of the outboard leading edges but if you do, re-read my first two paragraphs.
My O-360 with a FP Catto cruise prop is lighter than an O-320 with a FP metal prop. This is a great combination and the only times I wish I had a CS prop is when flying formation with a lead who has a CS prop when he chops the power and all I can do is watch as I go sailing by waiting for the -9 to slow down. A good pre-flight briefing should solve that problem

My -9 started life with a 135 HP O-290-D2 and would cruise at 140 kts while burning around 6.5 GPH. The O-360 burns slight more but I'm also going 10 to 15 kts faster. At 140 kts, my fuel burn comes down below that 6.5 GPH figure. (See first photo, below)

Because of the extra power, even with a cruise prop, I can climb at 2200 FPM solo and around 1600 FPM at GW. That is not much of a compromise.

As for the notion that you will bump up against Vne, it isn't going to happen. (See second photo below.) Maybe at sea level you could but I don't like flying with my wheels in the water.

Point the nose down hill and you have to throttle back to keep then engine from over speeding, so that isn't an issue.

In bumpy air, you will have to slow down but you should do that with the O-320, so no issue there.

Photo 1: Low power setting
2012-09-01_12-18-35_662.jpg


Photo 2: Up high and WOT
KLVJ+to+SC86.jpg


Photo 3: Typical Cruise
20140420_190323.jpg
 
Last edited:
One other little detail, my empty weight is 1068 lbs and that is with a leather Classic Aero interior, SkyView, autopilot, brakes on both sides, paint, primed interior, and more.
 
Remember that Vne is based on TAS.

Yes it is and as I said, it is not possible to bump up against it. I can only wish the plane could hit 178.5 Kts, maybe at 100% power it can but you would have to be at ses level to do it and other than racing, when Vne doesn't apply, who runs their engine like that?

Look at it like G loading, it is up to the pilot to keep the G's under a preset limit.
 
Last edited:
IO-360 angle valve on RV-9

An IO-360 angle valve in an RV-9? I have to ask why? Why not build an RV-7 instead, an aircraft that is structurally designed for that engine. There are so many reasons NOT to put anything bigger than an O-320 on an RV-9?? including the fact that Van?s Aircraft emphatically says DON?T DO IT! http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

Additional weight, CG issues, and especially maneuvering speed considerations all make it pretty obvious it?s a bad choice. I believe the maneuvering speed on an RV-9 is listed at 118 mph, that?s ~ 102 knots. Referring to the comment on this thread ?my 180+ HP -9 can easily cruise in the yellow but I typically fly it at around 150 to 155 KTS?. From that, it seems that one would expect to normally fly in a regime at least 50 knots above ?bump? speed, not a good place to be when encountering that unexpected moderate turbulence. This is exactly Van?s concern with the larger engine and utility category wing. So why would anyone want even more horsepower to cruise even faster in an airplane that is not structurally designed for it? I can only assume that some people just don?t understand what maneuvering speed means.

Also, I just gotta wade in on the comment that an IO-360 parallel valve engine with 9.5:1 pistons puts out 215 hp. Sorry, but that?s all marketing fluff. Going from 8.7:1 pistons to 9.5:1 adds 35 horsepower??? I don?t think so. The IO-375 claims 205 hp, which has been confirmed on test stands. I know a very reputable engine builder with an SAE calibrated test stand who offers to test any engine with these extravagant hp promises. If it indeed does make the power they claim, no charge for the test run. But if it doesn?t, the customer pays double. Not a single taker to date?..

So how big an engine is too big in an RV-9? What?s the old saying?.. ?be careful what you look for, you may not like what you find.?

Be safe out there!

Jim Gray
RV-8 N747JG
 
Also, I just gotta wade in on the comment that an IO-360 parallel valve engine with 9.5:1 pistons puts out 215 hp. Sorry, but that?s all marketing fluff. Going from 8.7:1 pistons to 9.5:1 adds 35 horsepower??? I don?t think so. The IO-375 claims 205 hp, which has been confirmed on test stands. I know a very reputable engine builder with an SAE calibrated test stand who offers to test any engine with these extravagant hp promises. If it indeed does make the power they claim, no charge for the test run.




Jim Gray
RV-8 N747JG

The 8.7:1 IO-360 angle valve is rated at 200 HP, not 180
 
Angle valve

Very true, but the comment I was referring to was.......

My Parrallel I-O360 with 9:5:1 Lycon Pistons pumped out 215HP on test
 
...I have to ask why? Why not build an RV-7 instead, an aircraft that is structurally designed for that engine...
Maybe the -9 is a better airplane for the OP's needs.

I believe the maneuvering speed on an RV-9 is listed at 118 mph, that’s ~ 102 knots. Referring to the comment on this thread “my 180+ HP -9 can easily cruise in the yellow but I typically fly it at around 150 to 155 KTS”. From that, it seems that one would expect to normally fly in a regime at least 50 knots above “bump” speed, not a good place to be when encout even more horsepower to cruise even faster in an airplane that is not structurally designed for it? I can only assume that some people just don’t understand what maneuvering speed means....

Oh, I think we all know what it means but do you? Engine size has nothing to do with your argument because even with an O-235 you can blast right past this number in cruise.

It is up to the pilot to pull back on the go juice when it gets bumpy.

Remember, more power doesn't necessarily translate to faster speed but it does translate into higher climb rates.
 
Last edited:
Acceleration

I suspect the zero to 180mph (TAS of course) and time to climb would be an amazing thrill. I watched a go cart beat the socks off a vette once because those dual two stroke motors on that cart were so dog gone quick zero to 90. The vette could go faster but by the time he got up to speed, the drag race was over.

Some crazy clipped wing -9 driver with 200 hp is bound to come along eventually. Of course, it wouldn't be a -9 then.
 
Clipped wing 200 hp angle valve RV-9 - Building

Since the TAS issue has been well hashed, I think the only thing left is CG.
We all know the angle valve is a pig compared to the parallel so one should move all optional items to the rear in order to compensate without having to add a lead weight in the tail.

Next comment applies only to nose draggers (not your case) and that is max weight on the nosewheel. My 7A is arguably on the lighter end of the spectrum of injected CS equiped A's but it dances very close to the 375 lb max weight on the nose when I am solo and low on fuel, few bags. A fairly common configuration on landing. I do not see how a heavier engined craft could escape busting that limit without a lead slug in the tail.

The RV9A limit is approx 325 lbs (reading from a graph) so the challenge is even greater.

This thread reminds me of a comic in SA from many years ago. Imagine a helmeted pilot wedged under the canopy of a BD-5 and cylinder heads from a big radial sticking out in a circle behind the cabin. The caption: "I ain't seen a design yet that couldn't be modified!"
 
Very true, but the comment I was referring to was.......

My Parrallel I-O360 with 9:5:1 Lycon Pistons pumped out 215HP on test

Sorry, my bad.

I believe the LyCon engines have cylinder head porting in addition to the 9.5:1 pistons. I have also heard multiple knowledgeable sources indicate the LyCon's Dyno produces somewhat optimistic numbers.

Skylor
RV-8
 
Back
Top