What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Ready for the IO360 Question:180 or 200?

N

N23J

Member
I am ready for the Engine choice and there are a lot of opinions. They questions I need to understand is if I use the 200hp IO 360:
1. Will I be inclined to have cooling problems
2. Will the cowl fit or is there major modifications
(leading to cooling problems)

The extra speed and climb performance is alway's nice:cool: but airplane book numbers have alway's been questionable in my opinion:rolleyes:. Since I have never owned an RV before and have only flown one twice I can't say I know what the truth is here. I live in the desert and will be using this airplane to break up my commute with my 310 between Nevada and California. I have 4000 ft of paved runway so the extra HP may just be a bragging rights or a resale issue for me. The numbers show great performance with the 180 so I am not sure if I need that extra HP. I will be saving fuel costs over using the 310 so a little extra fuel is no big deal. By the way I am 6ft 2 inches and 220 lbs if that adds to the equation. Anyones opinion would be helpful here. Thanks:)
 
your choice ;)

N23J said:
I am ready for the Engine choice and there are a lot of opinions. They questions I need to understand is if I use the 200hp IO 360:
1. Will I be inclined to have cooling problems
2. Will the cowl fit or is there major modifications
(leading to cooling problems)
Click to expand...

1 - The angle valve engine might actually be easier to cool since it has oil squirts on the cylinders... you get a bit of extra heat in the oil but that is much easier to deal with than hot cylinder temps.

2 - No issues with cowl fit.

The best value is defiantly with a standard 180hp parallel valve engine but extra horsepower is always nice. For an A model less weight on the nose is pretty important...
 
Thanks Stephen

I reviewed your profile and I see you chose a 390. Can you explain? Thanks for your response. it helps
 
Although I don't have first-hand experience with an Angle-Valve in my airplane, I know many who do....and while they like the extra horsepower, I would say (anecdotally) that from reports here over the years, you have to do more tinkering with oil cooler configurations to get rid of the extra heat.

The other thing to consider with the angle valve is the price of jugs - parallels are much less expensive if you need replacements.

Paul
 
but airplane book numbers have alway's been questionable in my opinion.
Click to expand...

But you have not had an RV before have you?

Vans do the numbers. End of story.

Paul makes a good point above.

The 180HP is far more bullet proof and just a better option all round. Weight, cost etc etc.

DB:)
 
Plus...

I'm certain there are several well built paralell valve 360's out there that are pumping out 190+ horsepower. Many of the builders can tune fuel injection, flow match cylinders, etc to juice out a little extra hp - without having to up compression much, if at all.
 
I have an 8 with an angle valve engine. I love it. No such thing as too much HP.

Drawbacks.. Obviously, weight. The angles are 34 lbs heavier. Battery in back will help. I have a WW200 prop which is 19 lbs lighter than a Hartzell so not really a big deal. I've never had cooling issues. Oil cooler is mounted on firewall and run 190. CHT'S on mine run in the low 300's ROP and 280's LOP.

I've got 1700 hours on mine and just got rebuilt cylinders to top it. I ha chrome and just got tired of pouring oil in every 4 hours. Like Paul said, cylinders cost twice as much as parallel valves, but 1st run rebuilts can be found for $1100.00, the same price as new parallels. A new 200 HP engine is about 10 grand more than a 180 retail.

Dollar and performance wise, it just makes more sense to use the parallel engine. I fly with mostly 180hp engines and I don't have that much of an edge because how many HP does it take to haul around the extra weight?

Whichever way you go, you'll be happy. Believe the numbers. They really do perform like they say.
 
One other factor is whether you're building a taildragger or nosegear. The heavier weight on the nose will benefit your CG with the taildragger and need managing with the nose gear. Just something to keep in mind as you build and plan where things go.

All Best

Jeremy Constant
 
A long time ago an old FAA maintenance inspector told me if you want long term reliability go with the 180 HP and a solid crank shaft. He had lots of experience having run a shop before joining the FAA.

That being said, some will prefer the extra HP no matter. My feeling is the extra HP is nice but somewhat offset by the extra weight. Also, I found the standard 8.5:1 compression engine can easily be tweaked up to 187 HP or higher with more compression. BPE does it as part of their assembly service by balancing parts and making sure the engine is smooth mechanically and air flow wise. I am partial to BPE so take that for what it is worth. They do good work.

It goes without saying, those who choose the angle valve engine invariably go with a CS prop also - another weighty item, at least 40 pounds over the Catto. The angle valve engined airplane can easily weigh 100 pounds more than with a stock 180 and FP prop. It will perform better but not by that much in my book. The up front extra cost is also a major factor. The current experimental angle valve 200 HP engine from Vans costs $12100 more than the standard 180.

I prefer to keep it simple, these airplanes are great right out of the box without the expensive options.
 
I have a 7 with the 200hp angle valve, had some cooling issues, but worked them out with a larger SW oil cooler. Have 850 hrs on it. Love the power. If I was doing it again I would op for the 180 HP. Less money and now with the FAA looking at easing the medical for a 180 hp and one passenger it makes me think I might fly longer. I'm now doing the 1 yr medical thing because of type 2 diabetes. The 7 with a 180 is still a real fast high performing plane. It is apossibility that a 180 hp plane will be a better resale because of the self certify medical if it become reality. Just my 2 cents worth
 
You will get an amazing amount of different opinions on your question in
this forum. One that continues to resurface is to build as light as your
mission allows. I've built two and in both cases installed a O-360 A1A
bought new from Van's with a constant speed Props. Using Van's oil cooler
and baffle kits have resulted in a cool running bullet proof combo. Aviation
Consumer has a couple of recent articles on engines and cylinders which I
recommend you read. I won't agrue the pro's and cons of fuel injection vrs
carbs or the fixed/constant speed prop never ending debate. I know what
i wanted (which is not the same for everybody) and built it my way. With no
regrets on my setup, you need to decide what you want. A fire breathing
rocket ship (then you will have two!) or a just a rocket ship. Stop by the
hangar sometime. I'm on the south side of the same row now.
 
I've went with the angle valve engine primarily because I got a good deal on a fresh overhaul from a reputable shop. As has been said before, CHT is usually not an issue with the angle valve (much larger cooling fins) but oil temp may be. It seems the parallel valve engines have the oposite issues; low oil temp and high CHTs.
 
Wow What a Response!

Thanks everyone for you opinions. Funny you should reply Tom. I was just talking to Jerry about this and he said I should give you a call. I will come by soon.

I meant no offense to anyone about the numbers. I admitted in the beginning that I have never owned an RV before. Thanks again for everyones responses:)
 
Ironflight said:
Although I don't have first-hand experience with an Angle-Valve in my airplane, I know many who do....and while they like the extra horsepower, I would say (anecdotally) that from reports here over the years, you have to do more tinkering with oil cooler configurations to get rid of the extra heat.

The other thing to consider with the angle valve is the price of jugs - parallels are much less expensive if you need replacements.

Paul
Click to expand...

Jay Pratt says the same thing. Paul and Jay are smart hombre's about this stuff. So much so that Jay just look at me sideways whan I said angle valve and caused me right then and there to set on a parallel valve. Now I AM NOT speaking from experience just that of very experienced others. FWIW...
 
N23J said:
...I live in the desert and will be using this airplane to break up my commute with my 310 between Nevada and California. I have 4000 ft of paved runway so the extra HP may just be a bragging rights or a resale issue for me....
Click to expand...

Sounds like your mission is cruise flight, not weekend yanking and banking. If so then you will not notice the extra weight of the C/S prop and angle valve. Even IF you plan on yanking and banking, you are not likely to notice any difference unless you fly a lot of other RV's and generate a basis for comparison.

That said, if you're paying retail for both engines, go with the 180... You likely will not realize a favorable bang for the buck during your ownership, nor in resale value with the more expensive engine.

So I'd say it comes down to upfront cost. All else equal, go big. As said earlier, there is no such thing as too much HP. I fly a 200HP -8, and ever since I flew a 310 HP Rocket a few weeks ago, I can hardly even look at the -8 anymore.
 
IO-375

Flaude said:
I am extremely happy with my 375 aerosport engine (195 HP). great engine!
Click to expand...

Having taken in a great deal from the wisdom which has flowed from this thread, I am wondering what experiences there are out there with the low compression (or high for that matter) IO-375. I have had preliminary discussions with Aerosport Power and they tell me that it (195 hp low compression) is the same weight as an IO-360 and has the same architecture so almost everything from Vans fits. It seems to me that extra hp (almost as much as the 200 hp angle valve firecracker) in a low stressed parallel valve and well priced engine could work well. (In my case in an 8)

I would be very interested in what props are being hung on the IO-375 and how that is coming out re C of G in the RV-8 as well.
Thanks,
Gerry in Oz.
 
I chose the 180

Don't forget that the AOPA/EAA medical waiver request set the upper limit at 180 HP.

-John
 
Yes, but who...

sets the "official" horsepower? Let's say you choose the IO-375 that "they" say is 195 HP... As the builder, I would think one could say "180 HP" or whatever...
What would the data plate say? Anything the builder wants, I would surmise...


FWIW, YMMV, etc.
 
Hi Group, I'm new to both Experimental and Vans in general but I was wondering could fuel factor into the decision as well? My cardinal RG with 200HP IO360 engine requires 100LL, but the lower compression O360 180HP can run on mogas if I'm not mistaken?

Tom
 
Tom's Fuel Question

Since I started this thread I will answer your question Tom. Oh by the way welcome VAF:). Fuel is not the determining factor for me. As I stated at the beginning of this thread I have had the privilege of owning a Cessna 310 for the past 10 years and my 7A will be used to break up my commute from Nevada to California. I fly over 200+ hours a year:D Using a 200HP or 180HP is going to be fuel savings no matter what.:cool: And the RV will almost keep pace with my 310 down low.:cool: The trip time in my normal commute will be negligible.

My question was based on heat concerns and others experience in that area. I want a turn key no fuss airplane. A lot of people are tinkerers and they love to tinker with their airplanes. There nothing wrong with that. That's how the enjoy flying and you can get a lot of info from them. That is just not me. I prefer, simplicity, dependability, and sticking with systems I already know well.

VAF members gave lots of opinions and advice. Their information was helpful for me to clarify and balance those concerns mentioned above(simplicity dependability airplane mission).

I have made my desision to go with mattituck tmxo IO360 with a little extra work on the cylinders. This will be a parallel valve with Superior parts. I will be using electronic ignition for one mag and standard for the other.

I have Superior Millennium engines on my 310 which I ran well past TBO once. I run lean of peak and expect to do the same with this engine. I clearly understand that a Continental and Lycoming engines and injection systems are different so I will stop comparing. Just because I can do it successfully with Continentals does not mean I will be as sucsessful out of the gate with the other. I am sure there will be a learning curve.

I expect to get fuel burn around 9 possibly 8+ around 170knots + depending on alt and power setting and fly right past TBO. That is the only reason(lean of peak) I chose an injected engine, otherwise a carburetor would be my preferred choice.

I have fussed over this long enough, I pulled the trigger:eek:, and I am not going to look back. As Chino Tom said "I am going to do this my way". That is truly the best advice you can give someone. I trust myself and I try to make decisions with the purpose and aircraft mission in mind. Plus you can't go wrong with light motor and a CS prop:D

Thanks everyone for you knowledge, opinions, and advice-Alan
 
jjconstant said:
One other factor is whether you're building a taildragger or nosegear. The heavier weight on the nose will benefit your CG with the taildragger and need managing with the nose gear. Just something to keep in mind as you build and plan where things go.

All Best

Jeremy Constant
Click to expand...
Not so fast. The -7A tends to be tail heavy because the main gear are behind the CG. Thus the angle valve IO-360 would work better with the nose wheel RV.

propsync said:
Hi Group, I'm new to both Experimental and Vans in general but I was wondering could fuel factor into the decision as well? My cardinal RG with 200HP IO360 engine requires 100LL, but the lower compression O360 180HP can run on mogas if I'm not mistaken?

Tom
Click to expand...
Tom,

See this thread for the answer to your question.
 
Thanks Bill, But the Decision is Made!

Thanks Bill. I am aware of the concern and I appreciate your concern for my decision:). I have talked in person with builders about CG and weight issues. One in particular who has built several RV's (of all models) not to mention several Rocket(and he has owned several models). I am using the right engine and CS propeller for my mission, of that I am certain of. I have done the math. I will have a very broad envelope. I am a big guy 6'2" 250 pound right now and I will be down to 220 when the plane is finished. The angle valve is a great recomendation but not for my aircraft role. Heavy on the @#$ is fast:D Plus keeping the nose up on landing is important for these aircraft(hence as you fly and drain fuel the CG moves aft). Thanks again for your concern:)
 
Last edited:
N23J said:
I have made my desision to go with mattituck tmxo IO360 with a little extra work on the cylinders. This will be a parallel valve with Superior parts. I will be using electronic ignition for one mag and standard for the other.
.....
I expect to get fuel burn around 9 possibly 8+ around 170knots + depending on alt and power setting and fly right past TBO. That is the only reason(lean of peak) I chose an injected engine, otherwise a carburetor would be my preferred choice.
...........
Plus you can't go wrong with light motor and a CS prop:D

Thanks everyone for you knowledge, opinions, and advice-Alan
Click to expand...

Excellent choice. When I race I wish for more ponies to whip, but that's only 5-10hrs/yr. the rest of the time I'm just hopping around enjoying life. My wallet didn't allow for the big angle valve fire breather and ended up with a runout O-360 A1A and rebuilt it into IO-360 Lycoming with 9to1 pistons, AFP FI unit and dual Pmags. I have had cooling issues...but am certain it is due to the James cowling. Run a SW 8406 cooler and now all is ok heat wise. Flat out my -7 will run 190kts TAS... the fuel burn scorches my wallet. But here's the good part...I flight plan for 9gph at 175kts or 8.5 at 170kts AND I beat those numbers every time. My trip to TX 2 weeks ago. 1160nm+ and I used 53gals in 7.2 hr chock to chock. so that makes it about 25 smpg. Coming home I used 57gals and 7.4hrs.

Not too shabby on a rebuilt little parallel valve Lyc.
 
Last edited:
200 hp, Sigh...

I have an O-360-A1A with 8.5:1 pistons, a 72" Hartzell blended airfoil prop with F7496 blades and a stock Vans Cowl with a lot of 1 of a kind lower cowl baffling but originally I had no extra baffling and a 72" Hartzell non-blended airfoil prop with F7666 blades. According to Vans prop test results published in RVator and my personal test the BA prop is 3 kts faster. My cross country fuel burn which I do not try to economise is ~10 gph, the same as it was in my O-360-A4M solid crank with a Sensenich FP prop in the Piper Archer II that we owned for 22 years and flew to work every day for 15 years. In races I plan for a fuel burn of 14 gph. Our plane is a RV-6A and even with an extra 18" wing span for tip tanks it flew 170.67 kts top speed at 6000 ft density altitude "right out of the box." With several years of personal modification I have achieved a top speed of 184.4 kts with custom wing tips, tip tanks removed, steps removed, fresh air vents covered, nav antenna removed, etc. On cross country pleasure trips I run WOT, 2450 rpm, ~100 F rich of peak and flight plan for GS 150 kts and 10 gph. In races I beat the factory entered Columbia 350 and 400 at Wichita, the factory Mooney Acclaim at Texoma and a Beech Barron at Taylor - definitly at low altitude. However, I look at Brian's 190 kts and I can only wish.

The engine was the largest for the airplane when we bought the kit. I would definitly like more horsepower. Since I only fly SARL races, 360 cu.in. engines are the largest allowed in the RV Blue class, the 200 hp IO-360 has a lot of appeal. The RV Gold class top limit is 390 so a 375 has no appeal if I were to jump up a class.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top