What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Engine questions

tcoverst

Active Member
I am brand new and just starting to get my 9a kit ordered. So I have some time, but want to be able to keep my eye out for good used engines. I am sold on a Lycoming 320 overall. However, are there any resources where I can read about different models of this engine or does anyone have experience/preference to share with me. Specifically I am interested in knowing
1. Carbureted or Fuel injected
2. Can I get one bored for CS but use a fixed pitch at first until I decide if I want to upgrade?
3. Other key plusses or minuses to Lycoming 320 features.

Thanks for any thoughts or help you might have. I am happy to read existing threads too, I searched and did not find anything specific yet about this.
 
If I were building a 9, I'd be looking at installing the Titan IO-340.
Used engines can be a gamble, if you can swing it you won't regret getting a new engine.
 
As far as the prop goes, I would order the engine set up for a CS propeller, with the governor drive and oil transfer line installed. Order a hollow crankshaft set up for a fixed-pitch prop. The governor drive then gets a special cover plate that bypasses the governor oil pressure (I have seen it but I don't have the part number handy).
If you decide to switch to a CS prop, all you will have to do is pull the front plug out of the crankshaft, install the rear plug, remove the governor drive cover and install the governor, and install a prop control cable from the panel to the governor. You will probably have to make a new spinner and change the engine prop drive bushings.

Whether or not you want to do this depends on how sure you are of eventually doing the conversion. Otherwise, just make sure you at least get a hollow crankshaft.
 
What is the advantage of the Titan io-340 in your opinion? I assume it is fuel-injected and has a bigger displacement so probably more HP?
 
1. Carb or fuel injection: carbs are more common on the used market.
Carbs are cheaper than FI.
FI is easy to tune for LOP operation.
FI has no carb ice (but still need alternate air)
2. You need to look up the Lycoming specs for each specfic engine (the combination of letters/numbers after the 320). Some have hollow cranks and mounting pads for a governor, some don?t.
BTW, a CS prop is heavier than a fixed pitch. Conversion may mean moving some weight around for balance reasons, e.g., battery from firewall to aft of baggage, etc.
 
Good choice

I am pushing 600 hours on my 9A. It has a Superior IO-320 with dual Pmags and a Whirlwind constant speed. Previously I put 250 hours on an RV4 with an O-320, regular mags, and a Prince P-tip prop.

The combination of Injection and C/S makes for efficient LOP cruise and the best climb performance. It also makes it easier to land because the prop acts like a big brake.

The downside is cost and hot start issues.

The opposite applies to the carbed fixed pitch.

Big decision - hope this helps.
 
I am pushing 600 hours on my 9A. It has a Superior IO-320 with dual Pmags.

The downside is cost and hot start issues.

Hot starts don?t need to be a problem and are no reason to shy away from going with fuel injection. IMHO.

Bevan
 
You guys are all so helpful. Some really good thoughts here. I am off to research Lycoming 320 models! Leaning toward fuel injection. May stick with fixed pitch. Thanks
 
1020 hours on my 9A with an 0-320 and Hartzell CS. I have been happy with the overall performance and the c of g is just where I want it.
If I was doing it again I would consider an I0-360 with a Whirlwind CS prop (heavier engine, lighter prop).The main benefit would be a higher possible TAS (LOP). I have not run the numbers but I would think with a similar empty weight and c of g to my existing combination. You would most likely be aware that Vans does not recommend more than 160hp for the 9.

Fin.
9A
 
You guys are all so helpful. Some really good thoughts here. I am off to research Lycoming 320 models! Leaning toward fuel injection. May stick with fixed pitch. Thanks

FWIW, I am extremely happy with my fixed pitch Catto 2-blade (70x70) on an IO-320-D1A. Less weight, complexity, cost & maintenance than CS, and solo I can climb at 1500 fpm on a cool day with full tanks. No issues with cg with this lighter prop on my -9A, and that's with a lightweight SkyTec starter.

I think if I had to get out of a 1500' strip with 50 ft trees to clear I'd want a CS prop, but with the type of flying I do, the FP is perfect. Goes great with the "simplicate and add lightness" philosophy!
 
I would stay away from the (I)O-340.

My -9; started life with a 135 HP O-290-D2 and it was a great engine. Unfortunately I it died after i ran it into a trailer someone left in the middle of a taxiway.

I then had the choice of an O-320, O-340, or O-360. The 340 was crazy expensive, more than the 360, which puts out more piwer and only weighs ~20 lbs more. With the O-360 (~190 hp) and Catto prop, My engine and prop combination is still lighter than an O-320 with a fixed pitch metal prop and a LOT lighter than an O-320 with a metal constant speed prop.

My preference is a carburetor for easy starting. With dual P-mag electronic ignitions I can easily run lean of peak, so that hasn't ben an issue.

Yes, make sure your engine can accept a CS prop but you can start with a fixed pitch prop. The -9 really doesn't need a CS prop as it climbs amazingly well. Not as well as a CS prop, but much better than any other fix pitched plane out there.

The good thing is you can start with a carb and fixed pitch prop and change them later, if you want.
 
Last edited:
I would stay away from the (I)O-340.

I then had the choice of an O-320, O-340, or O-360. The 340 was crazy expensive, more than the 360, which puts out more piwer and only weighs ~20 lbs more.

So folks should stay away from the 340 because you didn't like the price?
Titan currently list the 340 for the same price as the 360. A 20lb saving with the same 180 HP as the 360 sounds pretty attractive. Maybe thats why quite a few OEM's are now using it.
 
As with all such RV things, mission and wallet drive the decisions. I offer that any plan on carb now injection later, or FP now CS later is not a great idea as you end up spending a lot more money, and may need to modify the cowl (as I found out).

I got an O-360-A1A for my first RV (that was back before Van?s offered a 180 HP IO-360). I never took the carb out of the box, just sold it and installed AirFlow Performace injection. After experiencing carb icing on a Texas Taildragger I made the hard decision to never build with a carb. The AirFlow Performace has been flawless for 15 years.

I also installed a FP prop - mainly because that was what one of the younger Van?s reps during Oshkosh 1999 recommended (I was building but not flying at that point). As I?ve told anyone that listens, this was the one huge mistake for this build. The prop was a poor compromise across the operating envelope, but as again with all such RV things the plane was still a blast to fly. After 300 hours or so I back fitted a nice Hartzell BA prop. This one change transformed the plane into a real first class performer. The first time I hit the throttle on takeoff I knew it was worth the money. But, my main mission was and still is high efficiency cruise. The CS prop yielded faster cruise with less less fuel burn than I could ever get with the FP prop.

If your mission is around the patch and the weekend $100 hamburger, do as your wallet dectates. If you are building and IFR cross country machine, injection and CS prop are what you want - even if you have to save your pennies and dimes until you can afford it.

Carl
 
So folks should stay away from the 340 because you didn't like the price?
Titan currently list the 340 for the same price as the 360. A 20lb saving with the same 180 HP as the 360 sounds pretty attractive. Maybe thats why quite a few OEM's are now using it.

Walt,

Last I looked, which was when I bought my O-360 some years ago, the 340 was closer to 170 hp and the O-360 was around 190 how. (They may have changed the numbers on the website since then.) The 340 was something like $2,000 more than the 320 but the 360 was only $500 more than a 320. Again, I haven't looked up the numbers recently and doing so on my phone is a pain.

As much as I like the 340 on paper, it is an odd ball engine. For me, the 360 has been the right choice.
 
Sorry been out of the loop on things for a while. Has Vans recommended the 180 hp lycoming for the 9/9A or how did that come about? I thought it was just 118-160hp range.
 
Sorry been out of the loop on things for a while. Has Vans recommended the 180 hp lycoming for the 9/9A or how did that come about? I thought it was just 118-160hp range.

Vans doesn't recommend more than 160 HP for the RV-9. They have valid engineering reasons for that.

A ton of builders have installed 180 HP O-360's, so there's empirical data showing it might be OK to do so.

This is experimental aviation. You get to decide which choice to make. ;-)
 
Simple

Ok i may be wierd but i want to keep mine simple. So Vans io320 with a Catto fixed pitch prop. This will allow cs prop in the future( all factory injected can be used for cs) and the Catto is a lightweight and inexpensive prop with good performance. My money is going in the panel. The price for the injected engine is almost the same as carbed. Also the carb version can be run slightly lean of peak, but the injected allows for greater lean of peak for max efficiency. I plan to be an IFR cruiser so effieceny and reliability are key to me.
And for IFR want to minimize chance of carb ice. JMHO.
 
Hey John,

You'll love the Catto. Mine's a 70x70 with the nickel leading edges. With a 160-hp IO-320, you should see 153-155 KTAS at 2700 rpm, with a fuel burn of about 7.5 gph. That's what I typically see when cruising at 7500 to 9500 ft. I did a few top speed runs at right around 8000' DA, and it hit book numbers...170 KTAS, but was spinning at 2850 rpm. I typically try to never exceed 2750. Prop is rated to 3200, BTW.

Make sure you've got your paint scheme in mind when you order, because Catto will paint the prop to match.

In the 3 years that have elapsed since I bought mine, I bet the Cattos have improved from an efficiency standpoint...they never stop tweaking 'em!
 
There is a 320 series that is worth avoiding. I think it the H series, but not sure. Also, you will need a sump that has the carb attachment in the middle of hte bottom surface. Many are horizontal, facing aft or on the botton very far aft. Neither of these will work with an A model.

Larry
 
Back
Top