I'll take a crack at a few of your above notes with my usual "no holds barred". Please don't take offense at my comments if they sound harsh, I'm just not good at sugar coating or being a politician! That being said, it almost sounds like your mind might be made up, and if so I sincerely wish you good luck. Happy Holidays,
Stein.
speyers said:
Here is an answer to some of the questions;
1) 6 cylinders are smoother than 4.
True to an extent, but getting them both being well balanced it's honestly hard to tell.
speyers said:
2) If nobody has done it so it would be fun to be the first.
Depends on what you mean by "fun". If Tons of extra time, extra pain in the rear fabricating your own mount, baffling, intake/FAB system, oil cooling, and maybe modifying the cowl if "fun", the that's great! And...these things usually end up costing more money as well.
speyers said:
3) That is the great thing about being "experimental" if I wanted to do what everyone else does, I would buy a C-172.
Once again, depends on how much you want to be "experimental". Not too much if you settled on the RV...I'm guessing because they are a great bird!
speyers said:
4) The RV is already the closest thing to a production A/C that you can get, I want to keep the "experimenting" in EXPERIMENTAL.
So...the question is if you detest the masses building something similar, why pick it and not just "Experiment" from the start? I'm guessing the obvious attraction to you was the unbeatable performance of the RV's, affordability, etc.. There is a reason so many people have built them you know.....and....those combinations of performance, cost, etc... have come from the majority running a proven combination of systems.
speyers said:
5) I want to us MOGAS to keep costs down
This is an option with nearly every engine you put on the RV's, including both the -320's and -360's so that's a moot point.
speyers said:
6) I am an A&P and thus and not worried about overhaul cost
Another moot point. It doesn't matter whether you're an A&P or not, anyone can overhaul and engine for their experimental. The parts will cost you the same no matter who overhauls your engine, A&P or not. Parts for current production Lycosaurs are cheap, parts for the out of production 300's are going up all the time.
speyers said:
7) The RV-9 would be the airframe of choice for a 145HP engine, sipping 6 GPH in cruise while giving you an honest 120 KT cruise speed.
Or, you could put a -235 on the front of it, go just a lot faster on even less fuel burn....like several other -9 drivers have done! Check Van's Website for performance figures with the 118hp or 135hp engine installed.
I really don't mean to sound like I'm flaming you, I'm not. Just that it's never as simple as it sounds using a totally different setup on these RV's with much success or improved performance/cost. Anyway, if you love tinkering and don't mind adding a lot of extra time and probably money to your project then jump in. If your goal is to get the airplane done and in the air, the choice of that engine will certainly work against that goal.