Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

IO360

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV9-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

n7hqk

Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14
Location: Cedar City, Utah

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:30 am Post subject: IO360

I'm getting to the point on my RV-9A that I need to start seriously  considering an engine...  My A&P with Lots of experiance (50  yrs+!) tells me that if at all possible, I should consider a 6 banger  and he recomends the IO360 Continental.  Anybody out there done  this?  Thought about it?  Pros, Cons, etc. will be welcome.

  

  

  



ISA-USA Inc. 

Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure

Ray D. Congdon

5515 N 4400 W

Cedar City, UT 84720 USA 

www.isa-usa-inc.com [quote][b]

_________________
Ray D. Congdon - N7HQK

Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:00 am Post subject: IO360

Ray:  

   

Here’s some feedback we gave a -10 builder about the possible use of the Conti IO-360 in that airframe.  Hope you find it helpful.  Not saying don’t do it, but just give you some things to consider in making your engine selection.  

   

The TCM IO-360 was originally developed for use in the Cessna Skymaster. TCM later modified the engine for use in several models of the Seneca. The engine runs smooth, but it tends to be a high maintenance engine. Cores are not readily available for o'h due to its limited use in the certified market, and it has lots and lots of parts so it's expensive to o'h (much less buy one new.) It is a bed mount (which most TCM engines are except for the 520/550 C models.) The engine also has a tendency to run hot, but that can be dealt with on an experimental.  

     

[i]Rhonda Barrett-Bewley[/i]  

[i]Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.[/i]  

[i]2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.[/i]  

[i]Tulsa[/i][i], OK   74115[/i][i][/i]  

[i](918) 835-1089 phone[/i]  

[i](918) 835-1754 fax[/i]  

[i]www.barrettprecisionengines.com [/i]  

        

  

From: owner-rv9-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray D. Congdon

 Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:29 AM

 To: rv9-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: IO360  

  

   

I'm getting to the point on my RV-9A that I need to start seriously considering an engine...  My A&P with Lots of experiance (50 yrs+!) tells me that if at all possible, I should consider a 6 banger and he recomends the IO360 Continental.  Anybody out there done this?  Thought about it?  Pros, Cons, etc. will be welcome.

 

 

 

 

 ISA-USA Inc. 

 Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure

 Ray D. Congdon

 5515 N 4400 W

 Cedar City, UT 84720 USA 

 www.isa-usa-inc.com    	  Quote: 	
		     	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3

      [quote][b]

mike(at)learningplanet.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: IO360

Don't listen. Go with what Van's recommends. 

* The -9A doesn't need that much power

* You are going to add a lot of build time trying to fit the bigger engine

* You lose a lot of usable load

* W&B will move forward, which will affect the flight characteristics, especially when flying alone with full fuel

* The -9A doesn't need that much power



Get a good 160hp Lycoming and if you need to get out of short fields or operate at altitude, put a C/S prop on it.



Regards,

Mike Schipper

RV-9A - N63MS - 90+ hours

www.my9a.com 

On Sep 22, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Ray D. Congdon wrote:

[quote]I'm getting to the point on my RV-9A that I need to start seriously  considering an engine...  My A&P with Lots of experiance (50  yrs+!) tells me that if at all possible, I should consider a 6 banger  and he recomends the IO360 Continental.  Anybody out there done  this?  Thought about it?  Pros, Cons, etc. will be welcome.

  

  

  



ISA-USA Inc. 

Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure

Ray D. Congdon

5515 N 4400 W

Cedar City, UT 84720 USA 

www.isa-usa-inc.com  	  Quote: 	
		  

com/Navigator?RV9-List

ntribution



	
[b]

trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: IO360

Do you consider an auto conversion? Do you know the  Eggenfellner Subaru H-6 ?

  

 Carlos Trigo

 RV-9A

 EGG Subaru H-6 engine (just a customer, no  commercial link)

 Still not flying

 [quote]   ---

sa300(at)uniserve.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: IO360

If you go to the io360 engine your CG will be to far forward. The engine is too heavy.

 

 Norman

 

 Ray D. Congdon wrote: [quote]I'm getting to the point on my RV-9A that I need to start seriously considering an engine...  My A&P with Lots of experiance (50 yrs+!) tells me that if at all possible, I should consider a 6 banger and he recomends the IO360 Continental.  Anybody out there done this?  Thought about it?  Pros, Cons, etc. will be welcome.

   

   

   

   

 ISA-USA Inc. 

 Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure

 Ray D. Congdon

 5515 N 4400 W

 Cedar City, UT 84720 USA 

 www.isa-usa-inc.com    	  Quote: 	
		  





  	
 [b]

LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:59 am Post subject: IO360

Hi Ray,

  

 Stick with what Van's recommends for the engine.  Lyc. 320.

  

 To smooth it out and optimize performance, use the constant  speed 3 blade MT propeller.

  

 MT Propeller has a new blade design available for the Lyc. 320  engine.  One of my customers was the first to try them out.

  

 We flew our planes to Oshkosh this year.  I could just barely stay  with him in a climb. His 150 hp RV-9A vs. my 180 hp RV-6A.  There wasn't  much difference in cruise speed, either.

  

 Regards,

 Jim Ayers

  

 In a message dated 09/22/2006 6:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  n7hqk(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I'm    getting to the point on my RV-9A that I need to start seriously considering an    engine...  My A&P with Lots of experiance (50 yrs+!) tells me that if    at all possible, I should consider a 6 banger and he recomends the IO360    Continental.  Anybody out there done this?  Thought about it?     Pros, Cons, etc. will be welcome.





ISA-USA Inc.    

Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure

Ray    D. Congdon

5515 N 4400 W

Cedar City, UT 84720 USA    

www.isa-usa-inc.com 	


 

  

  [quote][b]

ddcuster(at)wmv-co.us
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:59 am Post subject: IO360

You appear to be about where I am. 

  

 I looked at all the options. I am going to go with  a Mazda 13B rotary engine. 

  

 Pros: 

 1. It has a history of robustness and resistance to  catastrophic failure. NASA estimated that TBO would be 3000 hrs. Some vendors  say 1500 hrs. No one really knows. One fellow flew his at reduced  power (30 miles if memory serves) to a safe landing after loosing all the  coolant (forgot to tighten a hose clamp - overhaul was ~$500). For me, this  is the primary reason.

 2. It's firewall forward weight is about the same  as the Lycoming O320 that Van recommends. See attached chart (the chart includes  the PSRU but I am not sure what else). 

 3. The p-port version has been dyno tested at 240  hp! 

 4. It is smoother than any 4 or 6 cylinder piston  engine. No reciprocating parts. Much less vibration and shake.

 5. It runs happily on 100LL, 87 octane mogas, and,  with the proper fuel system gas with alcohol in it (Brazil requires 20%  alcohol). Some builders, including Tracy Crook, use mogas almost  exclusively.

 6. Low cost. Initial cost will depend a lot on how  much you use custom accessory parts. Bare reman engine is $2,000 to $3,000  depending on how many new parts are used. My local Mazda dealer quotes $2,000  plus $1,000 core charge (all parts are new or meet Mazda new  specs). Overhaul is typically $500 for parts. If you can find a used engine  you can overhaul it yourself.

  

 Cons:

 1. It uses about 10% more fuel for a given power.  But if you are willing to use mogas, currently more than $1 less  expensive, the fuel cost is actually less.

 2. You will have to educate yourself and make a lot  of component choices. Lots of help on the net, you will not be  alone.

 3. The apex seals are lubed with 2 cycle oil.  Either in the gas or by injection pump. I regard this as a  nuisance. 

 4. It has a reputation for being  exceptionally loud but that seems to be for the unmuffled version. I have  heard audio clips that allow you to hear the wind noise through the canopy using  a proper muffler. One builder says his is the quietest airplane at his airport.  Not sure what that means exactly.

  

 Conclusion: the robustness is worth the extra  effort and fuel. The power to weight is a bonus, particularly if you do mountain  flying at altitudes over 14,000 feet as I do (my home airport is at 8,000 feet).  Just don't exceed Vne.

  

 For more information start at: http://www.rotaryeng.net

  

 Doc Custer

Retired software engineer and sometime  Audiologist

Building RV9-A. Fuselage

 [quote]   ---

POWER_TO_WEIGHT2.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

66.54 KB

Viewed:

703 Time(s)

gerf(at)gerf.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: IO360

If you do go the O-320 route (or Lycoming 360), give some 

serious thought to going injected ... Bart at Aerosport will 

put together an IO-320 for you.  There's lots of advantages to 

injection over a carb .... check out Dan C's project 

documentation at http://www.rvproject.com - his reasoning and 

general installation is very well documented.



And a "been there, done that" comment - anything you do that 

diverts from the plans will cost you time - lottsa, lottsa 

time.  If I look at my experience I would say 5-10 times as much 

time per custom item.



g



(N696WG - endless wrap up work - are we done yet ?)



 	  Quote: 	
		   I'm getting to the point on my RV-9A that I need to start 

 seriously  considering an engine...  My A&P with Lots of 

 experiance (50  yrs+!) tells me that if at all possible, I 

 should consider a 6 banger  and he recomends the IO360 

 Continental.  Anybody out there done  this?  Thought about it?  

 Pros, Cons, etc. will be welcome.

   

   

   

 

 ISA-USA Inc. 

 Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure

 Ray D. Congdon

 5515 N 4400 W

 Cedar City, UT 84720 USA 

 www.isa-usa-inc.com


	


-- 

__g__



========================================================== 

Gerry Filby                                  gerf(at)gerf.com

----------------------------------------------------------

gbrasch

Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Arizona

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: IO360

Folks may want to consider the new ECI 340 "Stroker" engine for the -9.  I am, considering the high DA enviornment I live in, in Southern Arizona.  The engine seems like a lot of bang for the buck.  As a side note, a Van's engineer had previously told me there would be no harm in using a Lycoming 360 in a -9, providing limits were not exceeded, as the 360 only weighs about 8 lbs more that a 320.  Glenn Brasch, Tucson, -9a finish kit.



--

_________________
Glenn Brasch
RV-9A Flying
Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret)
Owner, "Airport Courtesy Cars" Website www.airportcourtesycars.com

PFolbrecht(at)starkinvest
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: IO360

Surprising any Van's engineer told you that.  The issue - this has come

up many times on various forums - is vibration.  A 360 vibrates more and

there have been cases of -9 empennage cracks in a matter of a couple

hundred hours.  It's not a good idea.



--

gbrasch

Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Arizona

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: IO360

You make a good point, but it's true, they did.  But this is why I am now looking at the ECI 340, lighter, more power, and hopefully smoother than a 360.  Glenn.



--

_________________
Glenn Brasch
RV-9A Flying
Medevac Helicopter Pilot (Ret)
Owner, "Airport Courtesy Cars" Website www.airportcourtesycars.com

fcs(at)jlc.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:54 am Post subject: IO360

Then again, my own RV-9A with a 165hp Eggenfellner Subaru balanced out at

0.02ips.  Try to achieve that level of smoothness with ANY lyco!  The 6 cyl

212hp is even smoother and weighs no more than an IO360.   Myths abound...



Gary



--------------------------------------------------------------------

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

stein(at)steinair.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: IO360

To dispell any myths about your Subie Install...how about sharing:



The finished weight of your RV9A,

Typical Fuel Burns/RPM's/MP's

Typical Speed's (TAS's).



Not meant as a flame at all, but just for an apples to apples comparision.

I'm sure many people would like to see your real world number to assist them

in making their decision when thinking about an alternative engine.



Also, just a quick side but if you were to bolt your prop directly to the

crank of your EGG and run it a prop RPM (vs. 3,4 or 5K RPM) then you'd see

IPS number closer in line with Lyco, conversely if we put a re-drive on a

Lyco it would go way down to.  Again, not meant as a point of argument, just

trying to make sure people have all the information as to quash any myths!

I for one have nothing against Sube's or other alternative engines.  It just

always seems that there are only two sides to this argument....love 'em or

hate 'em, and it really shouldn't be that way.  Objectivity would go a long

way - instead of subjectivity.



Cheers,

Stein.



[quote]--

fcs(at)jlc.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: IO360

 	  Quote: 	
		   The finished weight of your RV9A,


	


 1190 lbs, including full IFR stack, BMA EFIS, in-flight entertainment,

extensive upholstery, cherry wood trim, excellent cabin heat, autopilot,

dual batteries, fully redundant fuel and electrical systems, and of course

an outstanding powerplant.  



 	  Quote: 	
		   Typical Fuel Burns/RPM's/MP's


	


All "real world" measurments are posted on performance page of

www.eggenfellneraircraft.com (both 4 and 6 cyl).  



Typical 4-cyl (non-supercharged) cruise is 165/170mph at approx 7.5gph

mogas.  I've also posted miles per gallon and cost per mile and hour to

illustrate real world economy.



Fastest 4-way GPS for my own bird is 186mph at 7500'.    



No it won't hit VNE, because we have yet to figure out how to defeat the

laws of physics (we're working on it).  Dragging radiators through the air

will always come with a penalty, but all things considered, the tradeoff is

well worth it.  Read through the web site and you'll see things in a

different, real world, light. 



 	  Quote: 	
		   Not meant as a flame at all, but just for an apples to apples comparision.


	


No offense taken.  But the fact is, they are not the same animals, so aside

from raw numbers, the comparison is limited at best.  There are far more

factors to compare than performance alone.  Take a ride in one and you'll

see that very clearly.  This is why our pilots love them.  Total cost of

ownership cannot be beat.



 	  Quote: 	
		   if you were to bolt your prop directly to the crank of your EGG and run

it a 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   prop RPM (vs. 3,4 or 5K RPM) then you'd see IPS number closer in line

with Lyco
	




Not true at all.  The Subaru has 7 main bearings on an 18" crankshaft and

has no significant counterweights because of its symmetrical design.  It is

extraordinarily well balanced.  Also fact, our redrive contributes more

vibration (not the other way around as you suggest).  It has a floating

countershaft and four helical gears.  These show up very clearly on a

spectrograph.  But even with the engine running at twice the crankshaft RPM

as a conventional aircraft engine, we have achieved a very low level of

vibration, not to mention quiet.  It's hard to hang a price tag on the

value of quiet...



 	  Quote: 	
		   conversely if we put a re-drive on a Lyco it would go way down to.  


	


No, the added gears, shafts, and bearings all contribute their own

vibration signature.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Again, not meant as a point of argument, just trying to make sure people

have all 
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   the information as to quash any myths!


	


No problem.  It is particularly pleasing to let people quash their own

misconceptions.



 	  Quote: 	
		   It just always seems that there are only two sides to this

argument....love 'em or
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   hate 'em, and it really shouldn't be that way.


	


That typically equates to "know about them" and "guess about them". 

Nothing pleases me more than giving the unknowing a ride in my plane.  That

always does the trick.  With over 800 customers and as the second largest

supplier of engines for RV's, it's only a matter of time before more people

break away from the myths.  We are lining up a Subaru fly-by for Oshkosh

2007.  We've got around 40 customers so far.  Should be fun.



And by the way, for the hot-rodders out there, one of our customers flew

his 4-cyl supercharged RV-7A at 215mph and 17,999' (prior to being

intercepted).  Ask Dan C. about it.    



Great talking to you!



Gary Newsted



--------------------------------------------------------------------

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:51 am Post subject: IO360

A 2 blade propeller has a second order harmonic that isn't present with a 3  blade propeller.

  

 For smoothness, get a 3 blade propeller.  There are a number of  different ones available.  One would be the fixed pitch 3 blade Catto  prop.

  

 It also follows that if you really want smoothness, get a 4 blade  propeller.  This eliminates the third order harmonics of a 3 blade  propeller.

  

 Regards,

 Jim Ayers

  

 In a message dated 09/22/2006 11:20:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  gbrasch(at)earthlink.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    RV9-List message posted by: gbrasch(at)earthlink.net



You make a good    point, but it's true, they did.  But this is why I am now looking at the    ECI 340, lighter, more power, and hopefully smoother than a 360.     Glenn.

	


 

  

  [quote][b]

oliveira(at)frontiernet.n
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: IO360

The last RV newsletter from Vans had a comparison between IO 320 and  

Eggenfeller installations.



Worth reading.  I won't comment, but the number speak for themselves.



Take a look.



John Oliveira

90054 - still working on it

On Sep 23, 2006, at 4:47 PM, SteinAir, Inc. wrote:



[quote] 



 To dispell any myths about your Subie Install...how about sharing:



 The finished weight of your RV9A,

 Typical Fuel Burns/RPM's/MP's

 Typical Speed's (TAS's).



 Not meant as a flame at all, but just for an apples to apples  

 comparision.

 I'm sure many people would like to see your real world number to  

 assist them

 in making their decision when thinking about an alternative engine.



 Also, just a quick side but if you were to bolt your prop directly  

 to the

 crank of your EGG and run it a prop RPM (vs. 3,4 or 5K RPM) then  

 you'd see

 IPS number closer in line with Lyco, conversely if we put a re- 

 drive on a

 Lyco it would go way down to.  Again, not meant as a point of  

 argument, just

 trying to make sure people have all the information as to quash any  

 myths!

 I for one have nothing against Sube's or other alternative  

 engines.  It just

 always seems that there are only two sides to this argument....love  

 'em or

 hate 'em, and it really shouldn't be that way.  Objectivity would  

 go a long

 way - instead of subjectivity.



 Cheers,

 Stein.



> --

kerrjohna(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: IO360

1190# is about 100# heavier than my similarly equipped RV9 with 0320 without autopilot, necessary redundant battery, redundant fuel capacity.  Mine weighed in at 1063#.

  

 John Kerr

  

 [quote]-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: "fcs(at)jlc.net" <fcs(at)jlc.net> 



 	  Quote: 	
		   --> RV9-List message posted by: "fcs(at)jlc.net" 

 

 

 > The finished weight of your RV9A, 

 

 1190 lbs, including full IFR stack, BMA EFIS, in-flight entertainment, 

 extensive upholstery, cherry wood trim, excellent cabin heat, autopilot, 

 dual batteries, fully redundant fuel and electrical systems, and of course 

 an outstanding powerplant. 

 

 > Typical Fuel Burns/RPM's/MP's 

 

 All "real world" measurments are posted on performance page of 

 www.eggenfellneraircraft.com (both 4 and 6 cyl). 

 

 Typical 4-cyl (non-supercharged) cruise is 165/170mph at approx 7.5gph 

 mogas. I've also posted miles per gallon and cost per mile and hour to 

 illustrat  e real  world economy. 

 

 Fastest 4-way GPS for my own bird is 186mph at 7500'. 

 

 No it won't hit VNE, because we have yet to figure out how to defeat the 

 laws of physics (we're working on it). Dragging radiators through the air 

 will always come with a penalty, but all things considered, the tradeoff is 

 well worth it. Read through the web site and you'll see things in a 

 different, real world, light. 

 

 > Not meant as a flame at all, but just for an apples to apples comparision. 

 

 No offense taken. But the fact is, they are not the same animals, so aside 

 from raw numbers, the comparison is limited at best. There are far more 

 factors to compare than performance alone. Take a ride in one and you'll 

 see that very clearly. This is why our pilots love them. Total cost of 

 ownership cannot be beat. 

 

 > if you were to bolt your prop direc  tly to  the crank of your EGG and run 

 it a 

 > prop RPM (vs. 3,4 or 5K RPM) then you'd see IPS number closer in line 

 with Lyco 

 

 Not true at all. The Subaru has 7 main bearings on an 18" crankshaft and 

 has no significant counterweights because of its symmetrical design. It is 

 extraordinarily well balanced. Also fact, our redrive contributes more 

 vibration (not the other way around as you suggest). It has a floating 

 countershaft and four helical gears. These show up very clearly on a 

 spectrograph. But even with the engine running at twice the crankshaft RPM 

 as a conventional aircraft engine, we have achieved a very low level of 

 vibration, not to mention quiet. It's hard to hang a price tag on the 

 value of quiet... 

 

 > conversely if we put a re-drive on a Lyco it would go way down to. 

 

 No, the added gears, shafts, and bearings all cont  ribute  their own 

 vibration signature. 

 

 > Again, not meant as a point of argument, just trying to make sure people 

 have all 

 > the information as to quash any myths! 

 

 No problem. It is particularly pleasing to let people quash their own 

 misconceptions. 

 

 > It just always seems that there are only two sides to this 

 argument....love 'em or 

 > hate 'em, and it really shouldn't be that way. 

 

 That typically equates to "know about them" and "guess about them". 

 Nothing pleases me more than giving the unknowing a ride in my plane. That 

 always does the trick. With over 800 customers and as the second largest 

 supplier of engines for RV's, it's only a matter of time before more people 

 break away from the myths. We are lining up a Subaru fly-by for Oshkosh 

 2007. We've got around 40 customers so far. Should be fun. 

&gt  ; 
	


  NEW MA   [quote][b]

jef.vervoortw(at)telenet.
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: IO360

Last week I was offered a professionally overhauled (after 2000 hours)

Lycoming IO-360-L2A including all the accessories and exhaust.

This engine is rated at 160 hp by 2400 rpm, according the Lycoming booklet.



Any thoughts, besides the important 8 lbs more weight?



Jef Vervoort, Belgium, 9a ailerons & QB fuse waiting.



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----

Van: owner-rv9-list-server(at)matronics.com

[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server(at)matronics.com] Namens gbrasch(at)earthlink.net

Verzonden: vrijdag 22 september 2006 19:28

Aan: rv9-list(at)matronics.com

Onderwerp: Re: IO360






Folks may want to consider the new ECI 340 "Stroker" engine for the -9.  I

am, considering the high DA enviornment I live in, in Southern Arizona.  The

engine seems like a lot of bang for the buck.  As a side note, a Van's

engineer had previously told me there would be no harm in using a Lycoming

360 in a -9, providing limits were not exceeded, as the 360 only weighs

about 8 lbs more that a 320.  Glenn Brasch, Tucson, -9a finish kit.



--

fcs(at)jlc.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject: IO360

 	  Quote: 	
		   1190# is about 100# heavier than my similarly equipped RV9 with 0320

without autopilot, > necessary redundant battery, redundant fuel capacity. 
	


Mine weighed in at 1063#.



 Yep.  I'm sure I could have put her (and me ;^) on a diet if I wanted to,

but I like my creature comforts and gadgetry.  Not everyone builds for the

same reason.  A lot of my own extra heft is from non-essential

instrumentation (like a full primary six in addition to the EFIS plus AP

plus DVD plus CD plus...) and lots of paint, wood, and upholstery.  The

amount I contribute to a liquid cooled engine is about 45lbs which seems to

coincide with what other like-minded builders report.  Still, I wouldn't

change a thing (maybe less primer).      





--------------------------------------------------------------------

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV9-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum