Which engine
 

New to the forum and just wanted to thank you all for making it such a great database of info.

I have spent a long time looking into which aeroplane to buy/build. I thought I would end up with the Australian Jabiru J400, as it has 4 seats and is relativley cheap.

Then I did reseach and although it can carry 4 people, the likleyhood of finding such small/light people is unlikley. (Not planning on any kids for a while)

Then I had my eye set on the RV7a, but it seems unlikley it will ever get the aerobatics certification in the UK due to its Spin characteristics.

So now Im left with the RV9a. Pretty much the same as the RV7, apart from the smaller engine and being more of a tourer.

Now the problem is finding a suitable engine. Can't seem to find much.
So far I seen the GNX 320, a Aero Sport Power O-320 and Mattituck.

I have chosen "experimental" engines, due to me wanting a brand new engine, as apposed to an overhalled Conti/Lycoming. I hear Superior are/were thinking of doing a 320.

Has anyone got any other ideas/suggestions.

The other reasons I have chosen/looking into the above engines is due to them having a possibilty of having inverted oil system and Injection

Welcome to the forum! I know the folks on here will do their best to be helpful.

First, a question: It sounds like aerobatics is out of the question, so I have to ask, why do you want inverted capability for a -9, which was not intended for aerobatics?

Both Mattituck & Aerosport have good reputations & I doubt you will find much of a savings with someone else. You might think about this: As soon as you start flying with that new engine, it will be a used engine. I'm second guessing from your post, but it sounds like money is an issue. If I am right, you might want to rethink the question of a rebuilt. At Aerosport, they build new engines just the same way as rebuilts. They can make the same mistakes on either kind, so new is no guarantee of perfect assembly work. Haven't heard of the GNX 320 so I can't comment.

Talked with a guy at Van's last weekend who had a Subaru in his RV & with the reduction drive & everything else he could have had a good Lycoming rebuild that would have weighed 50 lbs. less, so at least for me, I don't see that as a desireable option. He did say he saved a gallon per hour on fuel & burned car gas, which might be more of an issue in the UK.

I know others on this forum will have some better info.

RScott
RV-9A very slow build wings

Lyc
 

My 2 cents worth.

I have a friend with a supercharged Eggenfellner engine in his new RV 7, a beautiful airplane. He only does 165 MPH or so at 35 inches MP!! I saw this myself because I was in the airplane giving him a BFR. He also only burned 7.2 GPH from Memphis to Ga averaging 162 MPH (his usual speed) so I told him that I just didn't believe that he was making the horsepower or he'd be burning more gas. His performance seems like there's maybe 140 HP or less.

I can't understand the big problem with having a Lyc. There are thousands of them worldwide with a proven record....oh well....to each his own,

Welcome to the forum,
Regards,

I forgot to mention that it is possible to get aerobatic certification for the RV9a, but not the RV7a. Hence the need/want for the inverted oil system.

As to the 2nd hand/rebuilt engine, I agree that they are the same, but in the past been unlucky when buying such things. I would just feel reassured and at ease with a new engine. But might still be persuaded should a cheaper alternative come along. But for the time being, the differance in cost between a new superior and a rebuilt Lyc 320. i would pay the little extra and get new.

RScott, thanks for the reply. I will give Mattituck & Aerosport a call as well and see what sort of money they would be. I have since found out that superior have launched the 320 and have already sold 4 in the UK (Another reason for superior is they have an agent in the UK, just up the road from me, so would have no probs with warrenty issues, as the have 3 years)

Wow! That's really strange! Even if you can get aerobatic certification for the RV9a, it is not designed for aerobatics. Van's never intended the 9's for aerobatics and it was not engineered for those loads. I doubt the certification alone will hold it together if you overstress the airframe.

It sounds like you have a real disconnect between reality and bureaucracy on that side of the pond. (I thought it was bad here...)

It's none of my business, but I would be very hesitant to pursue this path if I were you.

Cheers,
Guy

Its not so bad
 

The beurochracy in the UK that is....But flying anything will cost you an arm and a leg.

A couple of thoughts from an Ex pat Brit...Why not build the 7a get it certified and then do any aerobatics you want?...Who's gonna know?

The exchange rate is that you you will (should) get an incredible deal right now....Last time I looked the rate was $1.85 to 1pound...It used to run in the 1.3 to 1.6 range.

Both of the Lycoming clones (there really is only 2 types...an ECi or a Superior engine, the rest is dependant on who assembles the motor.

Both of the clone engines will run quite happily on premium autofuel.

I never got an adequate answer to convice me that a water cooled engine in an RV was as fast...I.e did not produce significantly more cooling drag.

I have yet to see an engine fly as fast sipping as little fuel as a Lycoming when run lean of peak. I don't believe the injection system on any readily available will allow LOP operation.

Having flown 400 hours behind an auto conversion, I finally saw the light and stuck a Lycoming clone in mine.

Frank

********I don't believe the injection system on any readily available will allow LOP operation.******


I meant any automotive conversion not being able to be run LOP

Frank

Aerobatic certification for the 9A
 

I'm in the UK and I'm sure that you'll never get aerobatic certification for the 9A. Several people are pushing to get the 7 certified though, so that may happen.

I can't help much on your engine choice as I'm just about to hang one of those strange Wilksch diesel things on the front of my fuselage. That probably makes my engine opinions suspect! ;)


Dave

Looks like I have been mislead along the way. Been told the "A" after the model was for aerobatic, and was told only the 7A has not been certified.

So what does the "A" actually stand for?

Guess it means Im back to the 7a, But it would be so tempting to do aero's, knowing the aerplane is more than capable.

This explains why I have only found articles about the 7a's aerobatic capabilities

Dave, can you tell me more about your diesel lump. What sort of Hp, PFA?? Are they happy with it. What does it weigh? Where will you be sourcing it?

Thank you all for clearing the "A" up

A is the designation for a nosewheel.

Used when there is an option or tail or trainer--oops, I mean nose wheel

Note the 3 and 4 only come in tail, and the 10 only in nose, thus no -a for them.

Mike