![]() |
Make sure it is an A1D6. The A1B6 as in the C177RG does not have a front governor pad. The engine MUST have a front governor pad (if you are going to be using a constant speed prop).
|
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ariants#IO-360 (And, I'll sheepishly admit that it was another Wikipedia page that I used to determine that the 177RG uses the -A1B6D. :o) EDIT: Okay, I think I must have referenced an incorrect post that it was the -A1B6 in the -14 prototype. The Wiki page I reference above also indicates that it's the -A1D6 that has the front governor, not the -A1B6. At the same time, I've seen multiple references to the IO-360 from the Mooneys and Cardinal RGs being suitable engines for the -14/-14A. And, more hearsay, that the IO-390 being used to re-engine those same airplanes. I bow out of the discussion now. I'm obviously passing on too much bum info! :o |
Quote:
"One of the most important red flags is the location of the propeller governor. The IO-360-A1D6, like the IO-390, has the governor mounted on the front left side of the crankcase. Many, probably the majority, of IO-360s have governors mounted on the rear accessory case, where it physically interferes with the steel engine mount/nose gear of the RV-14A and causes many ducting/wiring/routing problems for the RV-14. From what we can tell, it is not feasible to convert a rear governor engine to the forward governor configuration. We recommend that RV-14 builders avoid IO-360s with rear-mounted governors." The full version here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...21827541221519 |
RV Engine Choices
Van?s Forum is filled with pages of discussion about which engine to buy, because builders want either a cheaper engine or a more modern engine than the Lycoming IO-390 sold by Vans. I too have been tempted by either the Titan 370 or the Superior XP-400 because they are advertised as being more advanced than the IO-390 as they come equipped with Nitrided Cylinders, counterbalanced crankshafts, roller tappets, weight matched components (pistons, rods, etc) and burn premium grade ethanol free mogas.
In addition Superior and Titan would let you build your own engine in their engine school, which would enable you to maintain it. However, after Continental bought Titan, they did away with engine school, but Superior will still allow you to observe or assist your engine build. Both engines are significantly cheaper than Vans Lycoming. There are many arguments against using these alternative engines. The Titan attaches it?s constant speed propeller governor on right rear pad, where it interferes with the engine mount. In addition the Titan weighs 25 pounds less than the IO-390, which can lead to center of gravity problems. People who have installed the Titan report that expenses of modifying the firewall forward package have eaten their cost savings. The Superior engine is 2 inches longer than the IO-390, which will result in interference with the fit of the cowl. Lastly mogas isn?t a realistic fuel alternative as finding it when flying cross country is nearly impossible. As for engine school, Lycoming offers both engine maintenance and engine assembly/disassembly courses, which will enable you to maintain your engine. All this Sturm und Drang has been caused by Lycoming?s awful website, which offers little information and specifications. You can?t even find Lycoming?s publication Certificated Aircraft Engines SSP ? 110 on their site. You can download the June 2010 version here: http://www.readbag.com/lycoming-supp...sources-ssp110 Now the good news: I need not have been concerned about IO-390?s modern features. After speaking with Lycoming?s technical support I learned that the Lycoming IO-390 engine has all the advanced features that we need. Vans sells the Lycoming model XIO-390-A3B6 RT, which comes with nitrided cylinders. A3B6 RT indicates that the governor is mounted on the left front of the engine, the propeller flange bushings are reindexed, the crankshaft counterbalanced with 1/6 & 1/8 order counterweights and the push rods have roller tappets. If you want polished ports; pistons, pins & connecting rod?s all weight matched to 1/2 gram: order the Thunder Bolt version of the IO-390, which starts at $39,700. You can substitute E-Mags for the magnetos for an additional charge of $2,400. As for me, I plan on purchasing the IO-390 from Vans as soon as Lycoming announces it?s Sun ?n Fun show price. Hartzell's composite propeller costs twice as much as it's 74 inch IO-390 aluminum propeller. As opposed to the 360, the aluminum propeller has no RPM restrictions when running on the 390. See chart on next page: Engine Comparison Manufacturer Lycoming Superior Titan Designation XIO-390-A3B6 RT XP-400 IOX-370-A4H1N Bore (inches) 5.319 5.126 Stroke (inches) 4.375 4.375 Displacement 389 400 361 Length (inches) 30.7 32.8 29.07 Width (inches) 34.25 34.3 33.41 Height (inches) 19.35 24 24.8 Dry weight (lbs) 308 310 283 Mount Dynafocal-1 Dynafocal-1 Dynafocal-1 Fuel system Injection Injection Injection Fuel type 100LL 100LL/Mogas 91 100LL/Mogas 93 Cooling system Air Cooled Air Cooled Air Cooled Power at 2700 rpm 210 215 200 Specific pwr: hp/in? 0.54 0.54 0.55 Compression ratio 8.70:1 8.90:1 9.6:1 Pwr/weight: hp/lb 0.68 0.69 0.71 Cost 38,700 34,500 30,300 Prop Governor Front Left Right Rear |
Any engine updates at Oshkosh '17?
Just curious if anyone learned anything new about our -14 engine options at Oshkosh?
Thanks |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Carl |
Quote:
Whirlwind have significantly higher overhaul requirements. Depending upon the model the Whirlwind gives you 3-5 years and between 400-650 hours. There are quite a few reports of premature failures - loose blades, grease leakage etc. In Australia we get 10 years and 2,000 hours on Hartzell even on a certified aircraft. One of the main reasons is that the Harzell can be re-greased at annual. No composite blade will do well with stone damage. They cost lots of money when the nickel leading edge gets cracked and you will be out of action until it is repaired. Not ideal on an -A model RV with limited ground clearance. Taildraggers tend to do better. Of course, the composite props are lighter, produce fewer vibrations and are great for aerobatics where the gyroscopic forces are low. They are quieter for our friends in Europe. Is it worth the additional inconvenience and cost for a composite propeller? That's up to each builder. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM. |