IO-360 in an RV-9A?

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by RV8JD

Is that 200 MPH IAS or TAS?

That is TAS.

Remember, indicated airspeed drops off as you climb and the air gets thinner (not taking into account any change in temperature.)

[grubbat]

What?s your mission? Mine is time to climb baby. Io360 with CS Prop on the RV-9 equals a climb that make me smile every time. I?m not a speed demon and I am very respectful of the VNO VNE limitations of the design thanks in large part of Scott?s posts. The last thing we all want is for the -9?s to start having the same failure rates that the -7 have.

Nevertheless, I have not regretted my decision one bit. That?s being said, the IO320 with CS Prop would be my second choice had I not already had an non-weighted crankshaft angle-valve 200hp engine laying around. However, I really love the IO320 engine/CS Prop combination and highly recommend it for the -9.

[ka6dan]

Van doesn?t recommend a 360 for the 9. He?s the man what did the engineering and I for one follow the advice from the design engineer. If you have a background in aircraft design and can reverse engineer the 9, go ahead and put whatever engine you want in your 9.

As for the clowning question as the 9 & 7 have the same cowling and the 7 is approved for a 360 I would think it would fit in a 9

[Berchmans]

Doug,
Per your original question I assume that you are comparing the cost of a 320 ready to rock and roll verse a 360 that can be re-built for approximately the same price. I have been on both ends of this equation in the past and can only share that I have never had a rebuild come in for the original estimate, and by that I mean it's never costed less. So on that basis I, personally would chose the 320...all previous points can be taken into account as well.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Berchmans

Doug,
Per your original question I assume that you are comparing the cost of a 320 ready to rock and roll verse a 360 that can be re-built for approximately the same price. I have been on both ends of this equation in the past and can only share that I have never had a rebuild come in for the original estimate, and by that I mean it's never costed less. So on that basis I, personally would chose the 320...all previous points can be taken into account as well.

Yes and no.

When I bought my ECi kit engine the difference between the 320 and 360 was $500 and 20 pounds. Since i knew I was going to run Catto, I'm still lighter than a 320 with a metal fixed pitch prop.

With an overhaul, all bets are off, until you open it up and know what you have.

[Doug Rohrer]

Glad to see the thread got back on track after a little drift. As my friend Fearless stated, I have about 500 hours in a -9A with a 160HP O-320 that was lost in a landing accident near Oshkosh 3 1/2 years ago. The plane performs great at the 160HP level, but since I am starting from scratch, I thought I would consider a 360 if a deal came along. Others have done so successfully. Vans did say the -7 cowl and engine mount will fit the -9 if that's what I want. I just have to confirm the 360 has the right sump, carb/throttle body configuration, etc. So the search goes on...

[Doug Rohrer]

Thanks Carl. Giving me pause...

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by RV8JD

Something to consider. Last page for RV-9A:

https://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Nos...ice_letter.pdf

Seems to me that everyone should build taildraggers!

Doug, it all depends on what prop you want to put on your -360. As I mentioned above, my O-360 and Catto FP prop is lighter than an O-320 with a metal FP prop. If I put composite CS prop on it, I would still be lighter than a 320 with a metal CS prop, which is approved.

As you build, you once again have to go through the Q&A process to figure out which configuration, options, etc. you want in your plane.

As you pointed out, your -9A with a 160 hp (I)O-320 was a good performer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that engine.

[Capt]

Seems to me that everyone should build taildraggers!

Oh you can say that again! careful though you will upset a few training wheel owners

An 0360 low comp (for auto gas) & composite prop would be a nice compromise as everything to do with aviation is a compromise

[cojaken]

I thought the O360 B1B only produces 168hp.

If this is correct, would the folks concerned about too much horsepower for the 9A still be concerned?