What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Need help understanding 9A engine choices

dwranda

Well Known Member
I'm an engine buying novice trying to learn all I can. I'm looking everyday at engines and the more I look the more I am getting confused. I am building a 9A. I suppose the easy route is order new from Vans, but I'm trying to be as frugal as possible yet safe and hopefully reliable. Here are a few of many questions I have.
1. To burn mogas do you need lower compression pistons(7 vs 8.5) or is it more of an ignition issue? Is electronic ignition better in this regard than mags? Burning mogas intrigues me if it is available. I guess to boil it down would a 160 HP 320 with pmags be able to burn mogas? Does FI or carb matter?
2. HP? Obviously most everyone wants more. I've read the discussions of too much HP on a 9 but a 360 with 7.0 compression pistons to come in about 170 HP also intrigues me. Who out there has done that?
3. wide deck/narrow deck? From what I can tell from my research the narrow decks are older right? Does it matter or should I not be worried at looking at the older ones if they are in an overhauled engine? Does a high total engine time matter with an overhaul?
I've got to stop now so I'm not writing a novel.
Thanks for any input from the braintrust!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
End your pain and get a show special 320 engine and CS Hartzell prop from Van?s. It will run on non-ethanol premium fuel. Do yourself another favor and get the new deal from Van?s for the engine to come with one pMag. I ordered my IO-360 with one pMag and nothing in the other hole for my installation of a second pMag.

While there are cheaper ways to go, I offer this is not better value out there than a Van?s engine/prop combo show special.

Carl
 
Great write-up by Mahlon on this subject!

I'm an engine buying novice trying to learn all I can. I'm looking everyday at engines and the more I look the more I am getting confused. I am building a 9A. I suppose the easy route is order new from Vans, but I'm trying to be as frugal as possible yet safe and hopefully reliable. Here are a few of many questions I have.
1. To burn mogas do you need lower compression pistons(7 vs 8.5) or is it more of an ignition issue? Is electronic ignition better in this regard than mags? Burning mogas intrigues me if it is available. I guess to boil it down would a 160 HP 320 with pmags be able to burn mogas? Does FI or carb matter?
2. HP? Obviously most everyone wants more. I've read the discussions of too much HP on a 9 but a 360 with 7.0 compression pistons to come in about 170 HP also intrigues me. Who out there has done that?



This something I wrote a long time ago when I was in the engine business. Thought you might find it interesting reading.
Good Luck,
Mahlon

I am a engine guy not a RV 9 guy, so you have to bear with me if I am
missing something here, but I can't see any disadvantage to using a O-
360 on a 9 other than approximately 14 pounds loss of useful load.
First off any engine using a fixed pitch prop never sees rated
horsepower during normal operation. An O-360 is rated at 180 Hp at
sea level at full throttle and 2700 RPM. The only way you will get to
those numbers, with a properly pitched propeller, is at full
throttle, at full speed, at sea level. The engine will most likely
never see more than 2500RPM during climb or at takeoff power, unless
you climb the aircraft very flat with a climb prop on it. The 180HP O-
360 is alternately rated at 160 HP at 2400 rpm, so a 180 HP 360 with
a cruise prop on it, will likely only turn 2400 RPM during take off
and climb at sea level. Guess what, a true 160HP from the 360 just
like the fixed pitch guys get with the constant speed equipped 320
(160HP + 2700RPM and full throttle). All you have done by turning
2400 is de-rated the engine to 160 HP! Now if the climb is flat or
the speed builds up, pull the throttle back and keep it below 2400
RPM for a true 160 HP. Imagine what this will do at altitude, you
have a cruise prop installed and 20 extra horsepower at your disposal
to use, as you climb to higher altitude. Wow! This is a great way to
go for those operating out of higher altitude fields all the time or
just fly high all the time.
Some say, it is too tempting and you will break the 160 HP rule or
you do most of your flying at low altitude and you don't want to have
to manage the throttle so much, so lets have some insurance. We put
low compression pistons in the 360 and you now have a 167 HP, O-360.
rated 2700 RPM. Guess what! With climb prop we now get 2500 RPM
during sea level take off and climb..... That's right, a true 160HP
at 2500 RPM. And to boot you still have the extra 7 horsepower at
your disposal as you go up.
The key to all this is you have to regulate engine power with the
throttle. This is done everyday, all the time, with a fixed pitch
prop and engine combination.
If you have a slightly under pitched prop (or as some would call a
super climb prop) on a 320 like Clay seems to have, you have to pull
the throttle back to prevent exceeding RPM limitations and thus true
horsepower output. No different with the 360 with fixed pitch prop at
180 hp or 167 HP.
The 2400 RPM 160HP 360 is a certified, Lycoming engine, not something
I am making up..IO-360-L2A used on the more modern C172 RG's is a 160
HP 2400 RPM 360.. fuel injected no less! So is the O-360 J2A. The 167
HP O-360 is a certified engine as well; it's the O-360 D series of
engines.
You can use the same logic with a constant speed prop, use a prop and
gov limited to 2400RPM at take off, like the 172RG, and get a true
160HP at 2400 and full mp just like the 320 constant speed guys at
2700 RPM..The down side is no more oomph at altitude. Same with the
167 HP versions, prop gov set to 2500 RPM and you have a 160 hp
engine, again with no extra power at altitude.
To me the fixed pitch version of this scenario is the way to go with
very little throttle management (no more than an under pitched 320)
you get a full 160 HP with plenty of power to keep things going well
at altitude. The 360 engine is less expensive if you are purchasing a
non vans supplied one, and so is the fixed pitch prop but the
performance is the same as the more expensive 320 with a constant
speed prop!
I know you have to think "Out of the bun" here, because nobody told
you about this before and the support from Vans using an O-360 isn't
really there. But other than about 14 pounds (heavier) fixed pitch to
fixed pitch,( one muest understand that the fixed pitch 360 has a solid flange crankshaft that weighs more, If you compare the weights iof the hollow shaft 360which is the cinsatnt speed version and the hollow shaft 320 constant speed version the weight difference is only o or a little taller (about 2 inches) and a little wider (1
inch) and the carb air box mounting flange being a different size the
rest of the engine is the same as a 320 on the outside. From what I
am told, the 360 will fit on the airplane with the -7 360 cowl and
you get the performance of a constant speed 320 for a lot less money
with about the same weight up front, if you consider the weight
difference of the cs prop on the 320 and FP on the 360. Even fixed
pith to fixed pitch the weight difference is 15 lbs total prop and
engine to prop and engine.
I hope the operators of lots of the 360 powered RV9's reply to Clay's
post, as I can't see what is undesirable with the 360... but I would
sure like to find out if there is a down side.
Please shoot holes in this explanation, if I am wrong or if I am
missing something, you won't hurt my feelings and I will learn
something!!
Good Luck,
Mahlon
These are actual weights of the engine as shipped from us.
The superior O-360 weighs more then the O-360 listed due to the fact the sump weighs more then the one Eci or Lycoming uses. Superior lists the weight of there O-360 with a hollow shaft as 287 lbs which is 6 lbs heavier then the same exact engine with a Lycoming or Eci vertical sump installed.

TMX O-360 Fixed Pitch (Solid Shaft 180HP):
25"x 33"x 29" 286 Lbs.

TMX O-360 Constant Speed (180 HP) :
25"x 33"x 29" 281 Lbs.

TMX O-320 Constant Speed (150/160 HP) :
22"x 32.2"x 29" 274 Lbs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yesterday as I was climbing up to altitude through some weather to be on top at 15K I was wishing I had a 360 with a constant speed and not the 320. You can always pull the throttle back if your true airspeed gets up too high but the 320 just puts out so much and a few extra ponies would make those long climbs much easier. Don't get me wrong I really like my 9, and its no slouch, but when I travel its always above 10000 where the 9 really shines and is so efficient. With the 360 you would be able to get up there quicker and get into cruise throttled back with the same fuel burn as the 320, or if you wanted higher the power is there to get you further up quicker.

If I was to build another 9 there is no question that I would do a I0-360 with a constant speed lightweight prop and extended fuel.
 
Ok, I am going to post just a brief comment since I agree 100% with Mahlon. I cannot add anything to what he has said about the 360. It is dead on . . . But, too many of the engine guys and even the RV guys are not paying attention to the Titan O/IO340! I will not post a bunch of numbers here since I do not know all of them by heart but if you take a few minutes to explore this engine you will see an awful lot of what Mahlon was saying about the 360 in the performance of the 340. And the kicker. . . It gives you that 180 hp engine with aproximately 20 lbs less weight than the 360 while fitting in the plane just like a 320. Mahlon, give it a look and then let us know if what I am saying aint so!

For some good reading check this out:
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/titan/engines/x340.aspx
 
Last edited:
Ok, I am going to post just a brief comment since I agree 100% with Mahlon. I cannot add anything to what he has said about the 360. It is dead on . . . But, too many in the engine guys and even the RV guys are not paying attention to the Titan O/IO340! I will not post a bunch of numbers here since I do not know all of them by heart but if you take a few minutes to explore this engine you will see an awful lot of what Mahlon was saying about the 360 in the performance of the 340. And the kicker. . . It gives you that 180 hp engine with aproximately 20 lbs less weight than the 360 while fitting in the plane just like a 320. Mahlon, give it a look and then let us know if what I am saying aint so!

For some good reading check this out:
http://www.continentalmotors.aero/titan/engines/x340.aspx
I have one of the original ECI OX-340S' in my -9A and I love it. Derated to 165HP using 7.2:1 pistons to ensure Mogas compatibility though it would probably have been fine with a bit more power even with the standard pistons, easily 'upgradeable' to ~175+HP using nothing more than higher compression pistons, and perhaps a little more if I want EFI.

Lighter than the O-360, and $1000 cheaper than Vans' show pricing too, even equipped with 2 P-Mags. I regularly cruise at 145KTAS burning 24.2LPH/6.4USGPH at 8,500-9,500 and can sustain an initial climb rate of 1700FPM at 1320Lbs gross until I hit my CHT limits using a Sensenich ground adjustable prop.

EDIT: Had an epiphany that perhaps my 2013 prices aren't current, but as a data point:
An OX-340S with:
  • 7.2:1 Pistons
  • Dynafocal 1 mount
  • 14mm plug bosses & automotive plugs all round
  • Dual P-Mags
  • Low-pressure, engine-driven fuel pump
  • 2 hours break-in on their test cell
  • But without a carb
cost me $25,604, including crating but excluding shipping in May 2013.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone. Mahlon's article is pretty much what I was talking about. Thanks! The 340 sounds good too. I will definitely look into that if I go the new engine route.
 
I'm running an IO360 and constant speed in my 9A, and I have never once had occasion to wish I had installed the smaller engine - and lots of times I was glad I had the extra cubic inches. Throttle is one of the controls in the airplane that is used by the pilot as needed to achieve the flight conditions desired.

As for fuel, I'm running 8.7:1 compression and built the entire fuel system with no natural rubber seals or components anywhere, and I'm running 91E10 autofuel for about 135 hours now with no problems other than cranky hotstarts in the summer - and the AFP purge valve has pretty much solved that one too.
 
You?re Welcome!

Thanks everyone. Mahlon's article is pretty much what I was talking about. Thanks! The 340 sounds good too. I will definitely look into that if I go the new engine route.


I observed in your initial post that you were attempting to keep Engine purchase costs down and have been searching for deals online. I?m sure you?ve found several 360s at reasonable prices. Going that route and adding Electronic Ignition and possibly Electronic Fuel Injection could give you a very nice performing engine, economically. I?ve been doing similar research for a future project I?m considering.
 
I observed in your initial post that you were attempting to keep Engine purchase costs down and have been searching for deals online. I?m sure you?ve found several 360s at reasonable prices. Going that route and adding Electronic Ignition and possibly Electronic Fuel Injection could give you a very nice performing engine, economically. I?ve been doing similar research for a future project I?m considering.

There's part of me that really likes the electronic FI and ignition choices that have been debated lately on VAF. The other part of me says you're a newbie so keep it simple stupid. The building of the electrical system of the plane is probably my weak link of the whole project and I honestly don't trust myself in putting together an all electric system. A man's gotta know his limitations and I believe that's mine. I don't have a lot of builders around here to pop in and critique or help with it so trying to keep it simple as possible. Pmags will help in that respect I believe.
 
There's part of me that really likes the electronic FI and ignition choices that have been debated lately on VAF. The other part of me says you're a newbie so keep it simple stupid. The building of the electrical system of the plane is probably my weak link of the whole project and I honestly don't trust myself in putting together an all electric system. A man's gotta know his limitations and I believe that's mine. I don't have a lot of builders around here to pop in and critique or help with it so trying to keep it simple as possible. Pmags will help in that respect I believe.


I understand your apprehension to going with a fully electronic setup. I think that anything you can do to help bring the older Lycomings into the modern age, including simply upgrading to electronic mags, should help with performance and economy. Have you decided if you will go with the 360? Do you have any good engine candidates?
 
I'm an engine buying novice trying to learn all I can. I'm looking everyday at engines and the more I look the more I am getting confused. I am building a 9A. I suppose the easy route is order new from Vans, but I'm trying to be as frugal as possible yet safe and hopefully reliable. Here are a few of many questions I have.
1. To burn mogas do you need lower compression pistons(7 vs 8.5) or is it more of an ignition issue? Is electronic ignition better in this regard than mags? Burning mogas intrigues me if it is available. I guess to boil it down would a 160 HP 320 with pmags be able to burn mogas? Does FI or carb matter?
2. HP? Obviously most everyone wants more. I've read the discussions of too much HP on a 9 but a 360 with 7.0 compression pistons to come in about 170 HP also intrigues me. Who out there has done that?
3. wide deck/narrow deck? From what I can tell from my research the narrow decks are older right? Does it matter or should I not be worried at looking at the older ones if they are in an overhauled engine? Does a high total engine time matter with an overhaul?
I've got to stop now so I'm not writing a novel.
Thanks for any input from the braintrust!!!

If you depart Vans recommendation for an engine for the 9, there are gazzilions of choices. It does complicate the entire build process.

Are any of the choices better, who knows? You sure can get side tracked bringing an old engine back to life.

Builders tend to go crazy spending money on modern glass but get cheap when it comes to an engine. It is not the best way to go.

I'd rather fly behind a new engine and a six pack panel than the other way around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frugal

If you depart Vans recommendation for an engine for the 9, there are gazzilions of choices. It does complicate the entire build process.

Are any of the choices better, who knows? You sure can get side tracked bringing an old engine back to life.

Builders tend to go crazy spending money on modern glass but get cheap when it comes to an engine. It is not the best way to go.

I'd rather fly behind a new engine and a six pack panel than the other way around.


I think that we are all in agreement that the best route would be to buy a brand new engine. The original poster stated that he was attempting to be as Frugal as possible and looking for a used engine. Several builders have gone that route with great success. Even Van himself is not against this idea.
Several builders have also deviated from original plans with great success. There are plenty of 200hp 4s, 540 powered 8s, not to mention Rockets.
I think purchasing a good used engine is much better than not being able to afford to complete a project, but of course, if able, purchasing a new engine is best.
 
I have a fixed pitch, 150HP 9A, and if I had to do it again, still on a budget, I would probably try to do as Mahlon suggested, and find a used (I)O-360 and a fixed pitch prop. If it tells you anything, I bought my engine from a VAFer upgrading his 9A to 180HP. I'd probably want a composite Catto prop to help compensate for the added weight up front, but that's just because I am big on keeping weight off the nosewheel. None of this is to say I am unsatisfied with my performance, just that a 360 seems a fairly cost-neutral way to add some performance, and easier to do it from the outset than later on.

True that it's hard to beat a brand new engine, however if you're like me, that's an unrealistic amount of money to spend. Finding a quality used engine takes legwork (I spent 6 months looking), but they are out there, and can save you a LOT of money that can be spent on other important things. I would also argue that the reliability of a well-maintained engine with a few hundred hours is, at least initially, better than a brand new engine. Look for an engine that has flown frequently and recently, with some recent oil analysis. Engines from dry climates would be a plus. There is no guarantee of course, but my 700-hour O-320 hasn't missed a beat in the 2 years I've been flying. I did rebuild the mags and carb.

The idea that you have 2000 hours ahead of you in a new engine sounds nice, but at the rate most people (not Vlad) fly (50-100 hours/year), that's 20-40 years of flying, and I highly doubt most people will own or fly their planes that long, and it is well past the recommended years between overhaul, anyways.

As a counterpoint to a previous post, I would feel more confident behind a frequently flown and well maintained, 500 hour engine, with the extra $10k spent on a nice redundant IFR panel and autopilot, than I would with a brand new engine and a six pack VFR panel.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Any input from anyone on the narrow/wide deck choice? I've seen some overhauled narrow decks that look good at first observation. I would LOVE to buy a new engine, but with tuition bills from a son in college and not wanting to drain the savings account(and stay happily married) an overhauled is most likely the outcome. Now if I were to get the wife involved in the decision maybe she will say the heck with the money, we only live once and I want to be behind something new. Who knows?
I do plan on a glass panel because to me that is a safety factor. The technology in them is too much to pass up. So, I guess I am doing what one of you said was not wise. Glass panel/used engine!! This could bring up a whole new discussion. Which has the greatest safety improvement......new vs overhauled engine or round instruments vs glass panel?
 
I have a fixed pitch, 150HP 9A, and if I had to do it again, still on a budget, I would probably try to do as Mahlon suggested, and find a used (I)O-360 and a fixed pitch prop. If it tells you anything, I bought my engine from a VAFer upgrading his 9A to 180HP. I'd probably want a composite Catto prop to help compensate for the added weight up front, but that's just because I am big on keeping weight off the nosewheel. None of this is to say I am unsatisfied with my performance, just that a 360 seems a fairly cost-neutral way to add some performance, and easier to do it from the outset than later on.

True that it's hard to beat a brand new engine, however if you're like me, that's an unrealistic amount of money to spend. Finding a quality used engine takes legwork (I spent 6 months looking), but they are out there, and can save you a LOT of money that can be spent on other important things. I would also argue that the reliability of a well-maintained engine with a few hundred hours is, at least initially, better than a brand new engine. Look for an engine that has flown frequently and recently, with some recent oil analysis. Engines from dry climates would be a plus. There is no guarantee of course, but my 700-hour O-320 hasn't missed a beat in the 2 years I've been flying. I did rebuild the mags and carb.

The idea that you have 2000 hours ahead of you in a new engine sounds nice, but at the rate most people (not Vlad) fly (50-100 hours/year), that's 20-40 years of flying, and I highly doubt most people will own or fly their planes that long, and it is well past the recommended years between overhaul, anyways.

As a counterpoint to a previous post, I would feel more confident behind a frequently flown and well maintained, 500 hour engine, with the extra $10k spent on a nice redundant IFR panel and autopilot, than I would with a brand new engine and a six pack VFR panel.

Chris

Wow Chris every point you make is what I am thinking. Love the 3 blade Catto prop and want the safety factor of the panel technology.
 
About to buy an engine myself. Will Van actually sell you a 360 for an RV9 if you ask?

I know they officially don't recommend it, but as posted the concern can be resolved with proper flying techniques.
 
RV-9 with 180hp

I have a RV-9 with IO360 horizontal injection engine with the BA Hartzell constant speed prop. All in, straight and level at 3500 ft msl, 192- 196 mph TAS. Cruise between 150-180 mph TAS. On takeoff, its off the ground once the throttle is all the way in. I'm never sorry I got more hp. I confess, I'm addicted to the CS prop. The takeoff and climb is what I wanted and boy did I get it. With it being a Tailwheel, I can handle a little bit more nose weight.

All things considered, this is my plane in that I know how to pull throttle back to avoid the danger zone. If you are kinda new at flying a RV, then get the 320 and you will have a fine plane, especially with fixed pitch Catto. High hp coupled with fixed pitch prop and nose pointed down equals excessive speed to the new RV pilot. If I didn't already have a motor when I built my machine, I probably would have taken Vans advice and got and io320 and constant speed prop. It's a really good combination and we really don't need any more -9 hot rods flying.....(.makes the other RV guys look bad)....😜

Seriously, good luck on the build and do something every day. It's a great flying machine.
 
Any input from anyone on the narrow/wide deck choice? I've seen some overhauled narrow decks that look good at first observation. I would LOVE to buy a new engine, but with tuition bills from a son in college and not wanting to drain the savings account(and stay happily married) an overhauled is most likely the outcome. Now if I were to get the wife involved in the decision maybe she will say the heck with the money, we only live once and I want to be behind something new. Who knows?
I do plan on a glass panel because to me that is a safety factor. The technology in them is too much to pass up. So, I guess I am doing what one of you said was not wise. Glass panel/used engine!! This could bring up a whole new discussion. Which has the greatest safety improvement......new vs overhauled engine or round instruments vs glass panel?

I've got a narrow deck O-360 on my -6. As you noted, they are an older design so you'll find some minor differences. The baffle kit needed some trimming to fit. The alternator is mounted using the case bolts rather than the boss mount of the later cases. That means a different bracket and brace to the starter. The cylinders are the big difference and take a different base wrench if you need to pull one. No big deal and new ones are available if/when needed.

I would caution against buying a core to overhaul. I did that and about all I got to reuse were rods and gears. If you want a fresh O/H, get one of the established builders to create one from parts they source so you don't risk buying bad parts.
 
When I started the build I also wanted a NEW engine but the $ thing was a big factor for me, found a deal on B S, a certified engine and prop out of a Mooney, spent more on the avionics than the power plant. don't forget about the long or short motor mount if deciding to go with a 360, the 7 and 9 share the same fuse and I went with the SJ cowl and 3" extension for the CS prop.
 
When I started the build I also wanted a NEW engine but the $ thing was a big factor for me, found a deal on B S, a certified engine and prop out of a Mooney, spent more on the avionics than the power plant. don't forget about the long or short motor mount if deciding to go with a 360, the 7 and 9 share the same fuse and I went with the SJ cowl and 3" extension for the CS prop.

I'm leaning towards the SJ cowl as well. Can you explain more about the motor mounts?
 
I'm leaning towards the SJ cowl as well. Can you explain more about the motor mounts?

my understanding is the 320 is lighter and for weight and balance, the mount is longer, further away from firewall and shorter for the heavier 360 used in the 7. some have used the 320 engine mount when using a light catto prop on a 7 to bring the W/B forward.
 
I understand your apprehension to going with a fully electronic setup. I think that anything you can do to help bring the older Lycomings into the modern age, including simply upgrading to electronic mags, should help with performance and economy. Have you decided if you will go with the 360? Do you have any good engine candidates?

I haven't seen any 360's yet that have really tempted me. In May I was in Florida and went to Jesse Saints shop to look at an engine he had. I am kind of kicking myself for not getting it. It was 150 HP but included everything, prop, one pmag, and exhaust. Would have fit perfectly on my 9A when I was ready for it since it came off of one. The fact that it was 150 HP and I wasn't ready for it for maybe 1-2 years were my reason for not getting it. I'm trying to not be a HP snob but it's pretty hard:eek:
 
I haven't seen any 360's yet that have really tempted me. In May I was in Florida and went to Jesse Saints shop to look at an engine he had. I am kind of kicking myself for not getting it. It was 150 HP but included everything, prop, one pmag, and exhaust. Would have fit perfectly on my 9A when I was ready for it since it came off of one. The fact that it was 150 HP and I wasn't ready for it for maybe 1-2 years were my reason for not getting it. I'm trying to not be a HP snob but it's pretty hard:eek:

Decide on some performance benchmarks that you "must have". My mission is either 30 minute fun flights around the area, or 3-hour cross countries to visit family. I am not super concerned about climb performance (I can still climb ~2000'FPM solo), I live at sea level, and an extra 10 knots of cruise would only save me 15 minutes on those long cross countries. So FOR ME, 150HP is just fine. I cruise around 140KTAS on ~6GPH. I would have been open to more HP, but the 150 was a screamin deal for me at exactly the right time in my build. A small performance hit was worth it to snag the deal. Plus, I can always add a bit of performance with a new prop, electronic ignition, and various other tricks.

As I mentioned earlier, if I could go back I would have expanded my search to include 360's, but wouldn't hesitate to pass up the right deal on a smaller engine. Remember, Van designed the plane around 115-160HP. It's not like it's a slouch with 150-160HP.

Chris
 
Chris,
Good points!! That's about what my missions will look like as well. The learning curve I'm in now is trying to figure out what exactly is a "screaming deal". I'm thinking the one Jesse had would probably fit into that category. My eyes are open for all possibilities(320 or 360).
 
I got my 160HP IO-320 from Aerosport Power in 2009, and it has been a wonderful performer in the five years I've been flying. I opted for Slick mag on the left and Lightspeed EI on the right, to offer a combination of performance and dependability. The Catto 3-blade is light, smooth, and great compromise for a FP.
The airplane does everything I wanted it to do and then some. As others said, climb performance is outstanding, and the economy running LOP is way better than I expected. Typical cruise for me is 146ktas at 6.5 to 6.8gph; running ROP gets a little more speed, but uses 20% more fuel.
I know many 9/9A flyers who run O-360s and are fully happy with their choice. I am just as happy with my IO-320 and have never looked back. :D
 
I found a mid-time O-360-A4M (solid crank) on BS for $8k + $500 shipping from a 2002 Piper Archer that was in an AZ flight school and flew around 100 hrs a month. The plane was destroyed in a wind storm.

Stripped off the carb (sold), exhaust and one mag (sold). Added AFP fuel injection, Vetterman trombone exhaust and 1 P-Mag. I have about 15k in the engine with 10 years of expected use.

You should also look at insurance websites for deals on planes that are totaled for one reason or another. Highest bidder gets the plane and you can part it out. This is how I got most of my Dynon Skyview system and still have the O-235-L2C to rebuild (prop strike) and sell.
 
I found a mid-time O-360-A4M (solid crank) on BS for $8k + $500 shipping from a 2002 Piper Archer that was in an AZ flight school and flew around 100 hrs a month. The plane was destroyed in a wind storm.

Stripped off the carb (sold), exhaust and one mag (sold). Added AFP fuel injection, Vetterman trombone exhaust and 1 P-Mag. I have about 15k in the engine with 10 years of expected use.

You should also look at insurance websites for deals on planes that are totaled for one reason or another. Highest bidder gets the plane and you can part it out. This is how I got most of my Dynon Skyview system and still have the O-235-L2C to rebuild (prop strike) and sell.

I think I would be very happy with your firewall forward setup!!
 
Upgrade 150 to 160

If the OP were to stumble on to a real nice 150 that fit under the cowl as is, how hard/expensive would it be to swap in the higher compression pistons for 160hp?
Carl
 
We have more than a few hours on our -9a O320 and this will be the first time I've said it out loud, I would install an IO360 if I had it to do over again. I have even had recent dreams of simply picking the beautiful Barrett IO360 off of the shop floor and mounting that sucker to the -9... I love our 9a, and it is amazing how much that wing loves 13.5k', but the lack of power up there is very frustrating when you want to get to 16k' for a "few minutes".

There, I said it. I feel better :).
 
Therapy

Scott, I feel your pain. ( or maybe not... �� )
I just want to let you know that you are not alone. Right now, I know how hard it was to make that confession. I would love to say that time will heal those wounds, but I can't.

Come to the dark side with me, Bill R, and the other -9 outlaws. You can do it!



We have more than a few hours on our -9a O320 and this will be the first time I've said it out loud, I would install an IO360 if I had it to do over again. I have even had recent dreams of simply picking the beautiful Barrett IO360 off of the shop floor and mounting that sucker to the -9... I love our 9a, and it is amazing how much that wing loves 13.5k', but the lack of power up there is very frustrating when you want to get to 16k' for a "few minutes".

There, I said it. I feel better :).
 
Scott, I feel your pain. ( or maybe not... �� )
I just want to let you know that you are not alone. Right now, I know how hard it was to make that confession. I would love to say that time will heal those wounds, but I can't.

Come to the dark side with me, Bill R, and the other -9 outlaws. You can do it!

Come on over to the dark side - we have cookies! :D

Solo with full (standard) fuel, I'm still climbing between 400 and 500 per minute when I level off at 17,500'.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top