Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-3 Engine Choice
- Thread starter dav1111
- Start date
We followed Randy Lervolds lead and went IO-320. It gvies speeds up to airframe redline in level flight, and insane climb. I wouldn't go more with the unbalanced tail.
David Paule
Well Known Member
At sea level, the smaller engines are probably adequate, especially if you can keep the weight down. I got a 160 hp O-320 for the local elevation here in Colorado.
Dave
Dave
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Jeremy Clarkson, welcome to VAF!I owned a RV-3 with an 0-235. It was adequate in the power category, ... but who wants adequate!!??
In all seriousness, I can't see how the -3 can make much use of 180Hp without often flirting with VNE. Perhaps there is such a thing as "enough power"?
TODR
If I were doing a 3
I would seriously look into a 180hp with a fixed pitch Catto. The climb performance would be pretty close to a 160 with a constant speed, without the extra money or complexity. I like the idea of having to throttle back to avoid VNE. My 8A is completely capable of blowing through that speed as is any RV if you push the nose down, so its a matter of airspeed management. Only difference being, you would be able to achieve VNE flat and level. I understand it doesn't make it right, but that's probably what I would do.
Randy
8A
I would seriously look into a 180hp with a fixed pitch Catto. The climb performance would be pretty close to a 160 with a constant speed, without the extra money or complexity. I like the idea of having to throttle back to avoid VNE. My 8A is completely capable of blowing through that speed as is any RV if you push the nose down, so its a matter of airspeed management. Only difference being, you would be able to achieve VNE flat and level. I understand it doesn't make it right, but that's probably what I would do.
Randy
8A
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Over 20-years ago while I was building my RV-6, an Oshkosh award winning RV-3 builder / flyer told me: "There is no substitute for cubic inches." One of his friends said: "There is no substitute for horsepower."
I agree with what they say and would want the largest engine recommended that has the most horsepower. I am also one of those guys that wants a constant speed prop to transfer whatever horsepower I have to thrust over the largest possible speed range. In other words, I have maximum horsepower that is available whenever I want it.
According to Paul Dye, the RV-3 will not like the weight of the compact hub C2YL-1BF/F7663-4 Hartzell that Van's Aircraft sells without a lot of ballast put in the back of the RV-3. That is why Louise, Paul, and others that have a Constant Speed Prop on their RV-3 tend to use light weight Constant Speed props that are on the market.
I agree with what they say and would want the largest engine recommended that has the most horsepower. I am also one of those guys that wants a constant speed prop to transfer whatever horsepower I have to thrust over the largest possible speed range. In other words, I have maximum horsepower that is available whenever I want it.
According to Paul Dye, the RV-3 will not like the weight of the compact hub C2YL-1BF/F7663-4 Hartzell that Van's Aircraft sells without a lot of ballast put in the back of the RV-3. That is why Louise, Paul, and others that have a Constant Speed Prop on their RV-3 tend to use light weight Constant Speed props that are on the market.
REHughes
Active Member
Great airplane, even with an O-200
Back in the 70's I owned a very early RV-3 (Serial #6), powered by a Continental O-200 and fitted with a Cessna 150 Cruise Prop (69/50). I based at Albuquerque, and never had a problem with ground run even on the hottest days. I had it to 18K once, and it was still climbing at 100fpm or so. I think it ran about 150 mph or so flat out at SL. I commuted with the airplane, and typically cruised at about 4.4 GPH, @12K, about 150+ mph over the ground.
I loved that airplane and should have never sold it. It had the early 90 degree aileron bellcranks ('Differential Is For Pussies...') and handled extremely well.
The only time I really, really would have liked more power was once trying to stay with a T-18 going into OSH. If I were to make a choice now for an engine for my slowly-progressing current -3 project, it would be one of the smaller ULPower offerings, or perhaps a Viking if they prove out well in service...Kind of a reincarnation of my first RV. But since, at the current rate of construction, my completion date will be sometime in 2028, Electrical will probably be the way to go.
I owned a RV-3 with an 0-235. It was adequate in the power category, ... but who wants adequate!!??
Back in the 70's I owned a very early RV-3 (Serial #6), powered by a Continental O-200 and fitted with a Cessna 150 Cruise Prop (69/50). I based at Albuquerque, and never had a problem with ground run even on the hottest days. I had it to 18K once, and it was still climbing at 100fpm or so. I think it ran about 150 mph or so flat out at SL. I commuted with the airplane, and typically cruised at about 4.4 GPH, @12K, about 150+ mph over the ground.
I loved that airplane and should have never sold it. It had the early 90 degree aileron bellcranks ('Differential Is For Pussies...') and handled extremely well.
The only time I really, really would have liked more power was once trying to stay with a T-18 going into OSH. If I were to make a choice now for an engine for my slowly-progressing current -3 project, it would be one of the smaller ULPower offerings, or perhaps a Viking if they prove out well in service...Kind of a reincarnation of my first RV. But since, at the current rate of construction, my completion date will be sometime in 2028, Electrical will probably be the way to go.
I fly a King Air in my day job. If we us the "company recommended cruise power" down below 10,000', it will very easily exceed Vmo (treated the same as Vne). It is actually around 80% of the available power that we use to cruise a just few knots below Vmo. To do descents, the power is down way below half. It is all a matter of just flying the airplane. Adjust the power as required to maintain the vertical speed and airspeed you want, and within limits.
KatieB
Well Known Member
My RV-3B, built by Tony Spicer, has a plain old 160-hp O-320 with a Catto 2-blade fixed pitch prop, and I remember seeing 200 mph in the flight test log. The engine came off a Super Cub a long time ago. For a Lycoming, it's light, simple, and cheap. The only thing Tony didn't like was that the prop was fixed-pitch, which made for a lot more work during formation flying. Other than that, I have never heard anyone wish for more out of an O-320 powered RV-3, both in terms of handling and speed. Well... other than John Harmon.
Last edited:
Relentless
Well Known Member
Just ran carberated Titan 340 in test cell, 180hp.
We are announcing new program at snf to offer overhaul/upgrade to turn your tired 320 into 340! I would have to caution however as my first RV was a three and qualifying at 214mph at Reno was not to smart when looking at tail. You will have no problem seeing red with a lighter 180hp 340.
We are announcing new program at snf to offer overhaul/upgrade to turn your tired 320 into 340! I would have to caution however as my first RV was a three and qualifying at 214mph at Reno was not to smart when looking at tail. You will have no problem seeing red with a lighter 180hp 340.
