What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Recommended Lyc for a -6

D

Darren S

Well Known Member
So after looking at the Lycoming nomenclature site I see that there are a BUNCH of variants to this wonderful engine. So what's a newbie to do when looking for a good used motor for a -6 ?

Can someone give me the Coles notes version on which configurations to stay away from ? I imagine that some types would fit better under a cowl than others. I would like to have the 180 HP 0-360 version, so that's what I'm primarily looking at.

Also, any recommendations on a place to go for good used engines. I can't afford a new one. How many hours is too many ? sorry for all the questions.

Thanks,

Darren
 
Hi Darren.....

........Basically, avoid the rear intake systems or the aft-facing intakes. A used 0-360 from a Cherokee or Mooney will work.

Dallas air salvage

Wentworth Aircraft (dismantlers)

Atlanta Air Salvage...etc.

In the back of Van's assembly manual are all the engines and their differences. You also want a new enough engine that has the dynafocal mounts. These four pads point toward the center of the crankshaft and are supposedly the cat's meeow:D

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Vans would tell you to get an O-320 and....

enjoy the basic VFR RV-6 or -A. I went through the same decision path. For me, building an RV-6A, I found a great deal on an Piper Arrow IO-360B1E. (180HP). I modified that engine by replacing the rear facing horizontal fuel injection sump (oil pan plus air intake) with a Superior Cold Air Induction forward facing sump. It then becomes an engine useable in the RVs. You just have to be comfortable making modifications like that. If you are new to flying it might be intimidating to think about modifying a rear facing induction engine, but it can be and is done. ECI also sells new sumps or you can look for a used one. Point is, you can get the engine to be what you want if you are willing to modify it. Back to O320 vs O360, if you are willing to put an O320 in, you can find even more opportunities to buy mid time engines.
 
IO-320 here!

I found a first run out O320 core for $1500. After overhaul of the case, crank, cam, lifters, rods, gasket set, etc. the cost was at $4280. I had 2 cylinders overhauled and bought two YT cylinders. We are up to $5500. I sold the sump, old accessories and old exhaust system for $650. Back down to $4850. I purchased a B & C starter, B & C alternator, a Silverhawk injection system, a ECI cold air sump, new Slicks, ADC remote oil filter and a Vetteman exhaust. That put the total at $11650. The overhaul was done in my hangar with the help of an IA, a good friend and an FAA inspector. With a Catto 3 blade and a Sabre extension I have just over $13500 in the powerplant/prop combo and hope to keep Pierre in site when she flys in about two months.

I think the 320 is an exceptional value and with the fuel savings, it will pay you back on the back end without a measurable loss of performance.
 
Last edited:
You sure?

Hard Knox said:
I think the 320 is an exceptional value and with the fuel savings, it will pay you back on the back end without a measurable loss of performance.
Click to expand...

I agree that the 320's are very good values. However, there has been a lot of prior discussion in regard to fuel burn and economy, most of which gives the upper hand to the 360 machines. I know from flying with my 320 brotherin, we are pulled back to let them keep up and they typically burn 1-2gph more on the same legs. Not really sure why that is, but my experiences and other posters seem to support this.
In regard to "measurable loss in performance", I guess it depends on what you are measuring. I know 180 horses out climb and outcruise the 150/160 horses pretty measureably, especialy at altitude.
With all that there is a lot to be said for an 0320 fixed pitch light and agile 6. There is no doubt they fly better in my opinion.
 
I had a nice chat with a fella at Dallas Air Salvage today. He echoed the sentiments of others on this thread that 0-360's are a bit harder to find than the 0-320's. He had a few 0-360 with varying times till TBO and made my head spin with all the variants.....A4A, A4M, A3A, A1D, A1A :) . He said that they are constantly getting motors in and to check back often.

Thanks for the reminder that a larger vert. tail, ala -7, means the need for a bigger motor up front.

The Constant Speed stuff adds a fair bit of $$ to the price. At present I'm thinking of just going with the carb version 360 and Fixed Pitch. I think for my style of flying and what I plan to do with my -6, this should work ok. Mostly buzzing around the patch, acro, smoke on and the occasional X country.

Darren
 
I guess I still dont get it?

LifeofReiley said:
320 is all you'll need... very reliable, cheap to operate too.
Click to expand...

An 0320 is cheaper to operate than an 0360? I have both and find they are about the same. They are in two different aircraft. When I fly my o320 powered Bucker with my buddies with their 0360 Bucker's, I always burn 1-2 gallons an hour more. When my buddies fly their 0320 rv's with the rest of us 0360's, they experience the same, more fuel burned. Everything else regarding operation costs is the same.
I would argue that the two engines are equally reliable.
So, just dont understand why an 0320 would be cheaper to operate. Come on engine guru's, chime in!
I do agree, 0320's are much easier to find used. The 360's seem to be more desired, there are fewer certified models using them, and they get bought up quick when they come to the market.
Another factor to consider in your selection, 360 machines have a history of significantly higher resell, if that is important to you or not.
 
What???

JonJay said:
An 0320 is cheaper to operate than an 0360? I have both and find they are about the same. They are in two different aircraft. When I fly my o320 powered Bucker with my buddies with their 0360 Bucker's, I always burn 1-2 gallons an hour more. When my buddies fly their 0320 rv's with the rest of us 0360's, they experience the same, more fuel burned. Everything else regarding operation costs is the same.
I would argue that the two engines are equally reliable.
So, just dont understand why an 0320 would be cheaper to operate. Come on engine guru's, chime in!
I do agree, 0320's are much easier to find used. The 360's seem to be more desired, there are fewer certified models using them, and they get bought up quick when they come to the market.
Another factor to consider in your selection, 360 machines have a history of significantly higher resell, if that is important to you or not.
Click to expand...

I read my post again... and still don't see where I said anything about being cheaper to operate or more reliable??? Hmmm... help me out here. :confused:
 
LifeofReiley said:
I read my post again... and still don't see where I said anything about being cheaper to operate or more reliable??? Hmmm... help me out here. :confused:
Click to expand...

The effeciency is in the air flow.
All things being equal, which they never are, the following is true.
Higher MP=more air=faster moving air=higher turbulence in the induction system=less efficient.
 
I might be getting a clue now...

Kahuna said:
The effeciency is in the air flow.
All things being equal, which they never are, the following is true.
Higher MP=more air=faster moving air=higher turbulence in the induction system=less efficient.
Click to expand...

So, all things equal, an 0320 to generate the same HP would have a higher MP leading to being less efficient than the 0360?
(sorry for the thread drift)
Thanks Kahuna
 
O-360

Many years ago Van stopped in the Denver area and had an informal meeting with any of the locals who could attend. He suggested, flying at the elevation we start at in Denver, to go with the O-360. I know builders in the area who have O-320's and are fine with the performance, but the O-360 guys definately move along better and the fuel is basically the same.

In my 12+ years of operating my RV6, O-360, I have had no regrets accept for the chrome cylinders I had installed when I had my engine re-built for my initial installation.

I recommend the O-360

Good luck, you will enjoy the finished product!!

Pat
 
Is 150 HP enough for acro at 3400 ASL

This is the info I NEED to hear because I live at an elevation of 3400 ASL. A -6 I've been looking at has a brand new 0-320 150 HP. I am a relatively small fella 5''9" 150 lbs. and I want to add a heater for winter flying and a smoke system to my -6. I will be using an Enigma EFIS so that will save some weight on Avionics and will go with VFR flying for now.

I also want to have enough HP to do decent acro and not be wishing I had more power. Fuel economy doesn't matter too much to me. I'm mostly going to fly locally and buzz the fields and don't care too much how much I burn.

I really want some honest feedback from those flying with 150 HP. It just seems like I may be lacking a bit, or am I making a big deal out of nothing and all I have to do is push the throttle in more ?

Darren
 
Darren S said:
This is the info I NEED to hear because I live at an elevation of 3400 ASL. A -6 I've been looking at has a brand new 0-320 150 HP. I am a relatively small fella 5''9" 150 lbs. and I want to add a heater for winter flying and a smoke system to my -6. I will be using an Enigma EFIS so that will save some weight on Avionics and will go with VFR flying for now.

I also want to have enough HP to do decent acro and not be wishing I had more power. Fuel economy doesn't matter too much to me. I'm mostly going to fly locally and buzz the fields and don't care too much how much I burn.

I really want some honest feedback from those flying with 150 HP. It just seems like I may be lacking a bit, or am I making a big deal out of nothing and all I have to do is push the throttle in more ?

Darren
Click to expand...

Darren its really impossible for anyone to give you any help with this as your need is so subjective.
A piper cub has enough HP and does decent acro. One mans too much power is another mans dog. I have a 540 and I sure could use some more power.
Everyones input is just too subjective to have any real meaning to you. You need to get in one and check it out. There are so many flying all over the place. A poke around your local EAA chpater and airport will turn up leads to get a seat in one.
 
I realize the subjectivity of my question. I was looking for someone whom might say that they have tried Acro in a 150 HP RV-6 and they were falling out at the top of loops, or some feedback to that effect. Or that it was no real problem. No need to dive prior to loop, just full throttle and pull back.

Thanks
 
Darren S said:
I realize the subjectivity of my question. I was looking for someone whom might say that they have tried Acro in a 150 HP RV-6 and they were falling out at the top of loops, or some feedback to that effect. Or that it was no real problem. No need to dive prior to loop, just full throttle and pull back.

Thanks
Click to expand...

OK in that case, I have, and its no problem. No need to dive, no need for full throttle either.
 
Don't believe it

This has been run into the ground many times before, and you will hear over and over that an O-360 is actually cheaper to run than an O-320. The reason it doesn't make sense is because it's not true.

The reason "everybody" seems to think so is because they are invariably comparing apples to oranges. O-320's are almost always carburated with mags. O-360's these days are almost always fuel injected with electronic ignition. In fact, a large precentage these days aren't even Lycomings.

So two RV guys go flying and the guy with the Superior O-360, with tuned intakes, fuel injection and electronic ignition has to pull the thottle to 65% so that the guy with the rebuilt, carburated, mag-driven Lyc O-320 can stay up with him at 75% power. They get to their hamburger and discover that the guy with the fancier engine burned 8 gph while the O-320 burned 8.5. What a shock.

But the real reason O-360's they aren't really cheaper to run is because nobody actually flies them that way. People who like planes like speed. People who buy the most powerful engine they can afford for their homebuilt plane sure as heck aren't going to fly it around at 50% power.

And it's worse if you compare C/S prop performance, since O-360's have two restricted power bands on the new Hartzell props, while O-320's have none. It means you have to get your 50% power at a higher RPM with an O-360 than you would with an O-320. Which means lower MP, and as someone has already pointed out, less efficiency.

My carburated, mag-driven O-320 routinely burned 6.5 gallons/hr, because I routinely flew it at 55% power. At 75% power, it was 8.5. My 75% power cruise at 8500 ft was 195 mph -- about 8 mph slower than an O-360, but also about 2 gph cheaper. An hour practicing in the pattern cost me 7 gph. With my C/S prop, I could outclimb a fixed-pitch O-360 RV (or any Bonanza or Mooney, for that matter -- which I could also outrun straight and level). Maybe I'm just a wimp, but that was plenty of power for me. I didn't have to worry about power bands and none of the crank AD's that came out a few years ago applied to me -- because the O-320 is a much smoother engine.

My RV4 will have another O-320. I guess I'm just a cheapskate.
 
Last edited:
jonbakerok said:
This has been run into the ground many times before, and you will hear over and over that an O-360 is actually cheaper to run than an O-320. The reason it doesn't make sense is because it's not true.
Click to expand...

I'll agree on this issue...

However, as I've flown various 6A's with 150, 160, and 180 HP engines, with both fixed and C/S props....

I'll take the 180 HP with C/S anyday!

L.Adamson --- RV6A 180/CS prop
 
IO-320 for me!

I get to talk with people who have hardware issuses;) many of them are RV owners.

I have talked with several about their engine experiences.

One guy had built 2 rv 6's and one rv8.

His experience was that the 8 should have a 360 in it and the 6 was within a few knots of each other with the 360 or the 320, and adding a C/S prop was a big benefit especially for climb/descent and rpm/speed control with all of them.

Vans told me at OSH in 2007, RV6 / IO320 / C/S Prop, and you could pay more and get the bigger engine but it would mostly be for your ego, unless you are based at a higher altitude field, your just paying more money for engine and fuel.

I will be going IO320 and C/S, I have not finalized my choice of props.

Today, May 8th 2009 is the 11th anniversary of placing my first order (Tail kit) with Van's. I am glad I did not buy the Major Later components yet, as my choices of equipment just keep improving.
 
L.Adamson said:
I'll agree on this issue...

However, as I've flown various 6A's with 150, 160, and 180 HP engines, with both fixed and C/S props....

I'll take the 180 HP with C/S anyday!

L.Adamson --- RV6A 180/CS prop
Click to expand...

Ditto that. I'm one of the few people I know who had flying at the same time 2 RV6's. One with a 360 and FP setup, one with a 320 FP setup. Both planes were built similarly and weights were similar from an airframe perspective.

I then switched the 320 FP RV6 to a 360 C/W so then I had a 360/FP and 360 C/S at the same time. I have a pretty good base to work from there, and I can attest to the sweet spot being the 360 with a C/S. Next choice would be a, then a 320 C/S, then a 360 FP, and last choice a 320 FP. That was after being able to fly them all side by side the same days.

In the end it's like everyone else said. It's VERY subjective. If you're coming out of a Cessna then ANY RV is going to seem like a dream. But, once you've flown behind the 360/CS combos, the bar just gets raised a bit.

I wouldn't slam anyone's choice of engines because each person has different things they consider when making choices. Me, I'm not a fan of the angle valve engines on RV's at all, but some people are. It doesn't make me right or them wrong, it's just different choices. My personal favorite is either a 320 or 360 with a C/S prop - just seems to be the sweet spots for me in RV's, but my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else.

I say any RV that gets done is a good plane. You'll be happy with almost any Lyco combination out there, but the end choice depends on so many subjective variables there probably isn't a perfect solution for every person - just like EFISes!

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
ECI kit engine if

I have not seen the ECI kit engines mentioned, but then only scanned this thread. I know two people flying these engines that are very happy with them. If you know how to build up an engine (I don't) or someone can help you, the ECI engines merit consideration. And in any event I'd obtain an engine that is capable of a running a CS prop (see other threads).

I've had 2 x RV6's, 1st with 160hp/FP later CS, 2nd with 180hp/CS. Some things to consider...

Do you have a heavy RV6 or a lighter one, i.e. 1150 EW or 1020 EW?

Do you routinely operate fm a higher DA, grass strip, and/or need more T/O and climb performance for some reason?

Do you operate at higher alt cruise where more speed is important to you n/w fuel burn?

In essence, the formula for fuel burn is directly related to HP being produced, not max HP. Pls read this again before citing formula.

My experience. Results may vary.
 
Thanks for the help

You have all been very helpful. I appreciate all the feedback and feel I am now equipped with enough knowledge to make and informed decision.

I will be looking for a used, low time O-320 C/S 160 HP. I feel that the C/S gives me better control over the flight envelope, especially when considering landing at a shorter airstrip. I think for my abilities, the 160 C/S will provide adequate power for aerobatics whilst providing good cruise, climb numbers.

Now.... These used motors are a little bit hard to find. I spent the morning on the phone to Dallas Air Salvage, Atlanta Air Salvage and nothing so far. The people on the other end of the line are quite helpful and friendly for which I am glad. I anticipated the type of response one sometimes get when calling the "junk yard" looking for car parts :) Those who have done that know what I mean :)

Anyways.... I've checked Barnstormers also. Any other suggestions for places to check is appreciated. I can also keep checking back to these sources, but was just looking for some more options.

Thanks,

Darren
 
How soon do you need an engine?

Darren S said:
You have all been very helpful. I appreciate all the feedback and feel I am now equipped with enough knowledge to make and informed decision.

snipped
Now.... These used motors are a little bit hard to find. I spent the morning on the phone to Dallas Air Salvage, Atlanta Air Salvage and nothing so far. The people on the other end of the line are quite helpful and friendly for which I am glad. I anticipated the type of response one sometimes get when calling the "junk yard" looking for car parts :) Those who have done that know what I mean :)

snipped

Darren
Click to expand...

Darren,
How soon will you need the engine? What stage of building are you at?
Charlie Kuss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top