What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Questions: Prop: CS v Fixed, Engine: O v IO, Mags: electronic mag v conventional

K

katana56

I'm New Here
I am building a RV6a, slider, Installing Skyview 10? for a glass cockpit, ADS-B, electric flaps, complete interior, custom paint.

Before spending money I am seeking a diversity of thoughts on these highly, often debated essential parts. I would enjoy your option and thoughts.

In advance, thank you.

1) O-360 vs: IO-360 (180 hp):
2) CS propeller vs: fixed pitch propeller:
3) Conventional mags vs: electronic mags:
a. Which configuration is preferred?
b. Is one more saleable over the other?
c. Does either make the finished product more valuable?
 
My preferences would be

Fuel injected for reliable lean of peak operations and fuel efficiency.

Constant speed prop for greater range of power adjustments in multiple situations.

For 360, you have an option of P-Mag, combining the best of both magneto and electronic ignition.

Of course, some of the above options incur much greater cost. Saleability? About the same I think. More valuable? Maybe a bit but not the full value you've put into it.
 
All of these fall under the never-ending debate category. From what I have seen and read, I think you will find that if people had to choose just one of those things on the above list, they would choose the CS prop. That would probably be the biggest boost in terms of resale.

All that being said, I have a 150HP, carbureted 9A with a FP prop and slick mags. It is very light and flies beautifully. Also much less in terms of maintenance costs. Many people with carb'ed engines are able to run LOP and get similar economy to injected engines. When the time comes, I will probably replace at least one mag with a PMag however - simpler, less maintenance, and more fuel efficient.

Chris
 
Last edited:
From my experiances

Wood/Metal:

If you like gambling $12,000 every time you taxi... by all means go metal

Otherwise, wood/composite props cause less engine stress on prop strikes. You don't usually require an engine tare-down. Although this attitude may be changing.

CS / FP:

I've flown both. RVs with CS props are heavier and it's noticable. They accelerate from stop faster, climb slightly better, cruise slightly better... air brake really well.

So the only clear advantage is air-braking. The others are incremental improvements on already crazy awesome specs.
.
Now flying formation with FP/CS mix is a bit trickier as the lag/lead is different. This is particularly worse in aerobatics where my fixed pitch RV-3/4 just could _NOT_ stop over-shooting on the down-side of a loop.

For my bang/buck and ease of ownership (wallet book), as Van's motto is "Total Performance"... I think that means a good fixed composite prop biased for climb has always made me happiest.

Carb /FI:

Carb is simpler. FAB is a modest complexity, but doesn't seriously change anything
Tuned FI is 10-20% more efficient (especially at low-cruise power settings), but at cost to complexity. Should you go old school mechanical... it's a HUGE PITA to hot start. seriously awful and it can strand you or limit your ability to do missions like Young Eagles where you stop/start all day. If you decide to pony the big bucks and go EFII, this is really the best of all worlds, but it requires a lot of money to do with appropriate electronic redundancy.

My RV-3 was carburated, never had a problem with it. It did 140ktas@8k at 7gph
My RV-4 was ballanced mechanical FI (aeroflow performance). It starts great cold, but awful at hot start. It does 140ktas@8k 5.8gph and takes one more person and has bigger tanks.
 
Last edited:
It's dollars vs utility. The best setup is injection for many reasons, icing, economy, performance, tuning. Constant speed for performance, economy and fatigue. EI for performance and economy (pmag not my first choice). It's cheaper and easier to do it at the beginning than to upgrade parts later. Composite CS props are lighter and great performance. All around better resale, too.
 
Last edited:
When someone looks to buy, they want all the goodies. Why? Cause its cheaper for them to buy that way than upgrade. You as seller take the hit on the cost.

If you are going to fly it for a good while (>1000hrs), then equip the way you want and forget resale. Youre not going to make your money back.

That said, IMHO, for a nicely equipped 2place homebuilt, the comfortable mid range of options is some logically laid-out panel with a 430W or better GPS, CS, bendix based injection, and one P-mag. From that starting point anyone can refine what you sell and be even happier with it there after. Or they can fly with what you built and still be very happy.

Its how I plan to outfit my M2.
 
Try and beat this

https://youtu.be/fzMvZW09n18

Here is a video of an RV7 with a fixed wood prop on a 150 HP 0-320 with 2 mags.

How much performance do you really want or need? It is really hard to beat the light and delightful flying qualities that you get in the above combination.

I have flown about 1700 hours in a wood and cloth 2 seat side by side with the same engine as the camera ship in the video. It was the most enjoyable lowest cost flying I ever did. Then I moved on the a IO 540 with a 3 blade MT CS in a Rocket. Different beast with a never ending thirst for dollars. Do you dearly want to fly for joy? Or do you want to fly dearly at nosebleed costs?

https://youtu.be/fzMvZW09n18
 
What mission?

Steve,

You don't say what you have set for the primary mission of this airplane. I offer a decision point:

For high efficiency cross country;
- 180 hp (parallel valve) IO-360 with Hartzell blended airfoil CS prop, dual pMags.

For flying around the patch and the $100 hamburger;
- 180 hp (parallel valve) IO-360 with FP prop, dual pMags.

Buy a new engine from Van's, sell the mags off the new engine (you will get a better price) and install the pMags. The pMags, for me, has proven to be the best bang for the buck I did for my airplane.

There is simply no way to make a carburetor airplane run efficiently LOP. You can force them, but you will not be satisfied. Add to that the one friend that had an off field landing in a new RV from carb ice and I will never own a plane without fuel injection. I put an IO-360 in the RV-8A and an IO-540 in the RV-10 and never had a hot start issue. I run 20-30 degrees LOP 95% of the time. I did balance the injectors (I replaced 4 of the 6 in the IO-540 - at $26 each from AirFlow Performance this is a very cheap mod).

I suspect many will take exception with my points.

Carl
 
My likes:

1) Fuel injected
2) Don't care. RVs fly great with FP on the cheap. If you have the extra $$$, spend it and gain a little more performance for a lot more money.
3) At least one EI (e.g. P-Mag).
 
Just had a private conversation about constant speed (CS). Some of the posts above show the bias toward CS props. However, there are some disadvantages to CS that definitely offset the advantages in my book. So since this thread has already seen the biased comments FOR CS, I would like to counter with an argument FOR fixed pitch (FP) props:
  1. Purchase Cost; Hands down FP wins. On the order of $8K+ or so difference.
  2. Maintenance Cost; again FP wins. Very little, if any, maintenance costs associated with running a fixed pitch prop.
  3. Complexity; FP again wins as there is really just a prop and perhaps a prop extension to deal with.
  4. Weight; composite prop 12 lbs - metal constant speed prop, umm say 45+. Yeah, I think FP comes out on top here too.
  5. Potential failures; CS has oil lines, internal moving parts, etc. that can fail unexpectedly. FP has, well, it has, lets see, it has, well it has wood, maybe fiberglass or carbon, maybe a rock chip or something could mess it up. But then if so, get out a file and some sandpaper.
If the right FP prop is paired correctly with the engine and airframe I would argure a FP can come very close to performing similarly to a CS. At least I will say the performance improvements the CS has over the FP are not enough to overcome the above disadvantages when used on an RV.
 
RVbySDI said:
Just had a private conversation about constant speed (CS). Some of the posts above show the bias toward CS props. However, there are some disadvantages to CS that definitely offset the advantages in my book. So since this thread has already seen the biased comments FOR CS, I would like to counter with an argument FOR fixed pitch (FP) props:
  1. Purchase Cost; Hands down FP wins. On the order of $8K+ or so difference.
  2. Maintenance Cost; again FP wins. Very little, if any, maintenance costs associated with running a fixed pitch prop.
  3. Complexity; FP again wins as there is really just a prop and perhaps a prop extension to deal with.
  4. Weight; composite prop 12 lbs - metal constant speed prop, umm say 45+. Yeah, I think FP comes out on top here too.
  5. Potential failures; CS has oil lines, internal moving parts, etc. that can fail unexpectedly. FP has, well, it has, lets see, it has, well it has wood, maybe fiberglass or carbon, maybe a rock chip or something could mess it up. But then if so, get out a file and some sandpaper.
If the right FP prop is paired correctly with the engine and airframe I would argure a FP can come very close to performing similarly to a CS. At least I will say the performance improvements the CS has over the FP are not enough to overcome the above disadvantages when used on an RV.
Click to expand...

Wow.. that was very one sided.. You didn't mention climb performance, cruise performance, fuel economy, pilot and plane fatigue. If CS was so bad why does almost everyone use them? CS has ALWAYS been the prefered choice unless the mission is something FP specific, like small racing planes or cheap build local hoppers.

If you read though years of posts you'll see one thing is consistent. Everyone posts about upgrades to CS, you rarely ever see someone downgrade to a FP.
 
Last edited:
Yes it was one sided. On purpose! The point was that there are many reasons to go CS. There are just as many reasons to go FP. The truth is that if one were to do a REAL cost/benefit analysis of the two props and look at ALL of the variables of making a decision on which to use based upon the actual mission needs of the airplane, CS might NOT necessarily be a "no-brainer" decision. In other words, take the emotional aspect out of the decision. If one were to do that and be realistic about the benefits/restrictions of both in terms of what the airplane will REALLY be doing, one might find the FP a viable option.

Oh, and yes there have been several people, even some who post on this forum site, who have indeed made the change from CS to FP. Many would not even have such a BIASED opinion that it was a "downgrade" at all.
 
Another expense to factor in for the CS prop selection is the cost of rebuilding the prop governor. The MT P860-4 I had installed in mine was due for a rebuild after 72 month. The quoted cost $800.00 from MT. It also requires a rebuild at TBO. The Hartzell S-1-10 Prop gov doesn't require a 72 month rebuild, saves money. If your Prop governor is defective or malfunctions resulting in a severe engine over-speed, it could cost significantly more.

katana56 said:
I would enjoy your option and thoughts.

In advance, thank you.

1) O-360 vs: IO-360 (180 hp): IO-360 (preferred)(More Value)
2) CS propeller vs: fixed pitch propeller: CS Hartzell Blended Air Foil (Preferred)(More value)
3) Conventional mags vs: electronic mags: Slick Mags but considering EI (SDS CPI)(Preferred)(More Value)
a. Which configuration is preferred?
b. Is one more saleable over the other?
c. Does either make the finished product more valuable?
Click to expand...
 
Exactly right! FP are mission specific, as I said. They are built to go fast, or climb fast or are a compromise. Where as CS do it all. They climb faster, cruise faster and burn far less fuel.. Not to mention lower RPM's, less pilot and plane fatigue. I have never seen a post or have known a pilot that went from a (good) CS to a FP. Unless the mission was specific. Yet I've read and seen countless pilots replace a FP for a CS. And everyone has said the performance was dramatic.

Each to their own. CS is costlier and more complicated I grant you. But on the other hand I've also seen pilots buy one FP after another looking for better performance. What does that cost?
 
Chkaharyer99 said:
Another expense to factor in for the CS prop selection is the cost of rebuilding the prop governor. The MT P860-4 I had installed in mine was due for a rebuild after 72 month. The quoted cost $800.00 from MT. It also requires a rebuild at TBO. The Hartzell S-1-10 Prop gov doesn't require a 72 month rebuild, saves money. If your Prop governor is defective or malfunctions resulting in a severe engine over-speed, it could cost significantly more.
Click to expand...

On that note: If a FP delaminates or loses a chunk you're in the same boat. MT governors have been known to be problematic. A good governor will go to TBO, and a new one is $1200.
 
My mission is mostly cross country and I wouldn't trade my Catto for all the CS in the universe. Less up front costs and the performance is so close in the cruise department it's not worth it. Now I do wish that I had gone IO instead of carbed as that's where all the economy comes from. Not the CS.
 
FasGlas said:
Exactly right! FP are mission specific, as I said. They are built to go fast, or climb fast or are a compromise. Where as CS do it all. They climb faster, cruise faster and burn far less fuel.. Not to mention lower RPM's, less pilot and plane fatigue. I have never seen a post or have known a pilot that went from a (good) CS to a FP. Unless the mission was specific. Yet I've read and seen countless pilots replace a FP for a CS. And everyone has said the performance was dramatic.

Each to their own. CS is costlier and more complicated I grant you. But on the other hand I've also seen pilots buy one FP after another looking for better performance. What does that cost?
Click to expand...
Actually, I would suggest you do a little more analysis of current FP prop performance. You have twice now mentioned performance characteristics. Yet you still miss the point I am making. I am simply trying to provide realistic analysis of information that a builder/pilot may wish to examine in determining which prop would work best for a particular airplane's configuration. You are intent on arguing that in all aspects a CS is better than a FP. I am saying that you should step back from the emotional "macho" aspect of faster faster faster (faster climb; faster cruise; faster emptying of the wallet) as the ONLY determination of "better".

However, I will nibble on your bait a bit and say that in not ALL situations will a CS outperform a FP. There are always variables to consider. And I am not just talking about going fast at a top speed, or climbing fast. There are FP designs that do indeed perform in multiple aspects of the performance range and not just remain "stuck" in a particular performance regime due to the restricted design configuration.

I would contend your concept of FP is indeed "fixed" on an adage that: "What has been, will always be", when it comes to performance. I am not arguing at all that CS props are a "wrong" choice to make. What I am saying is that there are multiple concepts of "best" that just talking about faster this or faster that do not address. There is very much a bigger picture analysis that should be evaluated when making the determination. If you are convinced there is nothing but a CS prop that will work on an airplane then you have pretty much made it clear your views. I am writing to simply open the eyes of someone, clearly you being the exception, that might begin to understand that there are indeed very good reasons someone might choose a FP prop over a CS prop.

Oh yes, I almost forgot: Live Long and Prosper!
 
Chkaharyer99 said:
.... If your Prop governor is defective or malfunctions resulting in a severe engine over-speed, it could cost significantly more.
Click to expand...

If you have Pmags you can set the max rpm. Another + for Pmags.

One thing no one has mentioned directly. It is very difficult for a FP prop to be good at 60 mph and still good at 200 mph. Either one end of the range will suffer or the whole thing is a compromise. I think CS props and RVs are a great combination. Yes they do weigh more but on my -4 I would welcome some weight on the nose. As for the increased mx, yes there is but there is also increased utility, efficiency and even safety when you start flying into small strips on hot days. Just my opinion. Worth what you paid for it.
 
If I didn't have these 12,000 Ft mountains in my way, I would have gone with the Catto, but........I need the climb right now part. O, and my used engine came with a newish CS Hartzell set up :D
 
Got me thinking, and now my head hurts!

I've been reading both sides of the debate, and agree with both sides for the most part. But,,, I'm curious about the HP vs constant speed performance.

Lets say that I have two identical RV's, I put a standard O360 (180hp) CS on one, and a 200hp FP on the other, will the extra 20hp overcome the CS advantage? That's assuming a FP cruise prop, and hoping to regain the climb through extra HP.


That being said, I'm going with a FP just because I like to fly cheap.

As a side note, the RV8A (160hp) I built was super light with a whirlwind ground adjustable. It climbed 1700 with 2 up and half fuel on a hot day and cruised 205mph at 10,500 @ 2700. The only gripe I had was on initial roll, it took about 300-400 ft to spool up and start pulling hard.
 
RVbySDI said:
Actually, I would suggest you do a little more analysis of current FP prop performance. You have twice now mentioned performance characteristics. Yet you still miss the point I am making. I am simply trying to provide realistic analysis of information that a builder/pilot may wish to examine in determining which prop would work best for a particular airplane's configuration. You are intent on arguing that in all aspects a CS is better than a FP. I am saying that you should step back from the emotional "macho" aspect of faster faster faster (faster climb; faster cruise; faster emptying of the wallet) as the ONLY determination of "better".

However, I will nibble on your bait a bit and say that in not ALL situations will a CS outperform a FP. There are always variables to consider. And I am not just talking about going fast at a top speed, or climbing fast. There are FP designs that do indeed perform in multiple aspects of the performance range and not just remain "stuck" in a particular performance regime due to the restricted design configuration.

I would contend your concept of FP is indeed "fixed" on an adage that: "What has been, will always be", when it comes to performance. I am not arguing at all that CS props are a "wrong" choice to make. What I am saying is that there are multiple concepts of "best" that just talking about faster this or faster that do not address. There is very much a bigger picture analysis that should be evaluated when making the determination. If you are convinced there is nothing but a CS prop that will work on an airplane then you have pretty much made it clear your views. I am writing to simply open the eyes of someone, clearly you being the exception, that might begin to understand that there are indeed very good reasons someone might choose a FP prop over a CS prop.

Oh yes, I almost forgot: Live Long and Prosper!
Click to expand...

Ok, I get it.. If you would have just said you were too cheap to go with a CS setup I would have understood. Look, I don't build planes to go slow, climb or cruise. I have a car for that. I've said over and over (since you can't find it in my posts) that each type is mission specific. Since the OP appears to be building a plane he plans to fly and not race, a CS is more prefered for ALL the right reasons. If he stated that he wanted to roll slow, climb slow and go fast at the top end, spinning 3000 RPM, I would have suggested a FP. Or climb like a bat out of he11, and cruise slowly, again I would have suggested a FP... But he asked about a good combination for his plane, an RV-6 to go flying. This is a prefered setup. Go try one and learn something. Some builders actually don't mind spending some money on the airplane they really want in the first place.
 
I seem to recall reading somewhere in my plans where Van's highly recommends a CS prop on the RV. So, there's that...
 
RVs stalls at 50 kts and cruise at 150, that's quite the speed range. A 172 stalls at 50 and cruises at 100, much narrower speed range. FP props are optimized for one speed, CS props are much more flexible. Is that flexibility worth the purchase and operating costs? That can only be answered by you.
 
FasGlas said:
Ok, I get it.. If you would have just said you were too cheap to go with a CS setup I would have understood. Look, I don't build planes to go slow, climb or cruise. I have a car for that. I've said over and over (since you can't find it in my posts) that each type is mission specific. Since the OP appears to be building a plane he plans to fly and not race, a CS is more prefered for ALL the right reasons. If he stated that he wanted to roll slow, climb slow and go fast at the top end, spinning 3000 RPM, I would have suggested a FP. Or climb like a bat out of he11, and cruise slowly, again I would have suggested a FP... But he asked about a good combination for his plane, an RV-6 to go flying. This is a prefered setup. Go try one and learn something. Some builders actually don't mind spending some money on the airplane they really want in the first place.
Click to expand...
Ok it is clear that you are passionate about your constant speed prop. I will refrain from posting further on the topic after this post. I have refrained from commenting on specific performance data but since you are adamant that a fixed pitch prop is slow in climb, slow in cruise and burns more fuel in doing so, I will end my comments with data about my slow to climb and slow to cruise fuel guzzling RV9A. I routinely climb at 1400 FPM on 95 deg Oklahoma summer days to cruising altitude where I routinely cruise around 170-175 MPH and burn around 6.5-7.0 GPH all while doing this with a fixed pitched prop. Here is a thread with some numbers I posted a few weeks ago (post #9) if you are interested in seeing numbers:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=140874&highlight=gph+club

I am sure a constant speed will do somewhat better in one, or maybe even all of those paremeters (although not too sure in the fuel burn paremeter), but the point I have been trying to get across is the concept of whether the extra "everything" a CS prop could provide is worth all the extra one has to pay, dollar wise and otherwise, for the small gain in performance seen with a CS prop over what the FP will deliver on the RV.

If we meet at OSH or somewhere lets drink a Spotted Cow together and tell stories about how fun it is to fly our RVs!

And so I shall finalize my comments on this thread by again signing off with:
Live Long and Prosper!
 
A properly set up EI can provide anywhere from "improved" to "dramatic" performance gains over magnetos and are a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Fuel injection offers performance and operational benefits at a higher initial cost than a carb. The choice is not as clear on that one - it is mission specific and a trade study should be conducted.

The very wide speed range of the RV line suggests a CS propeller, but as others have pointed out, RV's are generally overpowered enough that a fixed prop capable of supporting a fast cruise will also drag the airplane off the ground acceptably. CS propeller systems are complex, heavy and expensive - yes, but they offer a great deal of versatility to the airplane. This is an area that does not lend itself to internet opinion - we are not picking out a color scheme here. You need to know what you need and equip the airplane appropriately for your mission. If you have not flown a CS prop enough to understand what they do for you, then get that experience, make your decision, and move on. Everyone here is going to defend their own decision as the "right" one, so we are the wrong people to ask.
 
What I recall Van saying is build light and keep it simple.

I did. RV8 at 1067 pounds with a Superior IO360 and a Catto 3 blade. I have a plane that is a joy to fly and well balanced for fun flying. It won't accelerate from 0 to 125 knots as quickly as a constant speed prop or climb as well in that speed range, but that is about it as far as drawbacks and I only fly in that speed range at the beginning of each flight for maybe 60 seconds. After 125 knots, it will climb with a constant speed.

If my primary mission was long cross country, a constant speed would allow same cruise speeds at lower rpm's. But mine is definitely not slower or less efficient.

As the previous poster noted, everyone defends their own decision as being the right choice. I made the right choice for me.
 
From the FAA: "a fixed-pitch propeller achieves the best efficiency only at a given combination of airspeed and rpm, the pitch setting is ideal for neither cruise nor climb. Thus, the aircraft suffers a bit in each performance category. The fixed-pitch propeller is used when low weight, simplicity, and low cost are needed"

When I was looking for an RV, I wanted CS. I had friends that argued with me that a FP prop could outperform a CS prop in all areas of flight. They could not explain why, they could not give details, they could not provide data to support the claim. I could buy that a good FP could outperform a CS in ONE area of flight, but not all.

FP props are set for either cruise, climb, or a hybrid. But its performance range is limited in some area. Let's say the plane was like my old Challenger LSA. It took off at about 40 and topped out at about 95. A CS prop would have been a waste there since it would have added cost, weight, complexity, and there were not really good options.

Now look at my S1S Pitts. It has a climb prop for acro. Because of this, T models with the same engine as mine TO in less distance, cruise about 24 MPH faster, have longer vertical uplines, and burn less GPH in cruise than me.

A FP prop is a compromise somewhere, and the higher performance and larger speed range, the higher the compromise somewhere.

I would only go FP if cost was a major factor. I am quite happy with he RV6 180HP/CS that I am flying.

As for FI or Carb. Love the FI in the Pitts. But didn't really dislike the carb on the Citabria or in the RV. Inverted fuel carbs are picky and if you are going to spend time inverted at 0G or -G, I'd get FI.
 
Hello Bighorn
I am not sure what takeoff roll I get at gross. I would guess 600 to 800 feet off my grass home field. This time of year with temps in the mid 90's and about 1500 pounds gross I can be at 1400 AGL in 60 seconds from a dead stop without zoom climb.
I have a screen shot of my EFIS at 16000 DA at 178 KTAS and 2700 rpm's burning 7.7 GPH. And another screen shot at 12000 DA at 158 KTAS burning 5.85 GPH. Both are ROP.
At low altitudes I burn 10.5 to 11 GPH at 178 KTAS at 2700 rpm's. If I turn 5% more rpm's, I get a corresponding increase in speed. My usual cross country cruise is 162 KTAS at 2450 rpm's and at 6000 DA I burn about 8.5 GPH. I've never had the prop balanced, but it is turbine smooth at all but idle speeds where I do get vibration
 
Last edited:
brad walton said:
Hello Bighorn
I am not sure what takeoff roll I get at gross. I would guess 600 to 800 feet off my grass home field. This time of year with temps in the mid 90's and about 1500 pounds gross I can be at 1400 AGL in 60 seconds from a dead stop without zoom climb.
I have a screen shot of my EFIS at 16000 DA at 178 KTAS and 2700 rpm's burning 7.7 GPH. And another screen shot at 12000 DA at 158 KTAS burning 5.85 GPH. Both are ROP.
At low altitudes I burn 10.5 to 11 GPH at 178 KTAS at 2700 rpm's. If I turn 5% more rpm's, I get a corresponding increase in speed. My usual cross country cruise is 162 KTAS at 2450 rpm's and at 6000 DA I burn about 8.5 GPH. I've never had the prop balanced, but it is turbine smooth at all but idle speeds where I do get vibration
Click to expand...

Thanks Brad. I did not ask the question but have been looking for Catto data for conversion from my Sensenich.
 
I had planned on a Catto on my 7 till I ran the numbers on W&B. It cost me 5500 more for the Hartzell CS including the new gov and I like it and have never looked back!.....but, I would have probably been thrilled with the Catto cause I never had CS before or an RV for that matter!.....I love the Bendix FI on my used IO 360 and have never had trouble hot starting it!.... I will probably install a Pmag or two someday but honestly, my Bendix mags have been trouble free so far!....A list of the objectionable why's and why not's is very helpful to someone who is trying to make that painful choice and these threads are invaluable. You just have to weed out the bickering every now and then!
 
Cost v Complexity v Weight v Preference

Had a nightmare with WW151 on my RV-8 which they replaced with a WW200. Never again. Only Catto and loved it on my RV-6A. It will be Catto 3 blade on my RV-6 pitched for extreme cruise.

FI on both and NO PROBLEMS. If tuned properly HOT STARTS are a myth!!!!! If it were not for the complexity, I'd love EFI on my RV-6.

Slicks on both the IO-360 RV-8 and IO-320 RV-6A. While no problems, I'll go with EI on my RV-6, probably PMAGS, but even with the added complexity, Ross' stuff intriges me.

Light, simple and inexpensive. Don't build for resale, build for you. For me, a RV-6 with a 175 HP IO-320, Catto(Best guy and best BFYB) and TBD Ignition. EFIS, AP and Electronics International instrumentation(Because they are what I've preferred for 20 plus years).

All IMHO. God bless and good luck. You will change you mind a dozen times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top