320 or 360

Hate to put this here, as to cause any ruckus but i'm eyeballing a 15 yr old 6A with a 150 HP O-320E2D 300 since major, fixed wood prop and a 8 month old 6A o-360A3A 300 since major, fixed wood prop. Both have the option for c/s prop, but tonight found out the 320 may have had some work done to the crankshaft, as in material removed thus making it impossible (as it is) to add a c/s prop. so it around 40K vs 55K and both panels basic vfr. I'm really on the fence here. I'm on 2100' paved runway with minor obstacles. Just unsure if it's worth the extra 15K for 30 more horses. (oh, well everything else being new, like the paint, tires, brakes, exhaust, nose gear, lighting, etc. I need to make a decision in about 2 wks. Any advice would be nice. (both sliders)
thx, DM
Oh and I put this here, for I'm basically questioning which eng would be best overall. Please move if this isn't the correct area.

30 hp more and over 14 years newer..................... pay the 55K and don't look back.

But, if your budget requires the 40k a/c then enjoy it.

From someone that has been flying a 320 Constant Speed RV-6 for 2,600 hours and over almost 15-years, get the 360 and you will not look back.

The 360 is 10 pounds heaver and will burn less pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour than what the 320 does when both are flying at the same cruise airspeed.

O-320 - E2D has a solid crank - no CS prop

As far as I know, the E2D has a solid crank and was never capable of taking a hydraulic CS prop. An electric CS is the only option. So, it was not any modification to the crank that removed the CS possibility.

I would be delighted to be wrong as I have that precise engine waiting to go on the nose of my RV-9 and I would love to have a CS 'upgrade path'.

The presence or absence of a hollow crank is a minor matter compared to talk of material being removed from a crankshaft. That is what I would focus on.

Crank AD

Hi,

What you are saying about the crank on the 320 does not make sense.

The AD requires inspection for corrosion which can lead to cracking. If corrosion is found the internal bore of the crank can be honed to a max internal diameter of 1.91 inches, any more than this and Lycoming say its scrap.

If there is no corrosion, or if when honed it is corrosion free it should be magnafluxed and if no cracks it can be internally protected and stamped PID......its then good to go.

If it has been honed past 1.91, then you are really in the Experimental area. I wonder if it has any prop extension which would add more load to the flange even with a light wood prop. I would be asking some rather searching questions about this before making any offer on it, irrespective of the 320/360 debate.

WAM120RV said:

Hi,

What you are saying about the crank on the 320 does not make sense.

The AD requires inspection for corrosion which can lead to cracking. If corrosion is found the internal bore of the crank can be honed to a max internal diameter of 1.91 inches, any more than this and Lycoming say its scrap.

If there is no corrosion, or if when honed it is corrosion free it should be magnafluxed and if no cracks it can be internally protected and stamped PID......its then good to go.

If it has been honed past 1.91, then you are really in the Experimental area. I wonder if it has any prop extension which would add more load to the flange even with a light wood prop. I would be asking some rather searching questions about this before making any offer on it, irrespective of the 320/360 debate.

Click to expand...

yes, really unsure about this and unsure if i'm gonna go this route, now that you bring up the info you did. wish i could see the log books here, instead of them being 9 hrs away. i'll see what i can find out. on the budget end...it's all a finance job anway. I can manage this, just wasn't sure it was necessary. following the paper trail in wiki lycoming it's traced back to the
a1a with provisions for c/s prop. if i'm wrong on this, please someone else point this out. the O-360 was salvaged from a piper wreck. the runout mic'd .002. lycoming's rule is .003. so the engine was deemed serviceable. that's all i know on this. just going by what the fellers telling me.

320 vs 360

After owning a RV6 with a 320 and metal prop, I would get the 360. hands down.

Reasons:
- Re-sale
- Performance, yes it makes a nice difference
- Improves CG
- You will get your money back through better resale.
- Many buyers know to buy with an RV with a 360 after talking with a few owners as you are.
- I love my 360 w/CS in the RV7.

Loman said:

As far as I know, the E2D has a solid crank and was never capable of taking a hydraulic CS prop. An electric CS is the only option. So, it was not any modification to the crank that removed the CS possibility.

Click to expand...

The E2D does indeed have a hollow crank. However it is NOT compatible with a hydraulic constant speed prop because of the front bearing configuration.

Mel said:

The E2D does indeed have a hollow crank. However it is NOT compatible with a hydraulic constant speed prop because of the front bearing configuration.

Click to expand...

thank you...process of illimation. you've helped!

Logs/Runout

drmax said:

yes, really unsure about this and unsure if i'm gonna go this route, now that you bring up the info you did. wish i could see the log books here, instead of them being 9 hrs away.

a1a with provisions for c/s prop. if i'm wrong on this, please someone else point this out. the O-360 was salvaged from a piper wreck. the runout mic'd .002. lycoming's rule is .003. so the engine was deemed serviceable. that's all i know on this. just going by what the fellers telling me.

Click to expand...

If your seller has an iPhone, scanner, or somesuch, it's simple to copy the engine logs and send same to you.

If there was a prop strike or sudden stoppage the runout matters nada. Lyco says teardown necessary which is quite spendy. One I had which turned out OK was $3000+

.

As someone who recently bought an RV-6 with O-320 and fixed pitch wood prop, I'll throw in my 2 points for opting for the O-360.

Taking off with two aboard, full of fuel, on a hot Texas day with the density altitude up there... I sure wished I had an extra 20 horses!
(Anybody ever put a nitrous oxide injection system on an O-320 for takeoff boost? )

The O-320 and wood prop combo can make some aft CG issues on a -6, especially with the baggage compartment loaded up and as the fuel tanks get down towards empty on long x-c flights (e.g. going to Oshkosh). The -6A has the benefit of extra weight from the nose gear to help out here, but the extra weight up front of the 360 engine is even better in this regard. Nose gear plus 360 engine up front means you can carry more stuff in the baggage compartment without worrying about getting too tailheavy.

15 years, 300 hrs., = 20 hours/yr.

drmax, mucho potential for the cam to have dried and re-dried during this period of little flying, and for excessive wear to have begun.

Suggestion: Offer the owner 8 qts. his favorite oil and a new oil filter in exchange for his "changed" oil filter, cut the filter, remove the paper element, and have your favorite A&P check for metal deposits. Very good chance that when checked in bright sunlight that many little "sparklers" will shine like little diamonds, most probably indicating that this engine is "making metal."

The $55K for the newer O-360 looks like the better investment, as always, "Your mileage may vary!"

Barney, in Memphis
Flying RV-3 & 4
Paid up for 2012

updateon 360

spoke with seller. logbook reads "complied with AD ad 04-10-14c1, eng run complete with no leaks noted". I'll assume this inpection was properly performed...i.e. bolt tossed, new installed with locking tabs. Propellar flange runout at .002, which is less than the specs. .005. This is then ok. A/P signoff in the logbook. Spoke with lycoming rep today. Tear down recommended...not mandatory. Enough said on this.
The issue with an A3A being able to support c/s prop...the answer lies with the crankcase. There is, or rather are some oil ports with this case that would either allow the c/s to work...or not. Without seeing inside, OR, without knowing the part number of the case, it is UNK. This is not a show stopper. Rep said that "most likely" will support a c/s prop.
Thx

PM Sent...

Sent you a PM...