One of the things about building the -9 that interests me is the ability to use smaller engines and still get really good performance. I would like to hear what engine/prop installation you have in your -9, and what your opinion of that installation is, and if you were to build another -9 would you do the same thing? I am leaning toward the O235 but want to hear what those of you who have that engine in your airplane think about it.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Engine Choice Opinions Wanted
- Thread starter slykins
- Start date
Just a recommendation
Vans does not recommend a 360 on a RV-9. I have a RV-8 with an IO-360 and and a CS WW 151 prop. Go fast, get there is my mission. I agree with your recommendation with the throttle, but using the 320. Building on a budget, the 320/Catto combo for the RV-9 offers the best options, IMHO.
Vans does not recommend a 360 on a RV-9. I have a RV-8 with an IO-360 and and a CS WW 151 prop. Go fast, get there is my mission. I agree with your recommendation with the throttle, but using the 320. Building on a budget, the 320/Catto combo for the RV-9 offers the best options, IMHO.
mike
Member
My experience
I have about 55 hours on this exact configuration: RV-9A with a 160hp o-320 and a Catto 3-blade prop. So far I have been completely happy with the combination. My empty weight (before paint) was 1018 pounds, which gives me over 600 pounds of carrying capacity with full fuel tanks.
I was just talking to Mel yesterday about this very issue. My plane will fly at 192mph WOT, which is only 17mph below vNE. I have to watch my power-on descents. In my opinion, the 160hp o-320 is plenty of power for the -9A. I just returned from Sun-N-Fun and I was able to cruise comfortably at 175mph burning 6.5 gallons per hour.
By the way, the -9A is a pure joy to fly. Stick close to what Van recommends and you will absolutely love the results.
Regards,
Mike Schipper
www.my9a.com
I have about 55 hours on this exact configuration: RV-9A with a 160hp o-320 and a Catto 3-blade prop. So far I have been completely happy with the combination. My empty weight (before paint) was 1018 pounds, which gives me over 600 pounds of carrying capacity with full fuel tanks.
I was just talking to Mel yesterday about this very issue. My plane will fly at 192mph WOT, which is only 17mph below vNE. I have to watch my power-on descents. In my opinion, the 160hp o-320 is plenty of power for the -9A. I just returned from Sun-N-Fun and I was able to cruise comfortably at 175mph burning 6.5 gallons per hour.
By the way, the -9A is a pure joy to fly. Stick close to what Van recommends and you will absolutely love the results.
Regards,
Mike Schipper
www.my9a.com
185hp
ECI has a new IOx-340. It's a stroked 320, puts out 185hp and is 30 lbs. lighter than a 360. Burns 9 gph, and sounds like the ticket for a 4 or 9. It uses stock 320 cylinders, but they won't sell you a crank unless you buy the whole kit. Reasonbly price at about $20k. Saw it at Sun 'n' Fun last week.
ECI has a new IOx-340. It's a stroked 320, puts out 185hp and is 30 lbs. lighter than a 360. Burns 9 gph, and sounds like the ticket for a 4 or 9. It uses stock 320 cylinders, but they won't sell you a crank unless you buy the whole kit. Reasonbly price at about $20k. Saw it at Sun 'n' Fun last week.
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Sensenich
If you go here and look at the bottom of the page you will see empty weights of RV-9A's with differnet engine/props
http://www.rvproject.com/wab/
The RV-9A is excellent in the W&B area. It can handle a light engine prop or a heavy engine prop. In general the empty weight should be lighter with a composite prop, but strangely enough of 12 RV-9A's, the lightest at 1017 lbs had a Sensenich (metal) prop and O320. Don't get wrapped into the prop is lighter = plane lighter. There is plenty of places to pack the pounds on (both pilot and plane). A wood based prop will be lighter but it is not enough to make a huge difference.
If you like the looks of the composite props because they are painted white, you can get your Sensenich painted any color you want, even matching the the planes paint scheme. (Custom Prop paint )
I would not worry about weight; my vote would be a O320 with a Sensenich prop. Nothing wrong with Catto, I hear good things, but for the money, performance and no fuss maintenance, I like the metal bladed prop. The wood/fiberglass wrap Catto will be lighter and should be smoother. Smoother is subjective and prop weight is not an issue as explained. George
If you go here and look at the bottom of the page you will see empty weights of RV-9A's with differnet engine/props
http://www.rvproject.com/wab/
The RV-9A is excellent in the W&B area. It can handle a light engine prop or a heavy engine prop. In general the empty weight should be lighter with a composite prop, but strangely enough of 12 RV-9A's, the lightest at 1017 lbs had a Sensenich (metal) prop and O320. Don't get wrapped into the prop is lighter = plane lighter. There is plenty of places to pack the pounds on (both pilot and plane). A wood based prop will be lighter but it is not enough to make a huge difference.
If you like the looks of the composite props because they are painted white, you can get your Sensenich painted any color you want, even matching the the planes paint scheme. (Custom Prop paint )
I would not worry about weight; my vote would be a O320 with a Sensenich prop. Nothing wrong with Catto, I hear good things, but for the money, performance and no fuss maintenance, I like the metal bladed prop. The wood/fiberglass wrap Catto will be lighter and should be smoother. Smoother is subjective and prop weight is not an issue as explained. George
Last edited:
Robert M
Well Known Member
A friend suggeested the O-360 and I told him that Van's didn't recommend it because of the ease of exceeding Vne. He said the 360 would be better to get me in and out of very short runways. I would like to have the "very" short filed capability but I think the right prop and the O-320 can do that with an RV-9. Then there will be some fileds that are just to short. Under the right circumstnaces, the Vne can be easily exceeded in either situation if the pilot isn't paying attention.
I'm planning on an O-320 maybe an IO-320 but don't know what prop yet.
So many choices!
I'm planning on an O-320 maybe an IO-320 but don't know what prop yet.
So many choices!
N941WR
Legacy Member
How short of a runway are you talking about?Robert M said:
Van's lists the following performance numbers on their web site for a 160 hp 9A. The takeoff distances for the -7A are shorter but the landing distances are longer. I suspect the difference is the shorter faster landing speeds.
Van's said:
Robert M
Well Known Member
Short Runways
Hi Bill
I'm not sure about the runway lengths - sorry to be evasive on this. Most of the runaways that I've seen - grass or otherwise - were plenty long enough so I really didn't understand my friends comments either. However, most of the short runaways that I have seen have had large oak trees at each end. The runway is placed between properties and the trees belong to the neighbors.
Having said that I will fall back on what I said earlier....
Hi Bill
I'm not sure about the runway lengths - sorry to be evasive on this. Most of the runaways that I've seen - grass or otherwise - were plenty long enough so I really didn't understand my friends comments either. However, most of the short runaways that I have seen have had large oak trees at each end. The runway is placed between properties and the trees belong to the neighbors.
Having said that I will fall back on what I said earlier....
N916K
Well Known Member
Robert M said:
Robert, I have the Sensenich 79" prop on my 9A. I thought it was great when I was flying at 600 feet and in the winter. Being a fixed pitch prop it really hurt me at high and hot runways. My take off roll easily doubles at higher runways. I just can't spin the engine up on takeoff to make much power.
The WOT speed numbers look great for the Sensenich, but the truth is I just don't spend that much time at WOT. At reduced engine speeds the fixed pitch prop loses quite a bit to the CS props.
Yes I probably would never get the money back in fuel economy if I switched to a CS prop, but seeing an RV with just 20 more hp take off in front of you and not just clear the trees at the end of the runway but make them a non issue. That's enough for me. No more fixed pitch props on my planes, no matter how fast they are.
akarmy
Well Known Member
Robert M said:
Thought I would give my experience on this one.
My setup = 0-320 160hp, Sensenich 79, turns up 2250 on takeoff...
I had no problems getting out of my Dad's 1800ft grass strip in the Virginia summertime fully loaded to gross. He has 60ft trees at both ends!
The main problem was getting a steep enough glide path to clear the trees and not float past the touchdown point.
I've also been in and out of a 1000ft grass strip (clear on both ends) with 2 on board and half fuel. That was about as short as I would like. We only cleared the fence by about 10ft.
All that said, last summer on the way to Oshkosh, in Kalispell MT, hot, high, loaded to gross+ we departed very slowly down the runway, but once up to speed out climbed the Cessna 182 in front of us and passed him within a few miles of the runway.
