[denbobp]

I have options on three different IO 360 Models. All 200 HP angle valve
IO 360 A3B6 torn down with /out crank and does have new ECI Cylinders. No logs.
IO 360 A1A with Constant speed prop- sitting since Mid 80s does have log books
IO 360 C1D6 with constant speed prop out of a commander. No logs, engine still in aircraft and appears to have been sitting for undetermined amount of time. has 9 qts of oil in it according to dip stick.

Realizing that engines and props will have to be torn down for unknowns, I would prefer to get the best one that would fit my application.
For others that have had to face multiple choices what helped you decide for your choice or what are some experiances with these engine types

 

[chaskuss]

No advice but a little info

Denny,
I can't give knowledgeable advice from over 2500 miles away. It helps to be able to see what your choices look like. That said, I can give you some info about two of those engines.
The first engine, the IO-360-A3B6, has a counter weighted crankshaft. This is used on certain model aircraft where propeller resonance is an issue. These engines usually weigh about 20 to 30 pounds more than a non counter weighted engine. On top of that, the counter weighted crankshafts cost more and are not as easy to find used.
The third engine [IO-360-C1D6] has horizontal fuel injection. Unfortunately for you, it faces rearward. That won't work in an RV. It also has a counter weighted crankshaft. [heavier]
With the 8, you could use the IO-360-C1D6 engine, IF you modify the sump, or replace it and all 4 intake tubes with ones from an IO-360-Axx series. Using the IO-360-Axx series sump and intake tubes will allow that engine to be used on most RV models. The IO-360-Cxx series sump will NOT work with the 8A.
Bill Wightman posted an excellent article on how to modify the sump from an IO-360-Cxx series for use on an RV8. The thread also shows why it won't work with an 8A. It starts about the middle of the page linked below

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=33171&highlight=sump&page=3

With the first engine, you can decide whether to purchase a counter weighted or non counter weighted engine, since it will be used experimentally.

Charlie
PS On the IO-360-C1D6 engine, you might be able to swap that rearward facing sump/intake tubes with a Velocity builder who has an IO-360-Axx series engine. He needs the rearward facing sump/tubes for his project. You need a forward facing horizontal sump/tubes to use an angle valve IO-360 engine.

 

[denbobp]

Counterweighted crank

Are you saying I could use another crank on an a3b6 engine that wouldn't need the counterweighted crank. I guess that would require a different prop as well.

 

[ColoRv]

model aircraft where propeller resonance is an issue. These engines usually weigh about 20 to 30 pounds more than a non counter weighted engine.

Charlie, are you saying a counter weighted angle valve weighs 20-30lbs more than a non counter weighted angle valve...or that much more than a parallel valve?

 

[Pat Stewart]

It seems to me that all these engines would require tear down and overhaul. Even at a core price plus overhaul cost would not a new ECI or Superior engine be the better option.

 

[ColoRv]

I'll have considerably less money in my overhauled angle valve than I would have had building any of the kits myself (local engine guru keeping me safe). If you pay someone else to build them, even more so. It really depends on what you pay for the core and what condition it is in. It looks like I'll have about 19k in mine, overhauled completely, new crank, cam, lifters, 10:1 lycon pistons, Pmags, cold air sump. Could have gone much cheaper had I went with mags, stock sump, etc.

A new kit is a great option...but overhauling can be done quite well too.

 

[David-aviator]

It seems to me that all these engines would require tear down and overhaul. Even at a core price plus overhaul cost would not a new ECI or Superior engine be the better option.

I went down this road no long ago and arrived at the same conclusion. The end result is nearly as much money as going new but ending up with a log reflecting a very old engine with some very old parts.

Another factor going angle valve vrs parallel valve is the possibility the class 3 medical exemption proposal will become a reality. That makes the 180 HP engine, not to speak of the obvious weight penalty of 200HP, a better choice new or used. There is a performance difference at WOT but otherwise either engine will get the job done most satisfactorily. Fuel mileage might even be better with the parallel valve engine considering total weight is less.

If the used engine is going to be cobbed together short of a major overhaul with whatever parts fit the cost will be less - but so will reliability.

Generally get what you pay for in this business. You can get ripped off, that's true, but not with reputable vendors. I was most concerned about the reputation of used engine sources. Some do guarantee the crank and case in writing, but there selling price is often more than basic core value.

Truth be known, many used 0360 engines are officially junk due to their age and do not meet the criteria established by Lycoming for overhaul, at least from a core value point if view. A buyer paying core value for such an engine is not doing himself any favors.

Lycoming may be intent on selling new engines - or maybe there is a valid technical reason to not overhaul very old engines. I tend to believe the later.

 

[BPoletti]

Another factor going angle valve vrs parallel valve is the possibility the class 3 medical exemption proposal will become a reality. That makes the 180 HP engine, not to speak of the obvious weight penalty of 200HP, a better choice new or used. There is a performance difference at WOT but otherwise either engine will get the job done most satisfactorily. Fuel mileage might even be better with the parallel valve engine considering total weight is less.

The class 3 medical exemption should be a critical factor for engine selection. The [medical] flexibility for use and the market for a 180hp plane because of that will make the plane more desirable (read: higher value) should it become time to sell. IMO, the performance difference is not enough to worry about.

 

[denbobp]

Back to the core question

Does the IO 360 A3B6 ( which I'm having problems locating a yellow tagged crankshaft) have to use the p/n 13B27221crank or can I use a different crank p/n?

 

[659JR]

engines

I believe Superior makes an experimental crank for that engine. You could put a non counterweighted crank in and it would save you some money but you would also have to change your conn rods. Both the IO360A1A and A3B6 should have the forward facing sump your after as well. The overhauled cranks for the A3B6 run around 6500 and the IO360A1A around 3500 both certified. I would have to check on the Superior.

Jesse

 

[N208ET]

Not the info you were looking for

The class 3 medical exemption should be a critical factor for engine selection. The [medical] flexibility for use and the market for a 180hp plane because of that will make the plane more desirable (read: higher value) should it become time to sell. IMO, the performance difference is not enough to worry about.

But I agree with this. Aside from that, the other things you might consider is the possiblility of using mogas, as this isn't an option in the angle valve, might not be a concern to you but eventually it could be. Due to the 8A being the only tandem nosedragger in the Vans fleet, this brings up interesting takeoff and landing CG shifts as it is flown solo or with a passenger. My 8A full fuel, me by myself (275lbs) nothing in the back, the aircraft is very nose heavy, it takes alot to bring the nose off the ground on takeoff and I can't hold it off very long on rollout. Throw a passenger in the mix, she lifts the nose off easy and I can keep it off forever on rollout, all this is with a 0-360 swinging a Catto 3 blade, battery up front. I know everything is a compromise but I wouldn't want any more weight up front. Had I put a constant speed prop on the battery would have gone in the back for sure. My setup has given me what I feel is the best utility, I can pretty much haul whatever I want where ever I want it in the plane. The angle valve engine Vans has on their 8A isn't the most desirable plane to fly by the employee's, its very nose heavy. But it also will probably climb straight up when light on fuel and only one person in it. If this is what you want in a plane, by all means build it, cause thats what you want, but know that the 10 minutes it took to get to altitude will be over in just that and you will have the rest of the flight to enjoy a nose heavy craft, then again ignorance is bliss, just don't fly a light plane after that.

Sorry I couldn't help you with your engine questions.

Randy
8A