I didn't want to hijack the other thread that was talking about the performance difference between these two engines, so I created this one to focus on the handling difference.
I am trying to figure out what engine/prop to eventually put on my RV-8. I will mostly be flying by myself. I want a stable cross country IFR platform that is also fun to fly VFR. I want a constant speed prop. I want to do the occasional roll or loop, but I'm not planning to do a lot of aerobatics. I really want power--I want the best cruise speed I can get, but what I really want more than a really fast cruise speed is an aggressive climb rate. I love the feeling of being pushed back into my seat and watching things on the ground get smaller and smaller. Also, practically speaking, I fly in the densely populated NYC area and was always taught to get as much altitude as quickly as possible just in case I have to find a place to put the plane down.
I have read a lot of threads that talk about how the RV-8 is nose heavy and less pleasant to fly solo with an angle valve engine upfront as compared to a parallel valve such as the IO-360-M1B. I'm wondering if that difference can be largely offset. It looks like the IO-390 is about 25lbs heavier than the IO-360-M1B. But if I use a composite prop over the heavy metal prop that many use with the parallel valve engine then I can save about 20lbs. That looks like a 5lb net increase with less weight farther from the CG due to the lighter prop if I go with the IO-390 and composite prop.
So if it comes down to an IO-360-M1B with a metal prop vs a IO-390 with a composite prop, shouldn't the W&B, and therefore the handling, basically become equivalent?
In terms of W&B I will also be installing aluminum landing gear, which will shave off 15lbs, though I'm sure that will have less of an effect on the pitch feel given that it's closer to the CG. My weight is 200lbs.
I am trying to figure out what engine/prop to eventually put on my RV-8. I will mostly be flying by myself. I want a stable cross country IFR platform that is also fun to fly VFR. I want a constant speed prop. I want to do the occasional roll or loop, but I'm not planning to do a lot of aerobatics. I really want power--I want the best cruise speed I can get, but what I really want more than a really fast cruise speed is an aggressive climb rate. I love the feeling of being pushed back into my seat and watching things on the ground get smaller and smaller. Also, practically speaking, I fly in the densely populated NYC area and was always taught to get as much altitude as quickly as possible just in case I have to find a place to put the plane down.
I have read a lot of threads that talk about how the RV-8 is nose heavy and less pleasant to fly solo with an angle valve engine upfront as compared to a parallel valve such as the IO-360-M1B. I'm wondering if that difference can be largely offset. It looks like the IO-390 is about 25lbs heavier than the IO-360-M1B. But if I use a composite prop over the heavy metal prop that many use with the parallel valve engine then I can save about 20lbs. That looks like a 5lb net increase with less weight farther from the CG due to the lighter prop if I go with the IO-390 and composite prop.
So if it comes down to an IO-360-M1B with a metal prop vs a IO-390 with a composite prop, shouldn't the W&B, and therefore the handling, basically become equivalent?
In terms of W&B I will also be installing aluminum landing gear, which will shave off 15lbs, though I'm sure that will have less of an effect on the pitch feel given that it's closer to the CG. My weight is 200lbs.
Last edited: