F

flybynight55

Member
Hi. I would like any and all advice on engine selection for a RV4. I've seen and heard of RV's with Lycoming, Subaru, Chevy and Jabiru engines. Can those of you with information and /or experience with any of these engines fill me in on the good, bad and the ugly on why to use or not use any of them in an RV4?? I know the Lycoming is the obvious choice, but I really like the Jabiru too and would not discount the others either. Thanks, Tom in Ga.
 
Yep

flybynight55 said:
I know the Lycoming is the obvious choice, but I really like the Jabiru too and would not discount the others either.
Click to expand...
You have that right. It's the obvious choice. Tom try the forums search feature. There is a ton of info and opinion. All the best.
 
RV-4 Engine

Wow, I think you may have just opened up a can of worms. I think that if you search this site you will find a full spectrim of opinions for and against just about every engine (even the Lycomings).

After you have read and researched all of the pro's and con's on each available engine it will still (in my humble opinion) come down to how much of an experimental pilot you decide that you want to be.

I think that most would agree that the Lycoming is the path of the least resistence. That is, the plane is designed around such an engine and is well supported in that configuration. Others seem to be gaining some ground in that area as well, but still far behind the "standard" system.

Personally, I am very intrigued by some of the conversions out there but at this point I am not willing to fly them. I am perfectly happy to let someone else do the research and development as I have no desire to be a test pilot to that extent.

One of the locals here installed one of the Subaru engines. It is a beautiful instalation, but he has had to do a lot of research on his own to get it to run correctly. Then in less than 70 hours the reduction drive went out and he had to buy a new one. I believe the company bought back the bad one for change on the dollar to try to determine what happened. I haven't heard the result of that yet.

This isn't to pick on the Subaru's or any other combination of engines. However, it is just an example of the efforts needed when someone uses a system other than what the plane was designed around. I think that you may even find people that have had problems with Lycoming and clone engines. I suspect that they are fewer percentage wise than with the auto conversions.

This of course begs the question of "how much development and research did Lycoming and Contental do before coming up with what they have now? The nice part for us is that it is already done.

Keep up the great work on all of those other conversions. I read of them with great interest. Maybe someday someone will hit a home run. Maybe even it has already happened and I haven't heard. That is one of the great things about this country. People are free to continue to invent a better mouse trap (or airplane engine).
 
Before you make your final decision, talk to the people who have been flying their RV for many years (10 or so) and many hours (800-1000 or so). This is where the real engines stand out.
 
Chevy powered RV-6 on ebay

item no.270049998404 so far its bid to about 10k. 120 hrs on aircraft. If you are considering using a auto engine maybe you could ask this guy about it. It seems to me that its a challenge enough building and flying a experimental aircraft without having the extra task of engineering the installation and operation of a non-reccommended powerplant. Also I would have to wonder about the insurability and marketability of the project. But than again what do I know?
 
I put an AeroSport Lycoming O320 in my RV-4. My RV-4's mission is daytime VFR fun/sport flying with the occasional cross country. I wanted a reliable engine for that. I don't want to tinker with or tune my motor, I just want it to run. I love experimental aircraft but I don't really want to experiment with the motor. You may have a different mission in mind. Build your plane to suit your mission. I discounted alternative engines because of the added complexity involved. There really isn't a much simpler engine than a good old Lycoming. If I had to pick an alternate engine I'd lean strongly toward the Jabiru. Only because it's designed as an aircraft engine. Have fun exploring all the alternatives.
 
Stick to an O-320.

I think Scott Van A's reply is about right. If you are building to fly go with a Lycoming type engine. If its an engineering project perhaps a plasma drive?

My own view - though I am building a -4 not flying - is that the issue is a lot to do with weight. I have sumarised it here. http://gikoncnsdr.blogspot.com/

Van clearly thinks the right engine is an (I)O-320 if you read his stuff. Remember the speed increases with the cube root of the power.

Having said that you choose. Its yours.
 
Just ask yourself one question right up front: Do I want to build an RV-4 and just go fly it, or do I want to build an RV-4 and participate in an engine development program? At that point your path is clear, Lycoming or other. Neither choice is right or wrong, just depends on your personal interests.
 
Nighttime.......

Hi Tom,
Last night, Jenny and I returned home from a great seafood meal at the Runway Fish house in Cornelia, Ga, on a beautiful moonlit night.

At my age I don't particularly care for single-engine at night but on those occasions when I do it, I sure am glad it's behind that old, trusty Lycosaurus!! :D
Regards,
 
conversions

I believe Van's said it right when he said(or something along the lines of)... Take that 20K and convert it into a Lycoming. Why not a bumped up o-320? I think as far as weight and performance it would be a great deal!
Brian
 
150HP is plenty

150hp is plenty engine for a light RV-4, I know, mine ran circles around 160hp and a few 180hp RV's. The nice thing is the 150 HP engines are not as desirable and could get a used one for less bucks. Fi buying a new, might as well go 160 hp, the obvious choice. I don't recommend auto fuel for tight cowled RV's. Going to 160 hp means more compression which is not suited for auto fuel. Again even if you had a lower compression 150hp Lyc I would not recommend auto fuel for most RV builder/pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.