S

snoop9erdog

Well Known Member
I have decided to purchase a IO-360-L2A from Penn Yan Aero. The question is whether or not to have Penn Yan modify it to allow for constant speed operation by placing a plug in the crank and installing a governor gear and housing. Now is the time to do it if I'm going to (for extra $500).

If I change it it will certainly void the TC and make it an experimental engine only. My original intention was to go fixed pitch with a composite prop, which is the way I'm leaning since I'm installing on a 9A. I'm inclined to leave it alone.......any arguments for the alternative. My only one is that it might be nice to go CS later on, but I also know it adds weight on the nose/gear.

I live in the White Mountain area of Northeastern AZ (6000 MSL) in High Density Altitude Operation, so the extra ponies of the 360 may be nice at times.

Thanks in advance for any input and opinions.
 
The extra $500 today will come back 10 fold if you decide to ever sell it or go CS; I would do it.
 
absolutely

If you can afford a Penn Yan engine, you can afford $500 to keep the option for constant speed. It would be a false economy not to do it. I'm going with a fixed pitch prop, but I'm keeping my options open.
 
I wish I could afford a new one

Well, it's not a new 0 time engine. It's a 1st run since NEW core that is coming with complete fuel injection, fuel pump, harness, mags, 12 Volt starter, alternator. They agreed for a few more dollars to pull the cylinders, bring them back to service limits, inspect cam and lobes, run on the test cell, and preserve and ship with log entry and complete logs. Engine has no damage history and was running fine when removed with no metal and excellent compression readings. Plan is to hang engine and monitor engine health and overhaul when it tells me to.
 
When I lived at sea level I planned on a fixed-pitch prop. Up here in the mountains, I really love my CS prop. Just one opinion.
 
As others have said, the CS option really adds weight on the nose where you don't need it, and the 360 is already heavier than a 320 or smaller engine. That said, for the extra few dollars, if I had it to do over again, I would buy an engine that had the option for conversion. On the other hand, I really like my FP for the simplicity and am highly unlikely to ever go to CS on this airplane (which is why I originally chose not to go with the hollow crank option).

my 2c worth.

greg
 
I would

have the option to go CS later added to the engine. If the money is becomes available as project is completed, I would order CS prop, otherwise go with fixed pitch. The other reason to go CS is if you do cross country trips carrying a load, you are going to want the added weight up front so you can carry a decent load in the baggage. IF that is your mission, the added weight of the CS is not a minus, but a plus.
 
The 9/9A's around here wouldn't be caught running............without a C/S prop! :D

In fact, the vast majority of RV's around this area have constant speed props. Better climb, less noise in cruise, and much better control of the landing phase. With a C/S, you don't have to compromise or optimize with just one setting. The baggage area loading is also improved with a C/S on the front of a 9A too. The plane can handle one easily.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
I don't know enough to know..........

I don't know, but I do know I love my CS prop on takeoffs & landings. Slows it up really well, gets it up pretty quick.
 
snoop9erdog said:
I have decided to purchase a IO-360-L2A from Penn Yan Aero. The question is whether or not to have Penn Yan modify it to allow for constant speed operation by placing a plug in the crank and installing a governor gear and housing. Now is the time to do it if I'm going to (for extra $500).

If I change it it will certainly void the TC and make it an experimental engine only. My original intention was to go fixed pitch with a composite prop, which is the way I'm leaning since I'm installing on a 9A. I'm inclined to leave it alone.......any arguments for the alternative. My only one is that it might be nice to go CS later on, but I also know it adds weight on the nose/gear.

I live in the White Mountain area of Northeastern AZ (6000 MSL) in High Density Altitude Operation, so the extra ponies of the 360 may be nice at times.

Thanks in advance for any input and opinions.
Click to expand...

Ed, you need to commit to a prop at this point.

If you intend to use the engine with a fixed pitch prop after the mods are performed, a hole will have to be drilled in the aft crankcase plug so oil can circulate in the hollow crank to prevent corrosion.

If you decide to convert at some point to a constant speed prop, the drilled plug must be removed and replaced with a non-drilled plug so the crank bore can be pressurized with oil. Working around the oil feed tube inside the crank bore while replacing the aft plug is a first class hassle that you really don't want to experience.

I suggest you decide now which prop you want on your plane, mod the engine as necessary, and avoid future aggravations. Your concerns about "violating" the TC are mostly moot since the engine is going on an experimental aircraft.
 
You can add an electric MT constant speed prop to an unmodified engine. I did it on my RV3. Replaced the starter with a lightweight, and swapped the battery for an Odysey and the net weight change was zero compared to the original wood fixed pitch..

This is just an option.
 
Greg Arehart said:
As others have said, the CS option really adds weight on the nose where you don't need it, and the 360 is already heavier than a 320 or smaller engine.
Click to expand...

Depends on which C/S vs. which fixed pitch prop. A Whirlwind C/S is, I believe, lighter than a Hartzell fixed pitch. In any event 38 lbs (WW 200RV) is not a lot for a prop, C/S or not.
 
Ed,

Here's another option. Have PenYen put both plugs into the end of the cranckshaft. Also have them put in the Stainless Steel oil return line to the governor pad. Then have them install a special governor pad cover that allows the oil to return to the sump (no governor). Now your setup for a fixed pitch prop, but can easily change over to a constant speed prop.
This is a non-standard setup, but allows you to go either way with the prop without the hassels of modifying the inner plug in the crank. The outer plug (remove for constant speed prop) is easily removed.
This is the setup I have on my RV-7A with an IO-360 engine with (currently) a fixed pitch prop. I got the engine setup this way when I purchased it new from Mattituck.....

Fred Stuckln
RV-7A N924RV

Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop9erdog
I have decided to purchase a IO-360-L2A from Penn Yan Aero. The question is whether or not to have Penn Yan modify it to allow for constant speed operation by placing a plug in the crank and installing a governor gear and housing. Now is the time to do it if I'm going to (for extra $500).

If I change it it will certainly void the TC and make it an experimental engine only. My original intention was to go fixed pitch with a composite prop, which is the way I'm leaning since I'm installing on a 9A. I'm inclined to leave it alone.......any arguments for the alternative. My only one is that it might be nice to go CS later on, but I also know it adds weight on the nose/gear.

I live in the White Mountain area of Northeastern AZ (6000 MSL) in High Density Altitude Operation, so the extra ponies of the 360 may be nice at times.

Thanks in advance for any input and opinions.

Ed, you need to commit to a prop at this point.

If you intend to use the engine with a fixed pitch prop after the mods are performed, a hole will have to be drilled in the aft crankcase plug so oil can circulate in the hollow crank to prevent corrosion.

If you decide to convert at some point to a constant speed prop, the drilled plug must be removed and replaced with a non-drilled plug so the crank bore can be pressurized with oil. Working around the oil feed tube inside the crank bore while replacing the aft plug is a first class hassle that you really don't want to experience.

I suggest you decide now which prop you want on your plane, mod the engine as necessary, and avoid future aggravations. Your concerns about "violating" the TC are mostly moot since the engine is going on an experimental aircraft.
__________________

Sam Buchanan
The RV Journal
1999 RV-6; Athens, AL (DCU)
EAA Tech Counselor
track N399SB (KJ4CKK)
 
Got it figured out

All,

Thanks for the replies and opinions. I spoke to Bill Middlebrook this morning from Penn Yan and he indicated that it is not that big a deal to place the plug,gear, and govenor housing at a later date if I decide to go CS in the future. The L2A model is one of the newer manufactured Lyc's used by the 172R-SP which are configured with two accesory (vaccum/haudraulic) pads on the accesory housing. Bill suggested to leave as is and if I slurge for the CS Prop, I can change at that time and save my $500 right now (that will buy a lot of gas).

By the way, much like Mattituck and the likes, I've found Penn Yan to be extremely customer oriented and in my opinion looking to do what's best for the customer. They have been pleaseant to deal with. Bill is top notch.
 
IO-360L2A

Adding the C/S oi line to the case may not be so easy. The -L2A does not have the normal boss for the C/S oil line. This engine was removed from a 2001 C-172.
Canonphotosall026.jpg

Canonphotosall027.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.