What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Continental IO 360 in RV-6a?

S

sgoldin

Member
I'm new and looking at buying an RV-6a that has a Continental Engine any comments, advise would be appreciated. I'm most concerned with cooling.
 
Welcome to the forums. With respect to the project, how many hours has the engine been on the airframe and what do the logs say? It's obviously been certified airworthy, so the real proof will be in the operational data. I wouldn't expect cooling to be an exceptional problem assuming the builder did a good job of baffling, but I have to plead ignorance and lack of experience with the engine. As you may have seen searching through the forum, this is not a combination that has been discussed much.
 
They are good engines, but....

They are good engines when operated properly and within published limits.

I think they are prettier than the 4 cyl lyc, but that really does not matter unless you like to leave the cowl off an let it get a tan:p

The ones on the C-172 XP, were de-rated to 195 hp, and worked very well.

The normally aspirated 210 hp ones worked well, but did not last as long.

The Turbocharged ones were prone to cylinder wear, especially if they were chrome cylinders. Nowadays they should certainly have better cylinder surface enhancements than when I worked on them 20 years ago.

Research the maintenance and overhaul history of this engine

Find out what the future overhaul costs are compared to the 200 hp lyc.

If it all works out, it should be Fun!
 
There aren't any huge reasons not to look at that engine, but when mated to a proven airframe like the RV, there are a few considerations as mentioned previously. Given the market right now, in order to have an nearly "one of a kind or one very few" RV (out of thousands of thousands flying) the price should reflect that....meaning that an RV6A with that engine installed on it should be REALLY cheap as compared to it's Lyco powered brethren.

Also check with the insurance company to see how that treat it. Might not be an issue at all, but it is "non standard" to an extent.

As others have said it could maybe be a good deal, but it's not common in RV airframes. Therefore it's quite an unknown to most of use that have been around the RV's for a few years.

I guess before I opined either way to strongly I'd have to know a lot more about the airplane, the builder, the engine, the prop, the price, etc... Any of those factors could convince me positively or negatively about it. At the moment I have to be somewhat ambivolent because I don't have the data to form a good opinion.

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
GAHco said:
The ones on the C-172 XP, were de-rated to 195 hp, and worked very well.

The normally aspirated 210 hp ones worked well, but did not last as long.
Click to expand...

The letters on the end of the engine designation are real important, as is the condition of the crankshaft. The 172XP engines were only derated by lowering the max rpm to 2700 from 2800, so its basically the same engine, an IO-360-K (which as a 1400 hrs TBO), if the engine is a KB it has a 2000 hour TBO. So you really would like to get an xB engine. There is also something called a VAR crankshaft - these were introduced in the early 80s (IIRC) and are now required to be fitted at overhaul (in certified aircraft). If you have a non VAR crank it will be expensive to change over. Which ever version it is the overhaul costs are much higher than a Lycoming (several $K). The fuel injection system is also totally different to a Bendix/Precision system, and really benefit from Gamijectors (it also must have a fuel return to the tank and so a double stacked fuel tap). If the engine was overhauled between 1990 and 2005 you may find it will need cylinder work (top overhaul) at around 1000hrs - which will be expensive. The quality of the cylinders seemed to improve recently.

I had a 172XP and really like the engine.

Pete
 
Had a Continental IO-360 on a Maule M-5-210C. Also on a Seneca II - V, in turbo form as well as Turbo Arrow and Skymaster. Great engine - very smooth compared to a four cylinder Lycoming. Easy to start once you figured out how - easier than an injected lycoming.

Stein - no insurance issues at all with that engine.
 
Weight of the cont. 6

Without accessories the cont. weights 327 dry. That's why they are not normally used in the smaller airframes like the RV. Compared to the Lyc. 4 cyl. which weight in around 278
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top