Engine choices...

[jarhead]

I've been kicking around ideas for how I'd like to equip my 9A for some time now (since that's all I can afford to do currently...), and I've distilled the engine issue to two possible scenarios:

1 - The ideal scenario (for me) would be a new IO-320 with a C/S prop. Obviously the price of entry on this is a wee bit steep... but the benefit is an efficient "homesick angel" airplane with a zero-time engine.

2 - Find a decent mid-time or core O-235 and do the rebuild myself, and a F/P prop. Cost shouldn't be painful compared to #1, and according to Van's numbers, the 9A with the O-235 still performs better than a lot of the spamcans out there.

If I ended up going with option #2 initially, it would be done with the intent to upgrade to #1 sometime down the road. If I went with #1 initially, it would definitely mean a large loan (and the corresponding large monthly check to the lender).

I know I'm putting the cart well in front of the horse here (especially since I have no PPL, no kit, and no RV seat-time), but I'd like to hear some opinions anyway, from those who've "been there, decided that" with their 9A project.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I would not advise building the aircraft with an O-235 with the idea of upgrading later. First, you'll have almost as much cost in that rebuilt o-235 as you would in a rebuilt O-320, and you won't be able to sell the engine for the same price. Second, switching engines in an airplane isn't a trivial task. You'll have to change out various plumbing routings, possibly the cowl, and possibly the engine mount.

A compromise might be to build the airplane with a constant speed capable 0-320, but put a fixed pitch prop on it. You can upgrade to a CS prop in the future if you choose, and it won't be a massive undertaking.

 

[pierre smith]

Yes

Kyle's right on the money but let me add this:

There are a bunch of 0-320 take-outs when they reach 1900-2100 hours and the owner upgrades to an 0-360, mainly on Skyhawks. I've seen a lot of these engines go 2700 hours or more and that's about six or seven years of flying for the average Joe, from 2000 hours until it reaches 2700 or so. (100 hours a year) and you can buy them very reasonably. Several of my buddies have gone this route and had their RVs flying pretty cheaply. The engines don't HAVE to be overhauled when they reach TBO. Oil consumption and compressions determine that.
Regards,

 

[chaskuss]

snipped

2 - Find a decent mid-time or core O-235 and do the rebuild myself, and a F/P prop. Cost shouldn't be painful compared to #1, and according to Van's numbers, the 9A with the O-235 still performs better than a lot of the spamcans out there.

If I ended up going with option #2 initially, it would be done with the intent to upgrade to #1 sometime down the road. If I went with #1 initially, it would definitely mean a large loan (and the corresponding large monthly check to the lender).

snipped.

Another option would be to find an O-290 core to overhaul. Certified O-290 cylinders are hard to find. HOWEVER, since we are experimental, you can simply use 320 cylinders (they are the same) on your overhauled O-290. The 290 is basically a combination of O-235 bottom end and O-320 top end parts. You can purchase an O-290 core more cheaply than either an O-235 or O-320 core. You will also have more horsepower than an O-235.
Charlie Kuss

 

[jarhead]

A compromise might be to build the airplane with a constant speed capable 0-320, but put a fixed pitch prop on it. You can upgrade to a CS prop in the future if you choose, and it won't be a massive undertaking.

Funny you mention it - that was my first impulse when I started adding up the numbers and flinching at the totals. Comparing new FP to new CS, there's $5k + to be saved there.

Pierre - thanks for your input. When the time comes near (or when a magic pot o' money appears in my house ), I'll have to call a few of the conversion companies and see what they do with their take-outs.

Charlie - Thanks as well. I had no idea you could do that to an O-290, but it doesn't surprise me, either. I seem to recall reading something about a Lycoming-built high-powered version of the O-235 that liked breaking cranks in-flight and was eventually yanked, so I'm not sure I like the idea of going big-bore on an O-235 bottom for my airplane. It's still something to keep in mind, though.

 

[kentb]

Here is what I did to save some bucks..

rebuilt IO-320 with EI on one side. $16,000.00
rebuilt Hartzell CS prop 3,500.00

Kent

 

[n2prise]

O-320 and Constant Speed Prop!

Since you are just beginning in your quest, have you looked at builder web sites and seen a complete project from end-to-end? I remember being in your position in the summer of 2002 at Oshkosh. That was when I made up my mind to go with the RV-9A, O-320, Hartzell constant speed prop, etc.

I had seen a pair of RV-6's take off, one with the CS prop, and the other with the fixed-pitch prop. The difference was amazing. I have over 200 hours on my RV-9A and I am glad I went with that combination for short-field takeoff and landing performance, plus good cruising economy at 2300 RPM (160 MPH) on 160 HP. Some of the fixed-pitch pilots talk about cruising faster, but they are turning over 2500 RPM and burning more gas. I usually cruise at 25 MPG (no wind) at my speeds and power settings.

As for the engine, whether you buy a new one, or rebuild a run-out Lycoming engine, I want to urge you to get ECI Titan cylinders with the Cermanil coatings on the inside of the cylinders. http://www.eci2fly.com/pages/products_kitengine.aspx

I had a visit last week to Penn Yan Aero Service in Penn Yan, New York. I bought my engine from them. I had a chance to see several engines in the process of rebuild. The ones with plain steel barrels had rust. The Cermanil coated cylinder barrels were beautiful. The nickel-carbide process is licensed from Porche by ECI for use in their airplane engines. ECI has other dealers for their engines, but I picked Penn Yan since they have been in business since 1945 and have a good reputation for engine rebuilding. After seeing their operation last week, I know why they have that reputation. They balance their cranks and flywheels together, and the pistons are hand-selected to be within 5 grams weight of each other. http://www.pennyanaero.com/

If you buy a new engine, ECI makes a complete clone of the Lycomings, but with better features since the engines are designed for experimental use only. The cranks and crankcases are what determines whether an engine is a "Lycoming" or an experimental. To my knowledge, ECI has not had a recall on their crankshafts. All their top-end parts are FAA PMA approved for use on Lycoming certified engines.

I bought my engine from Penn Yan Aero and installed in September 2004. http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a054.htm It sat on the airplane until MAY 2005 before it was started the first time, and it fired on the first try with only one mag turned on. http://www.n2prise.org/rv9a134.htm The Cermanil cylinders just don't rust.

Good luck on whatever choice you make. This is just too much fun to stay on the sidelines. My whole story is posted on my web site below.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, Tennessee
RV-9A N2PZ "Enterprise"
Hobbs = 207.3 hours since June 2005.
www.n2prise.org

 

[az_gila]

Data Plate

If you buy a new engine, ECI makes a complete clone of the Lycomings, but with better features since the engines are designed for experimental use only. The cranks and crankcases are what determines whether an engine is a "Lycoming" or an experimental. To my knowledge, ECI has not had a recall on their crankshafts. All their top-end parts are FAA PMA approved for use on Lycoming certified engines.
Jerry K. Thorne
www.n2prise.org

Jerry... actually it's the Lycoming Data Plate on the sump that makes it "certified" ... ....along with a log book (or, to use FAA terms "Maintenance Records") that shows all replacement parts were certified though it's lifetime, and all work was performed by a "P" mechanic, except for preventative maintenance..... and a few other legal things.. but basically, that's it...

gil in Tucson

 

[videobobk]

Decisions

Planning is a very important part of the process. As for engine choice, I am happy with our O-320 D1A off a hurricane Charlie'd RV-6A. 885 hours TTSN and about $10K less than new, counting the accessories. Something to consider.

But there is something to remember that IMHO is basic to the building process. Unless you buy everything up front and go full bore in building, you won't end up with the same plane you started to build. My first change came when I found a set of new seat belts for $40! I changed the interior color to match. A new radio came on the market and my panel was revised. I just ordered an E-mag today because the price is going up. Plan well and have fun with it but you can save a bunch on items other than the engine.

Bob Kelly, taxi testing

 

[n2prise]

Engine name plates...

Gil,

I agree with the name plate, etc. My name plate says Penn Yan Aero Service, although the casting on the engine all have ECI on them, as they should.

The ECI crankcase has provisions in the oil galley for oil spray nozzles to cool the pistons and provide extra oil to the cam shaft. I took that option. The case is already machined to accept "O" rings around the transverse bolts to minimize leaks there. The center seam between the two halves is also less prone to leaks than the original Lycoming version of the crankcase.

When the Cermanil coating was factored in, I was sold on the ECI Titan experimental engine for my amateur-built "Experimental" airplane.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A #90622 N2PZ

 

[cytoxin]

5 grams

wow thats alot,sure its not .5 grams? a cheap set of sealed power car pistons are within 2 grams. found this out the hard way as my supposed "matched set" was not matched. two had been replace (box was opened)all were 760 excep two at 756 (with pins). we balanced them all to within 1 gram. the superior engine is dynamically balanced and IIRC the pistons are within 1gram the cylinders flow better (their claim) ..spraying oil on the cam means little considering the new superiors all have roller tappets..i dont think you can kill a roller tappet.(just overhauled my lt1 5.7 with 228000 miles on it no wear on the cam no wear on the tappets no measureable bore or piston wear wrst pins were on the high side though .crank still standard no egg or taper)had low oil pressure due to worn out cam bearings.the front one takes a beating ..its got 2 .030 spray nozzles for the back of the cam gear. spray nozzle to me just means when clearances get big pressure drops off on the back end of the tbo..

IMHO the superior is cheaper now and has roller tappets than when i bought mine..

 

[N941WR]

Another option would be to find an O-290 core to overhaul. Certified O-290 cylinders are hard to find. HOWEVER, since we are experimental, you can simply use 320 cylinders (they are the same) on your overhauled O-290. The 290 is basically a combination of O-235 bottom end and O-320 top end parts. You can purchase an O-290 core more cheaply than either an O-235 or O-320 core. You will also have more horsepower than an O-235.
Charlie Kuss

All true. One other option is to have the case milled to accept an O-320 crank. Thus you don't have to worry about finding an O-290 crank.

In addition to the above, you will need an O-320 MA-4 carb and a bunch of other O-320 parts.

After looking into this it sounds like a good way to get an O-320 for little $$$.