What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Lyc. O-540-E4B5 or Lyc. O-540-K1A5 question

nosky2high

nosky2high

I'm New Here
Are either Lyc. O-540-E4B5 (260hp) or Lyc. O-540-K1A5 (300hp) possible choices for use with the RV-10? If so which engine is preferred. These are the engines in use on the Piper Cherokee Six line of aircraft.

Thanks in advance,
Anthony
 
I believe the -E4B5 is a parallel valve and is what the RV-10 FWF kit, cowl and engine mount are designed for. It's carb'd instead of FI but other than that essentially the same as what the factory recommends. The -K series is angle valve, much heavier and wider than the parallel valve engines. While I'm sure you could make it work (have to deal with CG issues in addition to physical fit) it would be far easier to just go with a parallel valve engine. There are multiple sources for FI retrofit and you'll spend in the $3k ballpark to do that but there's probably some value in the carb to somebody so that would trim the net cost a bit.

Bob
 
Welcome to VAF!!!!

Anthony, welcome aboard VAF:D

As far as I know, the factory only supports the parallel valve engine, carb or FI.

So, are you actually building a 10, or are you thinking of doing so??

Have you ever gotten a ride in a 10??
 
Thanks Bob, that is what my initial searches/research was indicating. It appears also that the Piper Cherokee235 with the Lyc. O-540-B4B5 is also an option.
 
Mike, Thanks for the info. In the current economy the Cherokee Six aircraft and the Cherokee235 for that matter are absolute bargains. I like the idea of having a good family airplane during the build process. My family and I are biased in that we've owned two Cherokee airplanes in the past and are therefore spoiled by the resource. So I had an idea about getting a solid Cherokee Six with a strong engine/prop/IFR panel and average paint/interior. I'll park it on the ramp and fly the heck out of it like my family knows how to do. A little bragging; we've put over 800hrs on Cherokees(2XPA28-140's and 1XPA-28-235) since 2002(I was deployed for two of those years). Of course you build up lots of flight time when you fly so slow :) Seems like a good option so my family has an airplane and I have something to feed my homebuilding passion.
 
The engine in my first RV-10 started life as an O540-B4B5. That's actually a low compression engine. I swapped pistons to normal (8.5:1) and put on a Silverhawk FI system which essentially put into the IO-540D4A5 configuration.

Bob
 
Bob,
I've got just under 2000hrs total time with around 400-500 hours burning autofuel. Some rough beer math will show that the fuel savings by burning 100hrs of autofuel per year would easily cover the cost of an average no squawks annual on the Piper Cherokees I was flying/owning. I've gotten used to managing the risk regarding volatility and alcohol testing. Therefore I like the idea of burning autofuel in the RV10. I've read some info here and there that some FI systems allow for autofuel. Any info you can provide is appreciated. I'm looking forward to one day doing all my own annuals instead of the owner assisted type that have me paying the Piper year after year.
Best Regards,
Anthony
 
Autofuel in the -10

For my RV-10, I intentionally sought an O-540 (B1A5 now B4B5) that was rated for 80/87 octane, low compression, 235 HP engine so that I had the autogas option. There are few on-field stations for it but we have purchased a used 50 gallon tank and can get 89/93 non-ethanol octane fuels at a few places by truck. Often marinas or rural fuel stations like Southern States will have non-ethanol fuel.

For a fill-up, you are talking a savings of $120 per tank, or 40% ($2/gal X 60). I sense no difference in the fuel behavior or engine temperatures and have no sparkplug fouling with the autogas, of course, since there's no lead to accumulate.

The downsides of the carbureted engine are the inability to control the fuel flow as precisely thus the efficiency is lower, and the cruise speed is lower with a 2575 RPM max, or proportionally, the effective thrust at same % reduced power. It would be possible to put FI on the engine even with the lower compression setup to improve fuel efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top