What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-9A power and "Fun Tickets"

P

panheadmark

Member
OK, here we go..... first post here, I just started on the fuse of my 9A and am now looking at engine choices, yes I know about the 160 hp "rule" :rolleyes: but after reading what Mahlon Russell of Mattituck Engines said and my limited supply of "fun tickets" this might be the way to go.

www.eaa326.org/Newsletters/eaa326-1-2005.pdf

I'm thinking of using an O-360 with one e and one p-mag and low compression pistons which would put it at 170 hp. The benefits of doing this would be less stress on the engine which should make it last longer, and the ability to run mogas. This still puts me over by 10 hp yes I know, but then instead of sticking a heavy cs prop on the front I would put on one of Cattos 3 bladed smooth running lighter props. It's been said that 3 bladed proppellers aren't as efficient as 2 bladed, maybe not the full 10 hp but you can see where I'm going with this.
The price difference between an O-320 set up with a cs and an O-360 fixed is over 5 grand. I'm having a hard time justifying the cost and maintenance of the 320 when this looks like a much better choice, for me anyway. :cool:


Mark Erickson
RV 9A #91317
Fuselage
Minnetonka, MN.
 
Last edited:
Almost exactly the setup I already have in mind, with the exception of fuel injection and a C/S prop for me. I believe I'll be running the XPIO360 on mogas (8.5:1 pistons) behind a C/S prop. Full engine monitoring and matched injectors to run LOP. I should start my tail this winter.
 
I Concur

panheadmark said:
I'm thinking of using an O-360 with one e and one p-mag and low compression pistons which would put it at 170 hp. The benefits of doing this would be less stress on the engine which should make it last longer, and the ability to run mogas.
Click to expand...

This is the same route I'm planning to take. Cost and weight difference between the O-320 and O-360 do not seem to be much. Diligence on your true airspeed is a must, as Van's points out. I like the mogas ability as well but be certain the seals in your engine can handle the additives or apply additional due diligence here as well.
 
Me too!!

I am very close to flying my RV-9a with a Superior O-360 and a Sterba prop. Will run 2 mags for a while then go to electronic ignition later. This is the same combo that I ran in my RV-6 for about 350 hours.
Rock on!

Rick
 
I have 350 hours on my 9A with an 0-360 w/ 10.5 to 1 pistons, rated @ 220 HP at 2750 RPM. No problems here. It's all about power management. You don't floor your car backing out of the drive way on the way to the airport, no need to firewall the throttle every take off either.

The performance at altitude is sweet. Last weekend I was in Laramie, WY (7,200 MSL) I was able to climb at 1,100 FPM on take off and clear the Laramie Range to the east. Cruise is 200+ MPH at 12,500'
 
Last edited:
I also have an RV9a with an ECI 0360/180 hp and a Catto composite 3 blade. I wanted good climb out of high altitude airports but from a relatively simple aircraft--I was tired of the maintenance expense on my prior plane--a Mooney 201. The cruise at 12K density and 66-67% power is 192 mph tas. I am in love with this combo.

Cheers,

db
 
Happy with an O-320

I have an O-320/Catto three blade and am quite happy with it. Before I added an E-mag, I could get off the ground in 305', climb at well over 1500 fpm (solo) and cruise at 185 mph. Painted with interior it weighed in at 1054 lb, and I believe much of the performance is due to the light weight. While the 360 is a nice option, to me it is overkill. Too many AD's for the very minor gains in real world performance. I just swapped my right mag for an E-mag and really am happy with it. While I haven't tested it at altitude, it does make for a smoother combination, better idle, and less fuel burn as I can lean much further. I would bet the 9 would be a performer with an O-200 (although I wouldn't want to give up what I have.)

Bob Kelly
 
o320 459 hrs 9A

:) :) Keep it light and keep it clean, you won't get that much difference w/ power, and you get to fly a little longer
 
IMHO Unless you are flying out of high altitude airports and need that extra umph - stick with the 320's on an RV-9/A. If you wanted more HP and climb - go with the -7/A.

I believe that Van's expresses their concerns about the use of more than 160 hp is because there are stupid pilots flying. These pilots will not adhere to or will forget what is necessary to maintain control of their aircraft and break the rule.

Keep a cool head and keep up with what your doing and you should be okay.
 
Robert M said:
I believe that Van's expresses their concerns about the use of more than 160 hp is because there are stupid pilots flying. These pilots will not adhere to or will forget what is necessary to maintain control of their aircraft and break the rule.
Click to expand...

Precisely. A 9/9A would fly very nicely on any engine size you want to put in it. In any case, no matter the horsepower available, it's ultimately up to the pilot to maintain control over the aircraft - this includes appropriate power management to keep speeds in the safe range - both high and low.
 
RV9A Power

I have 100 hours on my 9A powered by an 0-320 with low-compression pistons/cylinders at 150 hp. This drives a 3-blade Catto prop. Standard mags and carb.

TAS is 182-185 MPH at the sweetspot of 7500 to 8500 feet (depending on flight direction), throttle wide open burning mogas.

Aircraft weight is 1071 lbs - takes off briskly (haven't measured) and short.

Hard to improve on given the typical level of effort when you deviate from the plans........

Keith
RV9A
N355RV
 
What's your blade pitch?

Hi Keith,

This is exactly my planned configuration, and I'm very happy to read it's a successful one :) . I'd just like to know what is the blade pitch you selected, and also the altitude of your homebase if it makes sense.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top