 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
acepilot(at)bloomer.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which m |
 |
|
J Riffel wrote:
| Quote: | While the RV6/7 flys fine on a 320 (a friend has one - and he wishes
he'd gone w/ a 360), most have 360s. When you fly with other RVs (and
you will), you'll have difficulty keeping up w/ a 320. And when you
(or your family) sells, it'll be more difficult with a 320.
But the O-320s can burn car gas  I'm planning on an O-320 in my RV-4.
|
do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
denis.walsh(at)comcast.ne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:03 pm Post subject: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which m |
|
|
What is the world coming to . Several RV related topics and all
responses civil.
I favor the Lycoming 180 HP for the RV 4,6,7, and 8. My vote is for
the o-360A1A which is the carb version. While I agree with the theory
that you should be able to lean better with fuel injection, frankly I
have not seen any noticeable difference on trips between FI and carb
O-360s on vans airplanes. Very subjective.. Maybe i just lean more
than they do?
What I can say is the FI engines do not go faster or take off
shorter, or climb better I am referring to the 180HP Lycs and
clones. The only clear advantage for fuel injection on RVs with the
180 HP that I see is freedom from carb ice. HOWEVER, I have found it
very difficult to verify instances of carb ice in RVs who fly VFR.
Personally I have had none in my 2400 hours of flying my RV-6A from
Alaska to Florida and a few points in between. BUT I would never say
never. I am cautious and that is how I got so old in this business.
The operators handbook for my 180HP shows the same horsepower ratings
and, in fact if you study the unreadable fuel consumption charts it
shows the carb version with slightly less fuel flow at same horsepower!
Over the past few years I have experimented with various settings for
cruise and here is what I use: 7.2 GPH at 2400 RPM and 10.5 to 13.5
on the altitude. This yields between 160 and 165 KTAS. Climb to that
altitude is expensive and slower, so the trip fuel burn is usually
around 8GPH overall. Should add I have a hartzell constant speed, old
version.
You will find it is very very difficult to compare performance with
another RV pilot. You can't even get past the first input: What are
you using for flight time? Not to mention TAS vs GS or an
uncalibrated fuel flow instrument, etc etc. The comparison I use is
where we fly formation and compare fuel slips at the end of the trip.
EVEN THEN, you will find some folks vary the way they top off from one
fill up to the next.
So for me, the lower initial cost, lower complexity, simpler system
sways the decision to the Carb 180 HP. Personally I think there is a
slight safety edge to the carb, with its lower fuel pressure system
and no plumbing on top of the engine.
I can't comment with any authority on the starting characteristics,
but subjectively, I note it looks easier to hot start a carb version,
but I have seen it screwed up on both systems. Most people would say
the carb is easier to start hot and cold.
I do not operate above 18,000 MSL, but suspect that might be an area
where the fuel injection would operate better. I can say the carb
still works great at 17,500.
Last: I feel anyone who can build an airplane can overhaul a carb and
adjust the float level. No so with the fuel injection system.
Post script. I have not covered all the factors to be used for
comparison. Also there is more detail to some of my comparisons. One
example is weight. The O-360 is heavier than the O320, but only
marginally so. The 200HP and 210 HP versions are quite a bit
heavier. The 180 is right in the middle and offers a great CG with
awesome performance.
Denis RV-6A
N133DW
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n223rv(at)wolflakeairport
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which m |
|
|
I have a 160hp O-320 in my RV-4.... The only thing I'd do differently
next time is go with a constant speed prop. The lighter the RV-4, the
more fun it is to fly!!!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
J Riffel wrote:
> While the RV6/7 flys fine on a 320 (a friend has one - and he
> wishes he'd gone w/ a 360), most have 360s. When you fly with other
> RVs (and you will), you'll have difficulty keeping up w/ a 320. And
> when you (or your family) sells, it'll be more difficult with a 320.
>
But the O-320s can burn car gas I'm planning on an O-320 in my
RV-4.
do not archive
|
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which m |
|
|
Very well said......I must add that on paper a FI engine beats a carbed engine when it comes to economy especially after balancing the injectors. I am fuel injected, W/elect ingnition, and I have NEVER flown with another RV that used the same or less fuel. I am as much as 1.5 GPH less or as little as .5 GPH less, but I have ALWAYS been less. many of these trips have been over 1k miles one way. I am not saying your wrong but if you factor in ALL the variables, well in my opinion you just cant compare one plane to another because they are ALL different even when they are "the same".........if that makes sense.
Scott
RV-8a
From: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 6:02:30 PM
Subject: Input Needed on Engine Selection: 0-320 vs. 0-360?, which model?
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net (denis.walsh(at)comcast.net)>
What is the world coming to . Several RV related topics and all responses civil.
I favor the Lycoming 180 HP for the RV 4,6,7, and 8. My vote is for the o-360A1A which is the carb version. While I agree with the theory that you should be able to lean better with fuel injection, frankly I have not seen any noticeable difference on trips between FI and carb O-360s on vans airplanes. Very subjective.. Maybe i just lean more than they do?
What I can say is the FI engines do not go faster or take off shorter, or climb better I am referring to the 180HP Lycs and clones. The only clear advantage for fuel injection on RVs with the 180 HP that I see is freedom from carb ice. HOWEVER, I have found it very difficult to verify instances of carb ice in RVs who fly VFR. Personally I have had none in my 2400 hours of flying my RV-6A from Alaska to Florida and a few points in between. BUT I would never say never. I am cautious and that is how I got so old in this business.
The operators handbook for my 180HP shows the same horsepower ratings and, in fact if you study the unreadable fuel consumption charts it shows the carb version with slightly less fuel flow at same horsepower!
Over the past few years I have experimented with various settings for cruise and here is what I use: 7.2 GPH at 2400 RPM and 10.5 to 13.5 on the altitude. This yields between 160 and 165 KTAS. Climb to that altitude is expensive and slower, so the trip fuel burn is usually around 8GPH overall. Should add I have a hartzell constant speed, old version.
You will find it is very very difficult to compare performance with another RV pilot. You can't even get past the first input: What are you using for flight time? Not to mention TAS vs GS or an uncalibrated fuel flow instrument, etc etc. The comparison I use is where we fly formation and compare fuel slips at the end of the trip. EVEN THEN, you will find some folks vary the way they top off from one fill up to the next.
So for me, the lower initial cost, lower complexity, simpler system sways the decision to the Carb 180 HP. Personally I think there is a slight safety edge to the carb, with its lower fuel pressure system and no plumbing on top of the engine.
I can't comment with any authority on the starting characteristics, but subjectively, I note it looks easier to hot start a carb version, but I have seen it screwed up on both systems. Most people would say the carb is easier to start hot and cold.
I do not operate above 18,000 MSL, but suspect that might be an
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
