[pilotea]

The RV6 flies well and has excellent performance with the O-320, I have flown the O-360 variants and I think it's a waste to put this heavy engine in the nose

What's the difference in weight between an O-320 and an O-360? Doesn't it depend on the variant of the engine? Apparently I have the thick metal (I)O-360-A1B6 on mine with the balance weights and stuff, so I suspect one of the heavier variants.

Best thing I ever did was selling the RV6 with the 320 in it to get RV7. I have an RV7 with the heavy bulldog engine. That's the angle valve so the heaviest of the lot. I wouldn't change it for anything.

Which propeller?

[GolfHotel]

What's the difference in weight between an O-320 and an O-360? Doesn't it depend on the variant of the engine? Apparently I have the thick metal (I)O-360-A1B6 on mine with the balance weights and stuff, so I suspect one of the heavier variants.

Best thing I ever did was selling the RV6 with the 320 in it to get RV7. I have an RV7 with the heavy bulldog engine. That's the angle valve so the heaviest of the lot. I wouldn't change it for anything.

Which propeller?

The prop helps as well. Gets all those horses pulling hard!

[aerofurb]

The RV6 flies well and has excellent performance with the O-320, I have flown the O-360 variants and I think it's a waste to put this heavy engine in the nose

What's the difference in weight between an O-320 and an O-360? Doesn't it depend on the variant of the engine? Apparently I have the thick metal (I)O-360-A1B6 on mine with the balance weights and stuff, so I suspect one of the heavier variants.

Best thing I ever did was selling the RV6 with the 320 in it to get RV7. I have an RV7 with the heavy bulldog engine. That's the angle valve so the heaviest of the lot. I wouldn't change it for anything.

Continuing the thread drift theme - as mentioned earlier, not all angle valve engines have counterbalanced cranks.

The Bulldog does (-A1B6) but an -A1A (as fitted in the S-2A Pitts) is angle valve but has a non counterweighted crank.

We had an (AE)IO-360-A1A (so 200hp, angle valve, non counterweight crank) in our RV-6. Combined with a Hartzell (ex Bulldog) prop it took the CofG nicely forwards. The added bonus of our engine was that it was originally in a Rothmans Pitts, so never raced or rallied....

PS We could begin further thread drift on how two blades work better than three on <300hp engines - so Hartzell told me, in pre MT days....

[Dave W]

PS We could begin further thread drift on how two blades work better than three on <300hp engines - so Hartzell told me, in pre MT days....

I've no idea how accurate the statement might really be, but given the source I would immediately begin by suspecting MRDA.




("Mandy Rice-Davies Applies")

[GolfHotel]

PS We could begin further thread drift on how two blades work better than three on <300hp engines - so Hartzell told me, in pre MT days....

I've no idea how accurate the statement might really be, but given the source I would immediately begin by suspecting MRDA.

("Mandy Rice-Davies Applies")

To keep on drifting......

I do have all the balance shafts etc and the engine is very smooth.

I don't think I get a great top speed. But boy oh boy will it climb! Also it can drag us along in a very economical fashion. I have flown to Portugal and used only 1L more fuel than an RV9 with a little 320 in it. We flew together but I have the choice to go faster etc.

The Ravens display team have RV8. Some with 3 blades and some with 2. They say there is no noticeable difference.

[Gertie]

The Ravens display team have RV8. Some with 3 blades and some with 2. They say there is no noticeable difference.

Not even noise?

[aerofurb]

Thread drift>>>>

When we were building the 6, I wrote (it was a few years ago...) to Hartzell and they wrote back saying smaller power engines (it may have even been sub 400hp) were better off with two blades.

Allegedly, one blade is even better. I have seen a single blade prop on a pop-up self launching/sustainer motor glider. It did have a balance weight in place of the errant blade and I presume having a single blade in this case kept the hole in the fuse smaller.

GH - no balance shafts - just a load of weights wazzing around on the crankshaft....

[GolfHotel]

@Gertie - I think they were talking about performance.

@aerofurb Yes you're right lots of weights not shafts. As far as the 2 or 3 blades go, maybe we can combine this discussion with high or low wing, tail or nose dragger, ADSB or PAW and of course wobbly or fixed. That way we can solve all the problems in one go!

[MichaelP]

I've flown the RV6 and RV6A with the O-320 and the O-360, fixed pitch and CSU.
Yes you get better climb with the higher power, but you also end up a little more nose heavy especially with a metal CSU propeller.
An old CF100 pilot built an RV6A with an O-360 with a metal CSU propeller. It performed very well, but was well ahead of his ability in his advanced age. TC asked me to fly with him as safety pilot... We had some fun in that aeroplane, but stayed on the hard runways.
A friend has an RV6 with an O-360 and a wooden propeller. The lighter wood propeller can compensate somewhat for the heavier engine. I did the aeroplane's aerobatic certification... Officially it's only aerobatic solo.

I flew an RV4 with a 150hp O-320, and a couple with the 180hp O-360. I thought the lower powered aeroplane was more pleasant to fly.
More power = more weight in the nose, and we know the limit from the Slingsby T3A. I thought the 160hp in G BKTZ was adequate and 200hp in the later 'Ms was enough, but 260hp produced trouble.
I suppose I'm somewhat anti powerful weight, and pro more aerobatic finesse.

The point really was that while you can add heavier engines to the tailwheel aeroplane without too much trouble, would you really want the additional mass over the nosewheel?

[aerofurb]

You say that 'officially' the RV-6 can only be aerobatted solo. Who's officialdom is that?

For sure there is a reduced operating weight limit (1375 lbs against 1600 MTOW I seem to recall) for aeros but that is different to saying they can only be done solo.

[MichaelP]

You say that 'officially' the RV-6 can only be aerobatted solo. Who's officialdom is that?
For sure there is a reduced operating weight limit (1375 lbs against 1600 MTOW I seem to recall) for aeros but that is different to saying they can only be done solo.

Okay let's split hairs... Two Leprechauns could aerobat this aeroplane... Maybe three?

The one I am referring to has the O-360, with a wood propeller, but it's gross weight would allow for maybe 1.5 mes, if I remember correctly, I'm 170lbs.
You'd need a very light RV6 to be able to aerobat with two common sized adults, and be within the maximum weight limit.

Is a weight limit a regulation?
Is it a condition to maintain a legal CxA/Permit to fly?
If you crash the aeroplane will the weight limit be in question as a legal requirement?
So in a court of law will you be officially sanctioned for flying over gross?

Unofficially these aeroplanes are aerobatted two up all the time, but when flown at load factors below the stated maximum at the weights the aeroplane is flown they are evidently safe enough.

[GolfHotel]

Okay let's split hairs... Two Leprechauns could aerobat this aeroplane... Maybe three?

[sarcasum on]It's unusual for you To split hairs MP. [sarcasum off] And I'm sure your third leprechaun would have problems as the RV6 is a two seat aircraft. And how do you square overloading the number of passengers with your light weight rant? May I suggest you take the 260 hp engine from the Slingsby and put it on your RV6? that should give it a bit more umph

[MichaelP]

260hp, that would be nice... In an Italian job with three seats, and a neat well designed undercarriage that folds up to hide my embarrassment

I flew Jungmanns, and their pleasantness to fly while always being very nice, was in inverse proportion to the weight of engine up front, i.e. the 105hp Hirth powered Jungmann was the most pleasant aeroplane I have flown.