A good engine to select for my project?

Discussion in 'Firewall Forward / Props / Fuel system' started by geosnooker2000, Jun 23, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jun 23, 2019 #1

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    Hello all.
    I am considering building a CH640 sometime in the future, and am doing a lot of research FIRST. I have been through various discussions over on the Corvair board and the Subaru board. Now I have some questions for you dedicated aircraft engine guys.
    Zenair recommends a powerplant between 150hp and 240hp. You need a "high performance endorsement" to operate an airplane with an engine above 200hp, and that's not something I'm interested in just yet.
    What I'm looking for is 6 cylinders with the lowest GPH burn possible. I want a Ford Explorer, not a Jaguar F-Pace.
    This has sort of led me to the Conti 0-300, or the G0-300. I really don't like the idea of any gearbox, and I'm not sure if the 5HP missing from the 0-300 would be that much of a big deal?
    Are there any other ideas for that range of power y'all can come up with? BTW, I'm not wealthy, so I won't be buying any new or newly overhauled engines. This would be a used engine with some time left on it.
    Thanks for any input!
    George
     
  2. Jun 23, 2019 #2

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,437
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Direct drive GM LV3?
     
  3. Jun 23, 2019 #3

    Geraldc

    Geraldc

    Geraldc

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    nz
    I got my motor early in the build which was a mistake.Build to firewall forward and then make your choice.Engine options change all the time.
     
    wsimpso1 and pictsidhe like this.
  4. Jun 23, 2019 #4

    cdlwingnut

    cdlwingnut

    cdlwingnut

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    685
    Location:
    Iowa
    the o-300 wouldn't be a bad engine, but do not fret the high performance endorsement, one flight with an instructor can get that.
     
    mcrae0104 likes this.
  5. Jun 23, 2019 #5

    bob21921

    bob21921

    bob21921

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Elkton, MD
    Lycoming O-320 + 0-360 are my bullet proof choice (aircooled and direct drive)
     
    BoKu and wsimpso1 like this.
  6. Jun 23, 2019 #6

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,938
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    When one discovers experimental aviation it's exciting because it promises to be a less expensive way to fly, and in some ways that is true. Then if you're interested in alternative engines it appears to get even better, but remember: TANSTAAFL

    Don't underpower your plane to save money. This isn't Corvair territory. There is lots of information about owning/operating the GO-300 out there, and it may be a great option. A mid time 360 could also be perfect (they're everywhere and every A&P will know what to do with it). Ask the Zenith guys how a 145 hp (O-300) 640 would be. They don't bite.

    Low fuel burn is a nice thing but all aircraft engines have essentially similar specific fuel consumption. What you pay for with a bigger engine is the ability to burn fuel faster when you want to, and unfortunately, the necessity for burning fuel faster when you don't want to (because the engine is heavier, and the weight snowballs and ripples through every part of the airframe). This is why Billski always reminds us that weight is the enemy. It is the enemy of performance and economy.

    I hope you'll keep thinking about what you want to build and about engines and such, but I would strongly encourage you to get flying while you're doing that because it will help shape your mission and give you perspective on things like how often you will need four seats and whether a high performance endorsement is any big beal. If money is a driver, you could consider building something smaller and renting a 172 when you want to take some kids in the back.

    Also, if you like six-cylinder engines, one other worth looking into would be a Franklin.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  7. Jun 23, 2019 #7

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,435
    Likes Received:
    3,176
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Continental O-300s are great engines. The parts supply for the big stuff like cases and crankshafts are drying up. That is making them expensive to fix right. They are heavy for the horsepower. The GO-300 is a whole other mess. I would fly behind one but there are no parts for the gearbox. 80% chance you fly with one, it will be the last one you see. It also requires a special flight management. You have to fly full power and only use low power to land. You can’t fly at part power because it tears the gearbox up. That bad management is what killed it. Management of the big G engines were understood. A lay 172 driver did not. A Lycoming O-290G Is cheaper and can be turned into a 320 with minor work cheaper than replacing a O-300 crankshaft.
     
  8. Jun 23, 2019 #8

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,725
    Likes Received:
    2,958
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    Mid-time boneyard engines can be great deals. O-320 for the low end, O-360 for 180 hp, IO-360 for 200 hp, and then the big sixes for more than 200 hp. You need the logs, you need to know it was pulled from a running airplane or one that was totaled for airframe damage, and you need to know that it was NOT a prop strike victim.
    https://www.eaa.org/Shop/ProductCatalog/Product.aspx?ID=2681564&SubTopicID=941 covers the engines to look for an more importantly the ones to skip.

    https://www.eaa.org/eaa/search?term=Busch On Engines&limit=90c6632f49004175b4e0c6acd7d471a1 is Mike Busch's book, and worth time and money on engine inspection.

    If it was pulled in the last moth, OK, but if it is older, the boneyard had better have pickled it. Show up with tools and a borescope (there are good ones for a couple hundred bucks that display on a tablet or phone). You need to find out that the cylinder walls are not rusty, that the valves are all good (no crescent moon looks on any valves), and you need to know that the cam and lifters are good. Enter the crankcase through the oil drain hole to look at the cam.

    You will be flying sooner and on about the same bucks with a lot less fuss in an "airplane" engine.

    Play with auto conversions only if you really want to play with auto conversions. This is an experimentors topic of its own.

    Billski
     
  9. Jun 23, 2019 #9

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,334
    Likes Received:
    3,123
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    As said above, dont worry about the high perf endorsement. One flight with an instructor (or none, if you know one well) and that's done.

    Also agreed that fuel burn is a function of the HP you select. There is no magic to the internal combustion process at the duty cycle of an aircraft engine. This is especially true of a high drag machine like the 640.

    I do like the sixes for the sound, but there is more component cost associated with the extra cylinders. The 0-300 has been discussed as well as the Franklin, but the Lyc 0-435 is still plentiful. It shares the same rare/expensive cylinders as the 290, but like the smaller engine can be bored for 320 jugs - creating a 480 of 240 HP.

    Best bet though is to wait it out and grab a gently used Lyc 320 or 360. Get the right one and you will save years of development time and money, and have years of trouble free flying.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  10. Jun 23, 2019 #10

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    I appreciate all the responses. The 4 cylinders are ruled out. I want 6 cylinders for safety concerns. If it costs 50% more at overhaul, so be it.
     
  11. Jun 23, 2019 #11

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,334
    Likes Received:
    3,123
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Safety concerns? Please elaborate
     
  12. Jun 23, 2019 #12

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    You drop one cylinder in flight on a 6, you still have 5 to get to a landing strip. Remember, in these types of decisions, the wife has to be convinced flying is as safe as practically possible. And to tell the truth, so do I.
     
  13. Jun 23, 2019 #13

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,334
    Likes Received:
    3,123
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Depends on the nature of the malfunction. Throw one rod on a 6 and you're a glider. Add to that, sixes generally eat cylinders faster than fours, even among the same architecture.

    If safety is the primary concern, then I suspect you will find that the Lyc 320/360 series wins that contest by a huge margin -and they are 4 bangers.
     
    TarDevil and Jerry Lytle like this.
  14. Jun 23, 2019 #14

    Jerry Lytle

    Jerry Lytle

    Jerry Lytle

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Newport, Oregon
    I was not aware that 6 cylinders are safer than 4. Do you have a source for this?
     
  15. Jun 23, 2019 #15

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,435
    Likes Received:
    3,176
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I see no difference in safety 4 or 6 in airplane engines. 6 was just a way to add horsepower without much work. Will a Continental O-470 work for you?
     
  16. Jun 23, 2019 #16

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,435
    Likes Received:
    3,176
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Skip Stewart just just lost the cylinder head on his 6. I hate when that happens. His is a high stressed engine being an air show plane but the part is common to 4 and 6. Mechanically except the timing order and extra parts to add the two cylinders , there is no difference in them. Parts bin manufacturing at its best.
     
  17. Jun 23, 2019 #17

    mm4440

    mm4440

    mm4440

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    LA area, CA
    Sixs run smoother than fours. One to look at is the Continental IO-360. Not as popular as the Lyc so might be less used.
     
  18. Jun 23, 2019 #18

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    And I suppose you could look at it from the standpoint of plug wires. You lose a plug wire on a 6 Cyl Corvair, you still have 5 cylinders left... You lose a plug wire on a Lyc 0-320, you still have 7 wires left, and all 4 cylinders.
     
  19. Jun 23, 2019 #19

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    I infer that you are asking for proof. It's not about proof. It's about what my wife thinks is safer. Unless 4s are more reliable than 6s empirically, and I can point to some statistics.... no, no, it still wouldn't matter. Know what I mean?
     
    Jerry Lytle likes this.
  20. Jun 23, 2019 #20

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,334
    Likes Received:
    3,123
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Would your wife rather fly behind a Merlin?

    Seriously, where did she get the idea that more cylinders is "safer"?

    I'm not about to debate the irrational fears of wives (I've heard plenty), but that one is very technologically specific.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white