Is the -14 designed for the 390?

[cgarts1]

I have heard many times "the only engine for the -14 is the 390". Yet the -14 dragger prototype at Vans has the 360 in it and performs very similar to the 390.

I flew my -14 with the parallel valve 360 for 170 hours and it performed quite well albeit leaving me only 60 lbs of baggage. This set up got me flying and I have no regrets.

Now I'm running the 360 angle valve with a FP Sensinich standard pitch prop and it flies very nice. Excellent climb out and a respectable cruise. When I can afford a better prop I'll get one.

The reason I'm making this point is that I think many have strayed from building this airplane because they can't afford or are unwilling to pay nearly a 100k for an engine/prop combo. Also why I started the "Budget Engine Build" thread.

Did Vans design the -14 with the 390 in mind? It seems so. Is it a quite capable aircraft with the 360? Absolutely and the angle valve 360 is an excellent choice. Similar to other RV's running a 320 in lieu of the 360.

So don't let anyone tell you that you can't or shouldn't use the 360 for your -14 build. Or use a FP prop.

I started my -14 build in 2019 and finished in late 2021. 0 hour engine, (2) 10" Dynon HDX, pitch and roll AP, and a nice interior from Flightline for 105k.

So if the -14 is your dream airplane but you thought it was out of reach I hope this helps.

 

[TASEsq]

It would be good to get some comparison numbers on how the performance actually compares. Aka cruise TAS

 

[Phyrcooler]

I have heard many times "the only engine for the -14 is the 390". Yet the -14 dragger prototype at Vans has the 360 in it and performs very similar to the 390.

I flew my -14 with the parallel valve 360 for 170 hours and it performed quite well albeit leaving me only 60 lbs of baggage. This set up got me flying and I have no regrets.

Now I'm running the 360 angle valve with a FP Sensinich standard pitch prop and it flies very nice. Excellent climb out and a respectable cruise. When I can afford a better prop I'll get one.

The reason I'm making this point is that I think many have strayed from building this airplane because they can't afford or are unwilling to pay nearly a 100k for an engine/prop combo. Also why I started the "Budget Engine Build" thread.

Did Vans design the -14 with the 390 in mind? It seems so. Is it a quite capable aircraft with the 360? Absolutely and the angle valve 360 is an excellent choice. Similar to other RV's running a 320 in lieu of the 360.

So don't let anyone tell you that you can't or shouldn't use the 360 for your -14 build. Or use a FP prop.

I started my -14 build in 2019 and finished in late 2021. 0 hour engine, (2) 10" Dynon HDX, pitch and roll AP, and a nice interior from Flightline for 105k.

So if the -14 is your dream airplane but you thought it was out of reach I hope this helps.

Timely, and appreciated post. Interesting info. I’m curious what your weight and performance numbers were for both your original Parallel valve and now the Angle valve 360’s? I am assuming you were approx 180 hp originally, and now 200? Also… how much did your baggage capacity change with the slightly heavier motor?

I’ve wondered myself… why not just rebuild a simple O-360 and put it in a 14?

 

[M McGraw]

Engine weight

The -14 was designed around the weight of the angle valve Lycoming which is approximately 30 lbs heaver than the parallel valve.

The issue is not really horsepower and cruise speed as much as allowable C.G. Range. The OP stated he could carry 60 lbs baggage with the lighter engine. With the angle valve engines the baggage allowance is 100 lbs.

 

[dmattmul]

Performance

Just my speculation the 14 was going to be a "fill in" for us taller (larger) pilots that wanted similar performance as the 7. (And more room) With a wider fuselage and heavier gross weight, the way to do this was HP. The 360 or 390 angle valve fit the mission (200 hp and 210 hp) and as mentioned allowed a full 100 lbs. in the baggage area. There was an improved 390 that the HP rating was 215 HP. There's nothing wrong with putting a rebuilt parallel valve 360 to save money but most likely won't be spanking a Cirrus in level flight which is ok. Still lots of performance. Adding LOP operations will slow it down even more. (Above ~ 7,000 ft) LOP at 10,000 ft I get an honest 168 knots.

 

[cgarts1]

Timely, and appreciated post. Interesting info. I’m curious what your weight and performance numbers were for both your original Parallel valve and now the Angle valve 360’s? I am assuming you were approx 180 hp originally, and now 200? Also… how much did your baggage capacity change with the slightly heavier motor?

I’ve wondered myself… why not just rebuild a simple O-360 and put it in a 14?

I had 10:1 pistons in the parallel valve. So I think the HP is similar to what I have with the new angle valve. Same prop so I'm getting similar performance. About 145 TAS cruise and great climb out...and now I have full baggage.

I'm quite tempted to try a Catto FP or Senisinich ground adjustable carbon fiber 3-blade. But I now have the front governor mount so I can go constant speed. Decisions.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Lots of opinions, but the truth is the RV-14 was designed with the same reasoning / design philosophy as was used for the evolution of the other kits.

Which was.... design an airplane that had about the equiv. performance (speed, range, load carrying ability, etc ) of the previous smaller model.

So if it was going to be bigger, it was going to be heavier. The way to solve the total performance problem then becomes adding more power.

This was a major part of the design philosophy when the RV-8 evolved from the RV-4, the RV-7 evolved from the RV-6, and then the RV-14 evolved from the RV-7 (sort of). This ideology actually carried into the RV-10 as well. It was decided that it wasn't going to have lesser performance just because it was carrying 4 people instead of two. That is why the RV-10 isn't a 4 place airplane with a 4 cyl engine. It could have been done but then it would have been just another lower performance 4 place airplane like many other that already existed and likely would have never had the success that it has, but I digress......

The reason the parallel valve engine is not recommended is it will automatically impact the total performance idea, by limiting utility as was already proven by the O.P..

BTW, Van's has never stated that the RV-14 was designed to only use the IO-390, though it was designed with that engine in mind regarding all of the primary engineering and design details to assure at least equivalent performance to the previous similar side by side two seaters.
The angle valve IO-360 has always been mentioned as a viable option (the reason the RV-14 prototype was built using one).

The only thing that has been stated was that only angle valve engine were recommended.

 

[cgarts1]

The only thing that has been stated was that only angle valve engine were recommended.

Thank you Scott,

It's important that everyone understands this.

 

[dmattmul]

Totally confused

Thank you Scott,

It's important that everyone understands this.

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post

The only thing that has been stated was that only angle valve engine were recommended.

You put a parallel valve in yours.........???

You are now recommending not to do this?

 

[cgarts1]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post

The only thing that has been stated was that only angle valve engine were recommended.

You put a parallel valve in yours.........???

You are now recommending not to do this?

I started with the parallel valve and it worked fine, just only had 60 lbs of baggage. There's no reason that one can't put the parallel valve engine in the -14. You'll need to add some ballast to the nose. Similar to the 320 in the -6, -7, or -9. I would recommend against this only because it's easier to bolt on an angle valve. The reason I changed out engines was that I wanted more baggage. If not for the baggage problem I would have been more than happy to continue on with that engine. By the time I get my wife, bags, and the dog (that was the big problem), we were aft CG.

The reason I started this thread was because I have heard ad nauseam that the 390 was the only engine for the -14 and I want people to know that this airplane has excellent performance with other engines and without the price tag of the 390.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[bobhope2505]

OK, but...

No one knows the future and you may want/need to sell your precious child...I mean...your -14 one day. If so, it's likely that you will lose more than you saved because you'll have to sell substantially below the market. And, as always, divide the additional cost over the life of the engine/plane when making these decisions. (That's what keeps me poor!)

That said, we're so spoiled. Flying an RV turns you into an awful person. Admit that you gloat when you grease a Cirrus with the same engine. An RV-14 with a -360 would still be an awesome plane, but having to cruise at 162kts instead of 167kts would torment you to the end of your days; especially on long flights when there's nothing to do but look for that magical setting that will wring out 2 more kts. I can save almost a gallon per hour by crusing at 167kts instead of 170kts, which costs me all of 5 mins on a 400nm flight. So of course I try to go 171kts.

 

[cgarts1]

No one knows the future and you may want/need to sell your precious child...I mean...your -14 one day. If so, it's likely that you will lose more than you saved because you'll have to sell substantially below the market. And, as always, divide the additional cost over the life of the engine/plane when making these decisions. (That's what keeps me poor!)

That said, we're so spoiled. Flying an RV turns you into an awful person. Admit that you gloat when you grease a Cirrus with the same engine. An RV-14 with a -360 would still be an awesome plane, but having to cruise at 162kts instead of 167kts would torment you to the end of your days; especially on long flights when there's nothing to do but look for that magical setting that will wring out 2 more kts. I can save almost a gallon per hour by crusing at 167kts instead of 170kts, which costs me all of 5 mins on a 400nm flight. So of course I try to go 171kts.

Of course, but this assumes that everyone can afford a new 390. There simply aren't any used ones available. I now have 220 very enjoyable hours on my airplane and it would just be sitting for who knows how long before I could save 70k.

And once again the same thing could be said about -7's and -9's flying with 320's. I'd be hard pressed to find any thread on this forum about the resale or speeds in comparison of the 360/390 of other RV models with the 320.

So why does this always come up with the -14?

 

[hgerhardt]

........afford a new 390. There simply aren't any used ones available. ...........

So why not turn a used 360 AV into a 390? Provided you could actually get 390 cylinders (mine have been on back-order since April), it's not difficult to do. Bore out the crankcase at the cylinder base flanges to fit the larger-diameter cylinders. I think Barrett originally came up with this idea, and built the first 390's.

Do some research in the parts manuals for the respective engines to see what other small detail parts are different...there aren't very many.

 

[cgarts1]

So why not turn a used 360 AV into a 390? Provided you could actually get 390 cylinders (mine have been on back-order since April), it's not difficult to do. Bore out the crankcase at the cylinder base flanges to fit the larger-diameter cylinders. I think Barrett originally came up with this idea, and built the first 390's.

Do some research in the parts manuals for the respective engines to see what other small detail parts are different...there aren't very many.

Interesting. I'll certainly look into doing this down the line.

 

[MSR]

It is my understanding that the RV14 can use the IO360A1B6, that the 14A requires the A1D6 for the front constant speed unit as the nose wheel mounting doesn’t allow for the rear mounted CSU?

 

[Imagine47]

I would be grateful if Scott (or any other knowledgeable source) would state exactly which of the myriad 360 variants would fit on the front of a 14TW. Do I understand correctly that any angle valve 360 can be used if you elect a FP prop? I can’t wait 3 years for a new 390.
thanks in advance
Greg Beckner
141283 waiting….waiting….

 

[cgarts1]

I would be grateful if Scott (or any other knowledgeable source) would state exactly which of the myriad 360 variants would fit on the front of a 14TW. Do I understand correctly that any angle valve 360 can be used if you elect a FP prop? I can’t wait 3 years for a new 390.
thanks in advance
Greg Beckner
141283 waiting….waiting….

Yes Greg, any angle valve 360 will work with a FP prop. Furthermore I suspect that with the -14 TW a rear mounted governor may work. It looks like the only reason it doesn't work with the "A " models is the nose wheel shock absorber is in the way.

 

[dstates]

I found this post from Van's on their Facebook page from December 2015. It is very helpful. I'm assuming this was before the EXP 119 version of the IO-390.

Also, they answered a question in the comments asking "Just to be clear, the governor location is only an issue with the 14A, correct?". Their answer was "No. The rear mounted governor is an issue on both RV-14 & RV-14A."



SELECTING AN ENGINE FOR THE RV-14/14A

The RV-14/14A was designed around (follow closely now) the Lycoming IO-390-A3B6. This is a:
• four-cylinder
• horizontally-opposed (the “O” in “IO”)
• horizontally-inducted
• fuel-injected (the “I” in “IO”)
• angle-valve
• normally-aspirated
engine rated at 210 hp

This engine is comparatively new and is found almost exclusively in the Experimental market. It hasn’t had the need or time to mutate into the bewildering variety of versions that older Lycoming designs have achieved. The version we sell – the IO-390A3B6 – is configured with a standard Lycoming sump, Bendix-style injection, Slick magnetos and a forward mounted prop governor. Because very few IO-390s appear on the used market, we can assume that any IO-390 in an RV-14/14A will have been purchased from Van’s and will fit the RV-14 without trouble.

ENTER THE IO-360
It’s been apparent from the beginning that the IO-360 Lycoming engine is so similar in configuration, weight and power to the IO-390 that it might also be suitable. We decided to try this when we built our RV-14 prototype and have found that this engine is indeed a good match to the RV-14 airframe.

Since the IO-360 is available on the used market for prices far less than a new IO-390, it is an attractive option for builders who are on a more limited budget. It also opens up a new can of worms.

First, we have to define some terms. There are THREE completely different kinds of IO-360:
• the common Lycoming parallel valve four cylinder engine, usually rated at 180 hp. They can be horizontally or vertically inducted.
• the completely different Lycoming angle-valve four-cylinder engine rated at 200 hp. These are always (dare we say that?) horizontally inducted.
• the Continental IO-360 six-cylinder engine rated at 210 hp with the induction system mounted on top of the engine.

For the RV-14 the only suitable IO-360 is the Lycoming angle-valve 200 hp version.

This engine has been production for decades and when we wanted to test a 200 hp version of the RV-14, we installed an IO-360-A1D6 in our RV-14 taildragger prototype – simply because we already had one. It is working well – physically it fits fine, produces plenty of power and works well with the weight/balance envelope.

The IO-360 exists in a bewildering variety of versions. Only some of them will work.

One of the most important red flags is the location of the propeller governor. The IO-360-A1D6, like the IO-390, has the governor mounted on the front left side of the crankcase. Many, probably the majority, of IO-360s have governors mounted on the rear accessory case, where it physically interferes with the steel engine mount/nose gear of the RV-14A and causes many ducting/wiring/routing problems for the RV-14. From what we can tell, it is not feasible to convert a rear governor engine to the forward governor configuration. We recommend that RV-14 builders avoid IO-360s with rear-mounted governors.

Some IO-360s have been removed from aerobatic airplanes and are equipped with different sumps and induction systems. We have not investigated, let alone prototyped, any such engine and recommend anybody contemplating putting one in an RV-14/14A do some serious homework before they buy.

There are two or three companies building Lycoming “clones” – engines similar to, but probably not identical to, the Lycoming. These engines can come in almost any configuration the buyer wishes, but again, Van’s has never seen most of these engines, and has certainly never investigated which, if any, of the many available versions might work in the RV-14/14A.

To summarize, we recommend that RV-14/14A builders choose Lycoming-type engines that are
• four-cylinder
• horizontally-opposed
• horizontally-inducted
• angle-valve
• normally-aspirated
• forward-governor
• standard Lycoming sump
and rated between 200-210 horsepower.

The only engine that Van’s sells that meets all those criteria is the IO-390-A3B6. The 200 hp IO-360-A1B6 engine we sell for the RV-7/8 is a rear governor engine, and unsuitable for the RV-14/14A.

Builders contemplating buying an engine from some source other than Van’s will be responsible for making sure their engine is suitable. Calling Van’s for information (“I’ve found an IO-360-X4B12?# out of an Egyptian Air Force Malmo-Boero. Will it work?”) will not help. Contact Lycoming or an expert engine shop for details of a given model, and insist on seeing photos or examining the engine to determine whether it will work.

 

[acpilot]

Great thread as the prices of these engines keep climbing and waits become longer. At this point, I may consider a used IO-360 angle valve with a FP prop to get flying and then think about upgrade later.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I would be grateful if Scott (or any other knowledgeable source) would state exactly which of the myriad 360 variants would fit on the front of a 14TW. Do I understand correctly that any angle valve 360 can be used if you elect a FP prop? I can’t wait 3 years for a new 390.
thanks in advance
Greg Beckner
141283 waiting….waiting….

Greg, I wish I could help with the compatible model #'s but there are just too many different variations.
When purchasing an engine it is very simple to confirm whether it utilizes a fwd or aft propeller gov, though.

I know that an aft gov. engine has been made to work on an RV-14 or 14A but can't remember which at this point, but everything published by Van's in teh past has had an emphases on an interference with teh nose gear. I was thinking that depending on the gov. used, there could be an interference between the gov and the oil cooler on a 14 tail dragger because the cooler is mounted differently compared to an RV-14A (compare in the two 360 views below)

RV-14A FWF wrap-around view - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes

Click and drag to change view perspective.

www.vansaircraft.com

RV-14 FWF wrap-around view - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes

Click and drag to change view perspective.

www.vansaircraft.com

If a fixed pitch prop is used, a front or rear gov. engine could be used.

 

[Imagine47]

Thanks for very helpful replies. I wonder if anyone has mounted a 360/FP prop on a 14TW and would share any performance data? if the hickey isn’t too bad maybe can I justify a beautiful 3 blade.
Greg Beckner
141283
Double dues gladly paid.

 

[MSR]

Interesting info - are there any builders on here who HAVE successfully used an IO360A1B6 with a CS prop in a TW RV14?

 

[GStrassburg]

I installed an IO-360 A3B6D with rear mounted governor and a Hartzell CS prop to my RV-14 TW.

 

[MSR]

I installed an IO-360 A3B6D with rear mounted governor and a Hartzell CS prop to my RV-14 TW.

Thanks for that, very hard to find the preferred engines here, I’ll go ahead and buy this one and work through the fitting. Appreciate your input.

 

[terrye]

I started with the parallel valve and it worked fine, just only had 60 lbs of baggage. There's no reason that one can't put the parallel valve engine in the -14. You'll need to add some ballast to the nose. Similar to the 320 in the -6, -7, or -9. I would recommend against this only because it's easier to bolt on an angle valve. The reason I changed out engines was that I wanted more baggage. If not for the baggage problem I would have been more than happy to continue on with that engine. By the time I get my wife, bags, and the dog (that was the big problem), we were aft CG.

The reason I started this thread was because I have heard ad nauseam that the 390 was the only engine for the -14 and I want people to know that this airplane has excellent performance with other engines and without the price tag of the 390.

Hope that clears it up.

Just to clarify, don't group the -9 with the -6 and -7. Different wing, different airplane, different limit loads and power. The maximum recommended engine for the -9 is an (I)O-320, 160 hp max. The alternative engine is the O-235 115 hp. Yes I know some people have put (I)O-360 180 hp engines in a -9, for their own reasons, but this is not recommended by Vans.

 

[RV8JD]

Just to clarify, don't group the -9 with the -6 and -7. Different wing, different airplane, different limit loads and power. The maximum recommended engine for the -9 is an (I)O-320, 160 hp max. The alternative engine is the O-235 115 hp. Yes I know some people have put (I)O-360 180 hp engines in a -9, for their own reasons, but this is not recommended by Vans.

I know this is way off this RV-14 thread, but to respond to the post above:

There are no structural design reasons that preclude a Lycoming 180 HP engine from being installed in the RV-9/9A, as long as Vno (180 MPH IAS) and Vne (210 MPH TAS) are obeyed by the pilot. Regardless of engine power or airplane type, the pilot must ensure that he/she does not exceed the design speeds at all altitudes.

See this post by ScottM ('rvbuilder2002'):

Dreaming of what engine for my RV9A

I am dreaming about what engine would be good for my new to me RV9A flying aircraft that presently has a 0-320 B1A engine installed. I plan to remove this engine and either rebuild it myself or may be upgrade to a higher HP engine instead. For you RV 9 folks what would be your dream engine over...

vansairforce.net

There are several -9/9As with 180 HP Lyc's.

 

[uk_figs]

Interesting thread, WRT to weight and balance situation I wonder if the -7 solution is a possibility for the 14. After I swapped the sensenich prop for a lightweight Catto on my -7 I had to add a bunch of weight to the nose to make the CG range acceptable and carry a reasonable amount of baggage ( Sabre crush plate and landol ring). I found out later that some -7 builders had used a 320 mount which apparently moved the motor approx 2 inches further forward and addressed much of the CG issue. Could you do that with the IO-360 in the 14? It would also provide more room behind the motor.
Figs

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Interesting thread, WRT to weight and balance situation I wonder if the -7 solution is a possibility for the 14. After I swapped the sensenich prop for a lightweight Catto on my -7 I had to add a bunch of weight to the nose to make the CG range acceptable and carry a reasonable amount of baggage ( Sabre crush plate and landol ring). I found out later that some -7 builders had used a 320 mount which apparently moved the motor approx 2 inches further forward and addressed much of the CG issue. Could you do that with the IO-360 in the 14? It would also provide more room behind the motor.
Figs

If there was a different engine mount available, you could, but the only mount available is the one designed specifically for the use of the angle valve engine.
The RV-14 does not use the same engine mount as the RV -7

 

[MSR]

I installed an IO-360 A3B6D with rear mounted governor and a Hartzell CS prop to my RV-14 TW.

Hi again, could I trouble you for some additional info on your governor? I'd really like a photo of the rear mount governor and its correlation with the engine mounting frame and accessories. I now have an engine (IO360A1B6) which has a governor mounted, I just want to see how it all fits together before I spend any more cash. No hurry, appreciate your time; thanks.

 

[GStrassburg]

Hi again, could I trouble you for some additional info on your governor? I'd really like a photo of the rear mount governor and its correlation with the engine mounting frame and accessories. I now have an engine (IO360A1B6) which has a governor mounted, I just want to see how it all fits together before I spend any more cash. No hurry, appreciate your time; thanks.

You got a pm

 

[JET14]

I flew the factory RV-14 for 6 hours (IO-360) and have over 50 hours on my -14 with the EXP119 engine on it. I wouldn't hesitate to put an IO-360 on a 14 in the proper configuration.

 

[TYK]

As another data point, the builder of my 14A installed an IO 360 C1EC with ground adjustable hartzell 3 blade. He used 1/2 inch spacers between firewall and engine mount to help with the CG issues of a lighter engine configuration. I'm still always on the aft side of C/G and with heavy passenger and luggage can pretty easily end up out of the limits.
The prop is set for cruise, I can run 160 kts true but take off and climb is obviously less than a "normal" RV. Something you want to understand well if going FP in higher altitudes.
I wonder (hoping) if the 3 blade prop config will prove to be a benefit regarding the elevator cracking issue?
It also has EFII, so if you believe the marketing, it may reduce the power gap with the 390.

 

[climberrn]

An option for those going the rebuild route, the TIO-360 case has a forward governor mount (and large front bearing) like the factory -390’s. As stated before, it is an easy job for an engine shop to convert the cases to fit the -390 cylinders. My 390 cylinders were delivered to the engine shop in 7 months after ordering. In light of current pricing and lead times, the rebuild route is a great option.

I was ready to place a deposit on a Thunderbolt EXP 119 -390 through Vans last March, but the lead time and cowl modification with my install led me to the rebuilt route. Engine was ready to ship mid December. In light of the current issues, I dodged a bullet on that one. Didn’t save much money over the Vans pricing last March, but having the engine delivered, and paying what was quoted sure is nice.

 

[MSR]

Engine has arrived, looks like its time to get serious and get the kits uncrated!

 

[Dugaru]

Adding LOP operations will slow it down even more.

If you use a carbureted O-360 you can usually avoid this problem entirely!

 

[cgarts1]

If there was a different engine mount available, you could, but the only mount available is the one designed specifically for the use of the angle valve engine.
The RV-14 does not use the same engine mount as the RV -7

Scott, this is not accurate. The -14 mount will accept parallel valve 360's as well.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Scott, this is not accurate. The -14 mount will accept parallel valve 360's as well.

Accept it vs fitting the airplane from a W & B standpoint are two totally different things... I was talking about the latter.

The discussion wasn't whether a parallel valve engine would fit on the mount (your correct it would because all Lycoming 4 cyl engines that require a dynafocal 1 mounting are the same).
The discussion; and my comments regarding the parallel valve engines not being compatible; was that the parallel valve engines are way too light and will cause a major C.G. problem.
So my comment was in the context that a parallel valve engine was only usable (from a practical standpoint) if an extended/longer mount was available. The only extended mount available is for the RV-7, and that wont fit the RV-14.

 

[cgarts1]

I found a nice CS prop on Ebay for $2300 and I just finished the install. About $5600 with the governor/cable/spinner/etc. Flew it today. Wow, what a difference. I'm getting 1600 FPM climb at 100kts and 7300 DA. About 155-160 kts cruise. I'm totally stoked. The way it jumped off the runway and just climbed like crazy felt wonderful.

So about a 400 FPM, and 15kt cruise increase over the Sensi standard FP. Kinda what I expected but I didn't know how good it would feel. Thank you Mr Vansgrunsven.

.......now if I could just get a paint job done on this thing I'll be finished.

 

[cgarts1]

Accept it vs fitting the airplane from a W & B standpoint are two totally different things... I was talking about the latter.

The discussion wasn't whether a parallel valve engine would fit on the mount (your correct it would because all Lycoming 4 cyl engines that require a dynafocal 1 mounting are the same).
The discussion; and my comments regarding the parallel valve engines not being compatible; was that the parallel valve engines are way too light and will cause a major C.G. problem.
So my comment was in the context that a parallel valve engine was only usable (from a practical standpoint) if an extended/longer mount was available. The only extended mount available is for the RV-7, and that wont fit the RV-14.

Yes, I understand. I should have been more clear. It bolts up but Vans doesn't make a mount that accounts for the CG. Creativity for how to solve that issue will be necessary. I used a landoll balancer and a weight bolted to the sump.

 

[dmattmul]

If there was a different engine mount available, you could, but the only mount available is the one designed specifically for the use of the angle valve engine.
The RV-14 does not use the same engine mount as the RV -7

There is a mount that works.....and many ways to solve. Get creative. (3 blade metal prop?, B&C 60 amp pad mount alternator, weighs almost 7 lbs)

 

[lampwins]

I’m in this limbo of trying to figure out what do for an engine. I’m about a year out from needing one and new isn’t in my budget, which also means a 390 is out. I understand the general literature on parallel vs angle valve, but if the issue really is just CG (or at least primarily), why is the answer not to just strap some more weight up front? What am I missing there, because I don’t seem to be able to find much commentary on that idea, which leads me to believe I must be missing something big?

Please excuse my obvious ignorance, I am trying my best to learn about everything that happens FWF…

 

[rvbuilder2002]

There is a mount that works.....and many ways to solve. Get creative.

The sensible engineer in me makes it hard to accept the idea of a lower HP engine, but then add back waste weight for CG.
You now have an airplane with an empty weight near what an angle valve engined one has but less HP to take it aloft.
Standardizing to the bigger engine was just one of many compromise decisions we had to make when designing the RV-14, but that is what was necessary to have the level of performance RV’s are know for, with the larger form factor airframe.

 

[M McGraw]

I’m in this limbo of trying to figure out what do for an engine. I’m about a year out from needing one and new isn’t in my budget, which also means a 390 is out. I understand the general literature on parallel vs angle valve, but if the issue really is just CG (or at least primarily), why is the answer not to just strap some more weight up front? What am I missing there, because I don’t seem to be able to find much commentary on that idea, which leads me to believe I must be missing something big?

Please excuse my obvious ignorance, I am trying my best to learn about everything that happens FWF…

The issue is actually more than CG. While the OP has put the experiment back into his experimental the results should be considered. The numbers posted do not reflect the performance of the standard RV14 with an angle valve 360 or 390. The posted numbers underperform in weight carrying ability, climb, and cruise with the fixed and constant speed propellor as posted. Takeoff performance has not been posted, but there is no reason to believe they would be equivalent. You will need to increase your build time because of the modifications and at the same time decrease your performance. If the cost of the new IO-390 is too much your best alternative is a good used/rebuilt angle valve IO-360.

 

[cgarts1]

The issue is actually more than CG. While the OP has put the experiment back into his experimental the results should be considered. The numbers posted do not reflect the performance of the standard RV14 with an angle valve 360 or 390. The posted numbers underperform in weight carrying ability, climb, and cruise with the fixed and constant speed propellor as posted. Takeoff performance has not been posted, but there is no reason to believe they would be equivalent. You will need to increase your build time because of the modifications and at the same time decrease your performance. If the cost of the new IO-390 is too much your best alternative is a good used/rebuilt angle valve IO-360.

As far as an experiment it was one that was destined to succeed. Also I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to try the lighter engine. I think Clint from Vetterman exhaust told me he did systems for a few others doing the same thing. Also to Scott's point about less power this engine had ported cylinders with 10:1 CR and when I asked the cylinder shop if they thought my engine would produce 200HP he said "At least. Probably a few over". So the airplane performed just fine. As good as the "standard -14", no. Better than a Cherokee 180, hell yeah.....but with less utility.

As far as time spent for modifications it wasn't bad at all. Looking back at the build hardly significant. Also important to note that if I could have fitted a CP prop I would have had significant a performance increase.

So here's how I see it:

For sure, hands down, the best/easiest way to go is use the angle valve engine. Scott's posts are on point as usual. There's beauty in the engineering. When I could afford to upgrade I did.

However, I'm not the best builder/engineer/craftsman etc. Others can do the parallel valve engine in the -14 better than me. Maybe the O360F1A6 could be another viable engine for the "A" models? The TW guys appear to have a ton of options.

If I was to build another -14 I'd be looking for a used angle valve engine with a few hundred hours on it and just bolt it on. It would have cost me another ten grand on the build but I still would have been at about 115k with dual touch screens and two axis AP.

 

[lampwins]

One of the things I keep seeing regarding the angle valve 360s with the -14A is a fitment constraint with the nose gear. Specifically, that the prop governor needs to be front mounted. This seems to mean that if you want CS in a -14A with a 200HP 360, your only option is the C1E6, which significantly shrinks the market. Is that actually true, or are there other models that would work with the nose gear clearance?

 

[cgarts1]

One of the things I keep seeing regarding the angle valve 360s with the -14A is a fitment constraint with the nose gear. Specifically, that the prop governor needs to be front mounted. This seems to mean that if you want CS in a -14A with a 200HP 360, your only option is the C1E6, which significantly shrinks the market. Is that actually true, or are there other models that would work with the nose gear clearance?

There's a few others but the C1E6 is the easiest to find. There are at least three available now, each available from different online sources. Crankcases readily available from Divco.