0-235 vs 0-360 for Long Eze.

[Britguy59]

What is the opinion of using the 0-235 over the 0-360 Lycoming.?
 I am about to choose which one to go with. Apprieciate any input from owner-pilots.
Thanks!

[Waiter]

DON'T DO IT!!

I think the O-320 is the engine of choice, but I'd have no problem going with an O-360 if I had one.

I would not install a 235.

If you look at the HP gain vs the weight gain, I think you'll find you get about a 1 to 1 ratio when you upgrade from a 235 to a 320 or a 360.

For every pound increase, you'll gain about 1 HP. This is fantastic.

Take off performance will be substantially increased, as cruise speed.

Remember, If you think you have to much power, simply reduce the throttle.  

Good Luck

Waiter

[Britguy59]

Silly me, I meant the 0-320 of course. It comes down to me wanting to not mess with Rutans original plan of using the 0-235,  but it seems most prefer the 0-320. I will be buying soon so now is the time to know whats best. This forum is the source of knowledge for so many of us I hope others will learn from my questions too. :roll:

[Dave in Eugene]

Just searched "Rutan" in the FAA N# database...Dick Rutan doesn't have and 0-235...food for thought.

[Chairboy]

From the folks I've talked to, O-320 seems to be _the_ way to go.  Best yet, you can get roughly O-235 performance/economy by throttling back, so you're not losing those long legs.

[Jack]

From the folks I've talked to, O-320 seems to be _the_ way to go.  Best yet, you can get roughly O-235 performance/economy by throttling back, so you're not losing those long legs.

On any aircraft motor you should always strive for the best efficiency.  We are lucky in the X class community because we can add electronic ignition and other improvements without doing the FAA song and dance routine.

Learning to lean properly is the real biggie.  If you can't lean it right, doesn't matter if you reduce your RPMs.

Jack

[Britguy59]

Thanks for the comments, all. looks like I'm looking for an engine....anyone got a spare for sale?

[Jeffco]

From one who fly's with the 0235 I can tell you it's not bad, but the 0320 is the way to go.  I think alot of us guys with the 0235 would love to up grade to the 0320 and many in fact have.  Just another itme on the wish list.  The 0320 offers better climb and better high density altitude performance.  The 0235 is not exactly a slouch though, on a 60 mile trip two 0320's beat me by aobut 2 minutes.  Even though it's a little slower, it still beats most spam cans for fun and expense.  Good luck.

Jeff

[rglos]

I come from a time when everybody had O 235's. No one considered the bigger engines. I suppose it might be nice to have an O-320 but I just spent 12K to overhaul the O-235. I could have gone the bigger engine but decided not to.

I'm retired now so the expense of the O-320 both in cost and fluel expense is a little much. "You can throttle back" is BS. If you have it you will use it. Who in their right mind would put the bigger engine in and then throttle back. It's like sex where you only would use 2/3 rds of available resources. Not going to happen.

Waiter is well over 950 lbs of empty wieght. He has to use a O-320

Sure a Long EZ with an O-320 will do everything Waiter says but it is matter of perspective. A Long EZ  will fly faster, and further than a Cessna 152 with the same engine and load. You can easily fly two 200 pounders and 25 gallons of fuel.

On a 500 mile trip the O-320 would get there first, then the O-235 less than an hour later and the Cessna 150 by only a day or two.

It's all going to depend on your mission but to say don't do it is a litle bit aggressive. There are too may of us that are doing it.

[Drew]

My 0235 Longez (maybe a little heavy and engine a little tired) was kind of slow to climb (but right there with the certified types with the same engine), did not go very high (but right there with the cert types), did not go all that fast (but FASTER than the cert types)...and...used a lot of runway to take off.

Putting the O320 in made it climb about 2000 ft/min or so depending on how it was loaded (and using 120mph as a climb speed), never did find out how high it flew (but would have need oxygen to find out----13K and still climbing like no tomorrow), was exceptionally fast, and used far less runway (cert aircraft may still have me beat in this area----but you gotta give somewhere.

[Bruce Hughes]

Hi.

I had a 235 and I have replaced it with a 320.   So I agree that the
320 is the best engine.

However the guys with the 235 have one advantage besides fuel
economy:   With the 320 you have slightly more weight which means
slightly higher wing loading which means slightly higher landing
speeds.

If you DO have an emergency, a higher landing speed is a very bad
thing.   Remember the force that a mass applies depends on the
SQUARE of the velocity........

BTW The original engine was supposed to be a Continental O200,
I think.

Bruce Hughes

[Britguy59]

Thanks for all the comments. It is incredibly useful to hear different viewpoints that expand our knowledge of issues we face.
For me, I was advised to, and encouraged by, MOST of the people who responded. My own reasons were simply that, I knew I would fly a lot with my wife, baggage for trips, and preferred a reasonable avionics set up. The thought of an 0-235 struggling with the duty made me want to play it safe and get a beefier motor to help me along. I intend to limit gross weight and am being sensible about CG and fuel loads, but essentially, it just made sense to go the 0-320 route from the get-go.  Now all I have to do is finish it! Anyone got a Dynafocal Type 2 mount to spare?? How about a budget transponder?

[Drew]

When I swapped engines, I brought my old mount to Dave Ronneburg.  He welded on extra "arms" on the upper biscuits.

I also replaced the upper extrusions with ones with a longer vertical web.  There are pix of these on my website.