On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:38:51 -0600, RR Urban wrote:

:
:
:richard riley wrote:
:
:You've done VERY well so far. You can't go wrong with the RV. But
:you're not correct about needing to decide on engine and instruments
:now.
:
:As long as you're sticking with the Lycoming (a good choice, certainly
:the lowest risk way to go) the only decision is O-235 or O-320. They
:go on the same engine mount and cowl. Virtually the entire engine
:installation will be the same, except for the prop.
:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
:Not exactly.
:There are CONICAL and DYNAFOCAL #1 & #2 engine considerations.
:Each style requires its own particular engine mount.
:The dynafocal wide deck Lycoming is the latest way to go.
:Check with Van, google.com, etcetera for more details.

Of course Bob is correct. There are conical mount 235's, but they're
all pretty old now, and not many of them around. The 320 Dynafocal
II's were off a Piper twin, and are also pretty rare, (a long prop
extension and a heavy prop put the engine CG way out toward the prop,
so the dynafocal angle changed) but I happen to know of a zero timed
one with 10:1 pistons for sale.

Even so, all the possible engine mounts are going to attach to the
same places on the firewall. So go ahead and build, the worst thing
that could happen is that you have to trade in an engine mount for a
slightly different one. And given the sheer quantity that Van sells,
I'd think trades like that would be pretty easy.

Like Bob, I'd assume a newer, wide deck 320 as the way to go. You'll
never regret a 35% increase in horsepower - there is no such thing as
too much horsepower.

But seriously, hold off on the avionics. I happen to be a UPSAT (now
GarminAT) dealer, loosing my dealership because of the sale. For the
next week or so I can get you some really, really good prices on
CNX80's and stuff. But don't buy from me now, it would just sit and
get obsolete on the shelf.