0-340 Lycoming Pireps

Looking for some pireps on fuel flow, comparisons to other engines flown , vibration, etc on these engines.
We are considering using an Aerosport (Bart) 0-340 on the next experimental project.
We do have an 0-375 flying on another experimental, great engine but fuel burn is more than we like.
Thanks :smile:

Years ago I had an 0-340 on a C-170B with a c/s prop, rather short 72"..? I believe it was the Doyn conversion. But been long
enough ago can't be sure.

This motor was very hard to start when it was hot... ie, after it had been running. Pulling on the prop you felt it was real tight. Never
could figure out why. Would run battery down trying to start it... cool down and it was fine. Hope that was unique to that motor.

Other that that it worked fine. I don't have any info you probably want like fuel burn... The prop was, at the time the only allowed
on that motor/airframe combination.... don't know what's used now. So with that short prop, there was some vibration.

And the day she blew a jug, there was a WHOLE LOT of vibration..... but that's another story.

How many hours were on this engine when she blew the jug? Did the engine run hard in the 170?

Bob, This was back in 1981 or so.. Sorry I can't remember the time on the engine.
The engine did run good though. Ran it on wheels, then skis in the winter.

I'm sorry if my post brings more questions than answers..... like I said, it was long time ago.
Kem

Ask anyone flying the new carbon cub. They're using the 340. I was impressed with it and a catto prop. Maybe Bart at aerosport can give you some numbers.

Ruffair said:

Bob, This was back in 1981 or so.. Sorry I can't remember the time on the engine.
The engine did run good though. Ran it on wheels, then skis in the winter.

I'm sorry if my post brings more questions than answers..... like I said, it was long time ago.
Kem

Click to expand...

Kem,

That wasn't the yellow and blue one that sat alongside Airport Way about mid field for many years?

MTV

I've 50 hrs on a new O-340 built up by Lycon. I'm turning a 84-42 pawnee prop and Atlee hotrod exhaust. Nice set-up. Great power and efficient cruise. Fuel burn & speeds are better than the O-320's that I fly with. Might try the catto prop next year.

Sharp

Airport way? The yellow and blue one I am thinking of was on the East Ramp (University South). Was there the whole time I was at UAF. Last time I was in FAI, I think it was still there.

mvivion said:

Kem,

That wasn't the yellow and blue one that sat alongside Airport Way about mid field for many years?

MTV

Click to expand...

No don't think so... was some kind of off white and red when I got it, then I stripped it and shined it up. (never again)

I have the carbon cub with the 340 and a catto. I've flown quite a bit with a a super cub with a 360 borer. Seems to me that the 360 borer is smoother especially at higher rpms. It was also quieter but I think that was mostly the exhaust system. They are not the exact same air frame so take it for what it's worth at lower rpm the 340 is a lot better on fuel (going the same speed) but I think that's mostly a function if the electronic ignition. At high power settings say 2600 rpm and 3/4 throttle it seems to drink fuel with the best of them say 10+ gallons an hour. Hope that's some help.
It is a light engine and with the catto prop it out climbed and out cruised the super cub by a pretty big margin but how much of that's the air frame and how much is the engine is hard to say.

Cub Kid said:

Airport way? The yellow and blue one I am thinking of was on the East Ramp (University South). Was there the whole time I was at UAF. Last time I was in FAI, I think it was still there.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant--east ramp.

MTV