Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 81

Thread: O-320 HP increase options and prop questions

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like

    O-320 HP increase options and prop questions

    Just overhauling my O-320 now with new factory cylinders, Lycon is doing a port & polish and flow match, I'm told this will get me in the 180HP range with stock 8.5:1 pistons . I'm considering the 9.5:1 or 10:1 pistons as an option to add even more HP as I understand 10-15HP additional . The problem, I am told, is that once I go beyond 8.5:1 pistons I have to use AVgas , possibly get away with a 50/50 mix at 9.5:1 , definetely 100% AVgas for 10:1 option.

    Who has done this ? Are the claims accurate for HP and is that HP realized at the prop? What prop recommended for each level of HP .

    I have the Borer 1A200 now it is pitched 82X45, with the 160 and additional powerflow exhaust my static was around 2350-2400. My thought was to re-pitch this prop to 47 if I go with the 9.5:1 pistons since it will be in 190HP territory .

    I'm adding one Pmag to the build now, may go with the second one at this point . I have been running Autogas all along with fuel additive for lubrication, 500 hours in no issues. AVgas is going to double my cost per hour for fuel
    trying to decide if I should keep the stock pistons at 180 HP contiue to use auto fuel or use the 9.5 or 10:1 pistons and run AVgas . Cylinders are in the shop now and I have to make this decision now, any feedback will be appreciated.

    BTW, I'm new , this is my first post and I don't have a cub. I own a 172 owner maintenance with many mods that make it a fantastic 4 place spam can performer . I've been off the water in 130ft on floats, not your typical 172 .
    Thanks brown bear thanked for this post

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your horsepower expectations are a little.... generous.

    What mods make it a fantastic performer? I have fond memories of my Hawk XP (Isham 210hp) on PeeKays.
    Thanks tripper thanked for this post
    Likes Frank Blaesbjerg liked this post

  3. #3
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Spokane Felts Field, WA/Poplar Grove, (Chicago) IL
    Posts
    5,233
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you are on floats I recommend that you keep the Comp ratio such that you can use auto/boat gas. Often that may be your only option. I too agree that the Hp claims may be somewhat optimistic. I would not re pitch the prop until you see what your new engine runs at. I was under the impression that Pmags were experimental only. You have an experimental 172? Again, upping the comp ratio in a certified airplane? You should be able to go 9 to 1 and still use auto gas, though I would still recommend a little bit of a mix.

    Best of luck

    Bill
    Very Blessed.
    Likes cubdriver2, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    I feel you should wait on re-pitch. I went the direction you are considering, 10:1 pistons with Sutton Exhaust...I do not think I get 180hp...I think more realistic at 165-170....I run 50-50 Av Gas/91 Auto gas from time to time with no noticeable issues...

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    stewartb, we have a Hawk XP that is that is somewhat highly modded. Sportsman stol, vg's, glas air nose fork, 10 in wheels with 29" air hawks. We fly it off of average type grass strips here on the ranch and use it mainly for going places, she's not very fast but very functional for what we do. Now to my question, we've been thinking about the Isham but haven't done it. Do you think it would get us airborne a little quicker and any other advantages you may think of ?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your engine was de-rated from 210 to 195hp. Adjusting fuel flow and turning up the prop to 2800 makes it 210hp. The STC also includes a new fuel flow gauge with revised markings. It's a simple STC and yes, worth doing. Maybe pull the FAA CD on 758JY (my old plane) or 736SK (a buddy's old plane) and poach on the field approvals to install an 80" seaplane prop with wheels. With the added power that prop really works well.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Rusk View Post
    If you are on floats I recommend that you keep the Comp ratio such that you can use auto/boat gas. Often that may be your only option. I too agree that the Hp claims may be somewhat optimistic. I would not re pitch the prop until you see what your new engine runs at. I was under the impression that Pmags were experimental only. You have an experimental 172? Again, upping the comp ratio in a certified airplane? You should be able to go 9 to 1 and still use auto gas, though I would still recommend a little bit of a mix.

    Best of luck

    Bill
    Appreciate the feedback . The 172 is in owner maintenance in Canada , I am legal to do the mods I am considering including Catto prop, the Pmags, non TSO'd instruments, etc. It's not quite experimental or home-built but very close.

    For those that think the HP claims are "generous" , and I'm not saying you are wrong, however , LYCON claim a stockO-320 with ported/polished and flow matched cylinders will make 180+ HP , here's the video : go to o-320 videos
    it shows 184HP at 2680RPM , 360 ftlb torque. Adding 9.5:1 and 10.5:1 adds 10 and 15 hp respectively, according to them .

    I had to remove the URL , sorry, the site would not allow the post . If you want to see the video, go to lycon find the videos under other then media .

    They only have piston options for 9.5:1 and 10:1 not 9:1, 9.1:1 available from others, progressive air I do believe. There are a couple of different opinions regarding the use of auto , AVgas or a mix. All pretty much agree that aty 10:1 AVgas is the only choice. One user has been running a 50:50 mix with 9.5:1 without issues, with stock pistons , auto fuel is approved , I have the STC for mine.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    I feel you should wait on re-pitch. I went the direction you are considering, 10:1 pistons with Sutton Exhaust...I do not think I get 180hp...I think more realistic at 165-170....I run 50-50 Av Gas/91 Auto gas from time to time with no noticeable issues...
    I will also have port&polish with flow balancing on all four cylinders. Did you have that done in addition to the pistons ? The porting/polishing and balance is supposed to be the most bang for the buck, they claim 20HP over stock with that alone. I have a powerflow exhaust as well , that is supposed to be good for 10-15 HP. When I added this to the stock O-320 160HP my static RPM went up 100 RPM with the same propeller .

    I know that stacking all these mods is not cumulative BUT most together should be good for a major bump. I was hoping to hit others that have done all of the same , see what results they have will ALL the same mods.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Rusk View Post
    If you are on floats I recommend that you keep the Comp ratio such that you can use auto/boat gas. Often that may be your only option. I too agree that the Hp claims may be somewhat optimistic. I would not re pitch the prop until you see what your new engine runs at. I was under the impression that Pmags were experimental only. You have an experimental 172? Again, upping the comp ratio in a certified airplane? You should be able to go 9 to 1 and still use auto gas, though I would still recommend a little bit of a mix.

    Best of luck

    Bill
    This is the part I'm trying to determine. If I don't see major increases in performance with the 9.5:1 pistons, might as well stick with the stock compression port and polish only . Combined with the powerflow I'll still be in 180HP teritory can use 25% mix of AVgas or straight auto with lubricant when stuck. Places I fly there is no AVgas for hundreds of miles . Doesn't help that Avgas is double the price, all has to be factored in to my decision .

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    thank you stewartb for the info and will look that up.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    For comparison, Titan exp engines list hp for a 9.0-1 0-320 at 165hp. A 9.0-1 0-340 rates at 180hp. Titan cylinders are flow optimized and flow matched from the factory.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Your horsepower expectations are a little.... generous.

    What mods make it a fantastic performer? I have fond memories of my Hawk XP (Isham 210hp) on PeeKays.
    Floats are EDO 2000 made by peck aero ,actual displacement now is 2300 with work done to the bottoms, boosters etc. Sportsman STOL & tips, gap seals, Vg's , 1967 model year was the lightest ever made , also has smaller tanks. Light weight alternator and starter, rear seat removed replaced with fold-able bush seats . Added powerflow exhaust , Pmags , Borer prop 1A200 . I'm currently removing the entire vaccume pump, related instruments and plumbing , all older steam gauges, radios etc., install a single glass EFIS and Garmin 796 . Adding the wing-X extensions next winter if all goes well .

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
    I will also have port&polish with flow balancing on all four cylinders. Did you have that done in addition to the pistons ? The porting/polishing and balance is supposed to be the most bang for the buck, they claim 20HP over stock with that alone. I have a powerflow exhaust as well , that is supposed to be good for 10-15 HP. When I added this to the stock O-320 160HP my static RPM went up 100 RPM with the same propeller .

    I know that stacking all these mods is not cumulative BUT most together should be good for a major bump. I was hoping to hit others that have done all of the same , see what results they have will ALL the same mods.
    Yes...on that... I think after talking to a few guys I should maybe had my case shaved a bit...heard this will help in the results colum.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    Yes...on that... I think after talking to a few guys I should maybe had my case shaved a bit...heard this will help in the results colum.
    Yes on that meaning you did have your cylinders ported, polished and flow matched? Having the case halves shaved is what many have done to increase compression with stock pistons. It is the same as putting in higher compression pistons, I don't think you would do both, then again, maybe it is .

  15. #15
    pa11driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sent you a PM

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am curious about how much Lycon charges to port, polish, etc. an engine as you describe in order to obtain the promised results.

    I've had long discussions with Lycoming OEM engine representatives about both the porting/polishing process Lycon offers and the legality of increasing the horsepower of their engines. It has been my experience that if you really want honest answers to your questions you can best rely upon advice from people who aren't trying to sell you their product/service.

    Moreover, we all like to boast about how powerful/great our own setup is: you know, we all have an O-320 that produces 210hp and 1000 lbs. thrust at 5000' on an 850 lb. SC, not to mention we all have 12" dicks. Of course none of us have the yardsticks handy to easily measure our claims, so they're hard to prove/disprove. Really; how many of us have never exaggerated their own airplane's performance? Hyperbole is, I think, one of our common denominators, so we can't be trusted either.

    Shaving weight from your aircraft will likely increase its performance far more than any pie in the sky engine tuning promise, for a lot less money. IMHO, of course.
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  17. #17
    pa11driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    3 years ago it was $250/cylinder, on lycon's dyno and real world on my airplane it made a difference that was well worth the extra $1,000.
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heinrich View Post
    I am curious about how much Lycon charges to port, polish, etc. an engine as you describe in order to obtain the promised results.

    I've had long discussions with Lycoming OEM engine representatives about both the porting/polishing process Lycon offers and the legality of increasing the horsepower of their engines. It has been my experience that if you really want honest answers to your questions you can best rely upon advice from people who aren't trying to sell you their product/service.

    Moreover, we all like to boast about how powerful/great our own setup is: you know, we all have an O-320 that produces 210hp and 1000 lbs. thrust at 5000' on an 850 lb. SC, not to mention we all have 12" dicks. Of course none of us have the yardsticks handy to easily measure our claims, so they're hard to prove/disprove. Really; how many of us have never exaggerated their own airplane's performance? Hyperbole is, I think, one of our common denominators, so we can't be trusted either.

    Shaving weight from your aircraft will likely increase its performance far more than any pie in the sky engine tuning promise, for a lot less money. IMHO, of course.
    They charge $300 per cylinder, the high compression pistons are $200 each, also having anodyne treatment to the head for better heat dissipation .


    I don't disagree that claims are often exaggerated especially if made by the company selling . This is exactly why I am hear asking for real world feedback. And yes, even us members have been known to tell
    the odd fish story that may have a few inches tagged on. I've been around the patch long enough to know how and where to follow up manufacturers claims and also know how to interpret . Personally I look
    at any claim and pretty much consider 50% a good target, I then listen to all the feedback and try to get the majority from common denominators, eliminate the highs and the lows.

    The biggest bang for the buck is port , polish and flow balancing . The high compression pistons second. Overall however, it does appear as though their claims are reasonable, many owners have already shared their
    experiences for increase in power and reliability .

    I have already shaved the majority of weight I can from this aircraft , and I chose this particular model year because it is known to be almost 100lb lighter from the factory . Bush seats, light weight alternator and starter
    vacuum pump system and all the heavy gauges including radios and nav aids are gone. I'd loose weight too but I'm already running 16% body fat . I'm 200 lb though, could loose a little muscle mass I suppose.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pa11driver View Post
    3 years ago it was $250/cylinder, on lycon's dyno and real world on my airplane it made a difference that was well worth the extra $1,000.
    Honest question. Does Ly-Con provide you the dyno report with temperatures, torque, MP, fuel flow, EGT, etc at different RPMs? The only dyno report I've seen is my own from Superior. I know other guys with Ly-Con engines but have never heard what they were given for paperwork about the test runs.

  20. #20
    pa11driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Honest question. Does Ly-Con provide you the dyno report with temperatures, torque, MP, fuel flow, EGT, etc at different RPMs? The only dyno report I've seen is my own from Superior. I know other guys with Ly-Con engines but have never heard what they were given for paperwork about the test runs.
    Yes

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    If I divide my HP by fuel flow I get 11 HP per GPH at wide open throttle. How does that compare to yours? I'm wondering if there's a (relatively) consistent ratio between fuel flow and power output in 4 cylinder engines. My Cessna makes approx 12.5 hp per gallon of flow with lower compression cylinders. That's what sparked my curiosity.

    Here's an interesting article about fuel flow and power output. http://www.hyperflite.co.uk/fuel-consumption.html
    Last edited by stewartb; 03-16-2018 at 07:45 PM.

  22. #22
    pa11driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mine comes out to right around 14hp per gph at 2700. WOT was a touch over that and right about 12hp per gph.
    Thanks stewartb thanked for this post

  23. #23
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,810
    Post Thanks / Like
    A 320 with 8.5:1 and a port/polish job will probably produce about 170 hp @ 2700, maybe a touch over. Going beyond that you're probably going to be fighting CHT issues, especially in a plane that's working hard at modest airspeeds. As to the prop, I'd leave it alone until you try it. I think 82x45 is plenty of prop, especially if you want it to jump off the water.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Thanks roxiedog13 thanked for this post
    Likes roxiedog13 liked this post

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another good comparison: Awhile back got some video of a couple of us taking off on a beach in Prince William Sound. Both of us were loaded similar with fuel, tools and such.

    My Buddy’s cub, 0-360, Catto 86”x38” prop...took off in about 150’. Took 5 seconds to get airborne.

    My Cub, Exp Widebody, 0-320, 10:1, ported Sutton Exhaust 84”x37” Catto... also took off in about 150’ but took about 6 seconds to break ground...

    His gets there faster...

    I think I have good power for certain, however the true torque of the 180hp, O-360 is definitely different. Neither of us were trying to horse it off, just letting the plane do it thing.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pa11driver View Post
    3 years ago it was $250/cylinder, on lycon's dyno and real world on my airplane it made a difference that was well worth the extra $1,000.
    Seriously, What empirical evidence do you have that supports your conclusion? What was done to your engine besides port/polish? Was it overhauled with new cylinders or anything or did you just take the engine in and have it ported/polished and then reinstalled?

    Isn't everyone delighted with their engine's performance after a standard, no frills overhaul?

  26. #26
    pa11driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heinrich View Post
    Seriously, What empirical evidence do you have that supports your conclusion? What was done to your engine besides port/polish? Was it overhauled with new cylinders or anything or did you just take the engine in and have it ported/polished and then reinstalled?

    Isn't everyone delighted with their engine's performance after a standard, no frills overhaul?
    Paul, my report is worth exactly what you paid for it and it is probably biased by the extremely large sum of money I paid to have the work done, so take it or leave it. I never claimed to have empirical evidence, other than the dyno from lycon. I also couldn't tell you how delighted everyone else is with their overhauls...


    My engine was a complete overhaul, so yes, I probably gained something from that. I've also flown a number of airplanes before and after just the port/polish and before after 10:1 pistons, so I have a pretty good feel for what those mods do to an engine.

    My engine was overhauled because it was old year-wise, not because it was run out. I've also worked this airplane pretty hard before and after this particular overhaul. I do mean worked, not going for $100 hamburgers and buzzing around gravel bar hoping (Nothing against those guys, that's great fun). What matters to me is what I can do with it now vs before is notably different. Bigger loads off shorter LZ's with a higher safety margin.

    Also notable: The same prop with 2'' of pitch added into it static's a higher RPM than before.
    Thanks roxiedog13 thanked for this post
    Likes roxiedog13 liked this post

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    A dyno report is a piece of evidence. Anecdotes are nothing but stories. Big difference!

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    A dyno report is a piece of evidence. Anecdotes are nothing but stories. Big difference!
    When we buy a new factory engine do we get a dyno report ? We see the brochures and claims but how many have actually dynoed their new factory engine to see if it makes that 160HP and the torque at a given RPM ?

    Lycon does provide the validated load cell numbers if they overhaul the entire engine, for many like myself, we only send in cylinders, obviously they cannot dyno those . Anecdotes are pretty much all we have from the general community overall the feedback is very consistent . A 0-320 with all the mods can operate very close to a O-360 in performance though from what I have read the O-360 usually is a notch ahead . The O-360 engine has more torque in the sweet even if HP is matched the larger cylinder volume and cam profile obviously a little better . Compared to a stock O-320 however the port, polish and flow matching of cylinders improves
    the engine considerably , for a small price a lot of additional power is available . My price certainly not cheap as I had to buy 4 new cylinders , BUT compared to the cost, weight and complexity of installing a new O-360 this was a very affordable option .

  29. #29
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did you advance timing on crank gear?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FA63924A-24A9-41F2-BDA1-EA8C61A00D2A.jpeg 
Views:	85 
Size:	114.8 KB 
ID:	35758

  30. #30

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fact; I had an O-320 E2D built by Lycon. It came with the test run results. 10 to 1's, polished and flow balanced. 209.9 H.P. at 2700 RPMs. Unless they are faking the numbers that is what it made. I have it on the plane now and it is the smoothest, hardest pulling O-320 I've ever sat behind. I don't brag about it, I just enjoy it.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kade....No...tell me more...

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    A dyno report is a piece of evidence. Anecdotes are nothing but stories. Big difference!
    And now I need to retract that statement. With just a little Google searching I see articles that say dynos are not like rulers where an inch is always an inch. There are up to 30% variations between different dynos. That's interesting. This whole topic is interesting.
    Thanks Paul Heinrich thanked for this post
    Likes Paul Heinrich, Brandsman liked this post

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wasn't trying to offend or insult.

    I don't doubt that a well-built, well-tuned engine will run better, longer, and stronger.

  34. #34
    40m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Shoreham, VT
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Heinrich View Post
    I am curious about how much Lycon charges to port, polish, etc. an engine as you describe in order to obtain the promised results.

    I've had long discussions with Lycoming OEM engine representatives about both the porting/polishing process Lycon offers and the legality of increasing the horsepower of their engines. It has been my experience that if you really want honest answers to your questions you can best rely upon advice from people who aren't trying to sell you their product/service.

    Moreover, we all like to boast about how powerful/great our own setup is: you know, we all have an O-320 that produces 210hp and 1000 lbs. thrust at 5000' on an 850 lb. SC, not to mention we all have 12" dicks. Of course none of us have the yardsticks handy to easily measure our claims, so they're hard to prove/disprove. Really; how many of us have never exaggerated their own airplane's performance? Hyperbole is, I think, one of our common denominators, so we can't be trusted either.

    Shaving weight from your aircraft will likely increase its performance far more than any pie in the sky engine tuning promise, for a lot less money. IMHO, of course.
    12 inches in New York, is that about right Glenn? Here in Vermont and New Hampshire only 10. The water is different.

    From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be
    found in all corners of the earth."

    Then he made the earth round... and He laughed and laughed and laughed!

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Kustatan View Post
    Fact; I had an O-320 E2D built by Lycon. It came with the test run results. 10 to 1's, polished and flow balanced. 209.9 H.P. at 2700 RPMs. Unless they are faking the numbers that is what it made. I have it on the plane now and it is the smoothest, hardest pulling O-320 I've ever sat behind. I don't brag about it, I just enjoy it.
    This is exactly the feedback I need, thanks so much . The 10:1 option definitely the way I am going now, it will force me to use Avgas 100% of the time, just means a little more of a work around on the back country trips.

    Can you share which prop you are using to harness the additional power , RPM static and cruise, the aircraft and performance change from the original engine ? I'm running the 1A200 Borer now pitched 8245. I static this prop with the original 160HP combined with Powerflow exhaust at 2350-2400. Many are telling me the Borer is not the best choice for hither HP, I was simply going to adjust the pitch to keep the static and WOT in cruise within acceptable range .

  36. #36
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    And now I need to retract that statement. With just a little Google searching I see articles that say dynos are not like rulers where an inch is always an inch. There are up to 30% variations between different dynos. That's interesting. This whole topic is interesting.
    Are any explanations offered for the variation, other than inaccurate torque or RPM readouts? Atmospheric conditions or fuel composition, maybe??
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kase View Post
    Did you advance timing on crank gear?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FA63924A-24A9-41F2-BDA1-EA8C61A00D2A.jpeg 
Views:	85 
Size:	114.8 KB 
ID:	35758
    This is the first suggestion I have read that the timing would change. Have any of the other builders changed the timing of the crank gear when upgrading their engine ? To be honest this is the first I have ever heard of a gear on the crank dealing with timing . Lycon nor others have mentioned this before, obviously I now have to investigate . I do plan to use the P-mag when I reassemble, may or may not go with a second. I was going to use a secondary standard magneto for now see how it works out .

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Are any explanations offered for the variation, other than inaccurate torque or RPM readouts? Atmospheric conditions or fuel composition, maybe??
    Difference in dyno equipmet and manipulation of setup to achieve desired results.

    My dyno report has mathematical adjustments for temp, humidity, and barometric pressure. The OAT was 98* and the servo inlet temp 150*. Not good for making power at full rich on a motor with less than 30 minutes total time, but that’s how it’s done. I’d be happy to share the report with you. You’d understand the math better than me! The value that stands out to me is the EGTs don’t vary at different rpms while the fuel flow varies greatly. It’s like they manipulated fuel supply to maintain 1100-ish EGTs. Like I said, interesting. I want to talk to a couple of guys next week to make sense of it all.
    Thanks carlbrun thanked for this post

  39. #39
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Gear came from Lycon. Advance is 3 degrees. Have you considered a 0340 crankshaft.?



    Quote Originally Posted by roxiedog13 View Post
    This is the first suggestion I have read that the timing would change. Have any of the other builders changed the timing of the crank gear when upgrading their engine ? To be honest this is the first I have ever heard of a gear on the crank dealing with timing . Lycon nor others have mentioned this before, obviously I now have to investigate . I do plan to use the P-mag when I reassemble, may or may not go with a second. I was going to use a secondary standard magneto for now see how it works out .

  40. #40
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes Stewart, I'd enjoy looking at the dyno report. Dunno if you still have my email, it's gordon dot misch at gmail. Thanks for the offer.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

Similar Threads

  1. Crosswinds gross weight increase questions.
    By TrentF in forum Modifications
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 02:18 PM
  2. Prop options for a 230HP O-360??
    By Dave Calkins in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-28-2007, 01:41 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-28-2005, 11:11 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •