• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Titan 340 Pireps?

RVBottomly

RVBottomly

PATRON
Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
I'm looking at aircraft engines for my 2+2 project. I was operating on the assumption I'd go with an O-360.

But I keep finding myself looking at the Titan 340 stroker. I like its lower weight and ability to still go up to 180hp.

I'm wondering if anyone would share their experiences with the engine?

My target is simplicity, i.e., fixed prop or maybe ground adjustable. Constant-speed is enticing, but I know I'd rather stay simple--for now at least.

Vic
 
No direct hands on but each year at Oshkosh I seem to find myself hanging around that engine. It is what I would like to use.
I would at a minimum use a ground adjustable but the next step to a control able, probably electric would be a good balance to cost/weight/performance.
 
RVBottomly said:
...My target is simplicity, i.e., fixed prop or maybe ground adjustable. Constant-speed is enticing, but I know I'd rather stay simple--for now at least.

Vic
Click to expand...
IF -for now at least. you are thinking like this, be certain that whatever engine you choose has provisions for a constant speed prop. This is determined by crankshaft and governor capabilities. This is the only (that I am aware of) constant speed propeller which would work on any model Lycoming. https://www.propellor.com
 
The nice thing about that Airmaster that Sky linked to is being electric. No need to worry if the hydraulic parts are available on the engine.
 
Observations? Cubcrafters put the 340 on the map with the Carbon Cub but they did some proprietary lightweight stuff. The reputation of the 340 is it runs hot. I know one in an exp Cub that worked well but it didn't have the CC sump. Cubcrafters moved to a 360. More power and a constant speed option. The guys most focused on weight found the compromise was worth it. I don't have any knowledge of why but I think it's interesting to watch. And now the nose dragger version has a 390. Very interesting.

FWIW Lycoming rates the 340 at 170hp, which makes sense. 320s, 340s, and 360s all use 5-1/8" bores. The primary difference is adding stroke in 1/4" increments. 3-7/8", 4-1/8", 4-3/8". 160hp, 170hp, 180hp.
 
Last edited:
stewartb said:
Observations? Cubcrafters put the 340 on the map with the Carbon Cub but they did some proprietary lightweight stuff. The reputation of the 340 is it runs hot. I know one in an exp Cub that worked well but it didn't have the CC sump. Cubcrafters moved to a 360. More power and a constant speed option. The guys most focused on weight found the compromise was worth it. I don't have any knowledge of why but I think it's interesting to watch. And now the nose dragger version has a 390. Very interesting.

FWIW Lycoming rates the 340 at 170hp, which makes sense. 320s, 340s, and 360s all use 5-1/8" bores. The primary difference is adding stroke in 1/4" increments. 3-7/8", 4-1/8", 4-3/8". 160hp, 170hp, 180hp.
Click to expand...

Yes, observations are helpful too. I should have asked for thoughts on the 340 as well as experience.

Interesting on how Cubcrafters keeps going higher hp. I guess there is market demand for that. I'm probably stuck in the past for mindset--still thinking 150 hp was pretty good and when they went to 160 hp it was too good to be true. Now 180 hp is starting to look passe.
 
skywagon8a said:
IF -for now at least. you are thinking like this, be certain that whatever engine you choose has provisions for a constant speed prop. This is determined by crankshaft and governor capabilities. This is the only (that I am aware of) constant speed propeller which would work on any model Lycoming. https://www.propellor.com
Click to expand...

Continental's spec sheet shows "constant speed or fixed" for propeller. You've been a strong advocate about keeping options open when picking and engine, and I've been listening.

But I like that Airmaster link.
 
CharlieN said:
No direct hands on but each year at Oshkosh I seem to find myself hanging around that engine. It is what I would like to use.
I would at a minimum use a ground adjustable but the next step to a control able, probably electric would be a good balance to cost/weight/performance.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder, Charlie. I'm flying a standard CS prop on a Cessna 172 with an O-360. Performance is impressive, but one more thing to worry about.

I was looking over my weight records to date and realized I had half a shot at attaining the 1080 empty weight advertised on the plans. So I started thinking harder on lightweight engines.
 
This could be a long discussion but I'll offer my simpleton summary. Horsepower lifts weight. Horsepower adds weight.

Fly the prop or fly the wing. There's a topic for discussion. No matter how much power we add we have to be aware of balance because when you pull the throttle back it's a glider.
 
Having the option for hydraulic prop control has two considerations,
One, Money. If the desire is a front mount governor the case is different and a gear is fitted to the front of the cam. This you pay for when the engine is built.

Your plane will be fairly light so I expect your mount will not be very long such that if a rear mount governor is to be considered that is just making sure the diagonal tubes in the fuselage and mount will accept the cable and governor itself.
Otherwise the engine case or rear cover should be ready.
The crankshaft itself would either have a plug driven in up front or deep in the nose which determines if it is suitable or not. That can be changed later in the field.

Controllable or not? You are putting flaps on, you just might build a plane that will get you into shorter areas than you can get out. I know I am with my current engine.
A 160Hp motor is only that if it can spin high enough static revs. If it only spins 2500 you are far from rated power.
If you expect to always have an 800 or 1000' runway or what is needed at your altitude then the added power the prop offers might be a moot point.
 
Don't become so fixated on maintaining the 1080 pound empty weight that you short change yourself on the power. When you say that you are building a 2+2 I assume that you will have a four place capability. If you choose 150 hp plan on a constant speed prop to achieve the full 150 hp. Personally I would plan on a 180 hp with the constant speed, though the prop which I mentioned is not yet available at 180 hp. The 180 will not burn any more fuel at the same speeds/loads as when flying the 150. Balanced fuel injection is the most efficient. There are electronic fuel injection systems available which sound interesting. I've not tried them.
 
I have a Titan O-340 with electronic ignition in my American Legend Cub with a catto prop. I am only about 50 hours into it, but so far so good. My version is the 174 hp version (so I am told).

In the Legend Cub, I seldom go near full power when I am by myself. I take off in no time at all at 2100 rpm and stay at that power setting or lower for just screwing around. Traveling with my wife last year, we flew at about 2400 rpm to 2450 rpm with the indicated airspeed at the top of the green and averaged 7-7.5 gph.

I can't speak to longterm reliability, but it flies just like a standard lycoming.

I did have a PA-14 with a O-320. Much faster airplane with less power. I would not have put 4 adults in it (my friends couldn't fit anyway). I think the -14, and a 2+2, would benefit from more than 150 hp.

Ed
 
skywagon8a said:
Don't become so fixated on maintaining the 1080 pound empty weight that you short change yourself on the power. When you say that you are building a 2+2 I assume that you will have a four place capability. If you choose 150 hp plan on a constant speed prop to achieve the full 150 hp. Personally I would plan on a 180 hp with the constant speed, though the prop which I mentioned is not yet available at 180 hp. The 180 will not burn any more fuel at the same speeds/loads as when flying the 150. Balanced fuel injection is the most efficient. There are electronic fuel injection systems available which sound interesting. I've not tried them.
Click to expand...
Right, Sky.
I was always going to stick with 180 hp. I was wondering if the 340 would do it because that's what Continental claims. I'm still considering fuel injection.
But I'm not really planning on my project being a 4 place. I want a 2 place pickup, so to speak. I've always assumed the 1080 empty weight was optimistic marketing, but the design gross weight of 2200 allows for a lot of wiggle room.
Still back and forth on constant speed. My anticipated cross countries I see are under 300 miles or less. But it would be nice to see that 124 mph advertised cruise speed, even if I plan on something more like 100.
CharlieN said:
A 160Hp motor is only that if it can spin high enough static revs. If it only spins 2500 you are far from rated power.
If you expect to always have an 800 or 1000' runway or what is needed at your altitude then the added power the prop offers might be a moot point.
Click to expand...
Probably 90% of where I'd go fits that description, unless it's 110 F out and I'd stay home. But it would be nice to lift off in 400 feet at some of those higher strips if I could.

It's sort of like off-roading. I used to do that with a modified C20 chevy on one-ton axles. It was fun. I got stuck. It got old.
So now I have a nice stock F-150 with climate control and electronic 4WD control, etc. Seems like now I can go anywhere I really want without worrying about breaking something. My attitude has changed. Same with flying, I think. I prefer easy to scary!


stewartb said:
Fly the prop or fly the wing. There's a topic for discussion. No matter how much power we add we have to be aware of balance because when you pull the throttle back it's a glider.
Click to expand...


I think I'm more on a fly the wing emphasis. The design allows up to 200 hp, but I'm not quite ready for that.
 
A few months ago I looked at the general location you lived at along the Idaho border but I did not pay attention to the altitude you are at.
A thought. The O-360 is an 8.5 compression. Presuming you are commonly at 5K altitude that 180 Hp engine is considerably less power than marketed.
A new O340 could be built with say 10:1 compression which will easily give it the rated power at 5K and hold it's power up into the big hills.

With these two examples the 340 will out perform the 360 by quite a margin. Power to weight would heavily favor the 340.
Granted I am presuming the 360 to be a used engine run as delivered, if the 360 gets high compression pistons it will come alive as well. Better run electronic ignition with an advance curve so the tail does not get shaken off.
 
Thanks Charlie, that's something for me to research for sure.

Home airport KLWS is 1440'. Sometimes we get 110 F in the summer and DA is 5000 or so. Neat thing is the Snake River below the airport is around 770'. There used to be a seaplane base, but it is gone now.

East of us is high country. And of course, west toward the Cascades is a lot of very high ground. There are a lot of strips in Idaho in the 4-6k elevation range. Hot days will drive DA up to 9000 or more. General practice is to leave in the cool of the morning unless you are quite light and/or powerful.

I'm kind of wondering about folk's experience with high compression and maintenance. I'm trying to get a handle on the practical differences between low compression-high displacement and higher compression-moderate displacement. I get the fuel issues. We do have abundant premium non-ethanol fuel here because we are in a jetboat mecca, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble for my airplane.

Your comments about a possible advantage with high compression engines opens a window I hadn't looked through.
 
There's no replacement for displacement.

Higher compression make more heat. I have the capacity for more heat so my new motor has 10-1. I'm told it'll cost me 15-20% of TBO. I'm okay with that. The bigger gains come from fuel injection and electronic ignition. I settled on Pmags and mechanical injection. I recently looked at a friend's plane that has electronic injection and a more aggressive ignition. Another friend is going from electronic injection and aggressive ignition to mechanical injection and Pmags. Pros and cons. Pick what you like. Fun stuff.
 
stewartb said:
I settled on Pmags and mechanical injection. I recently looked at a friend's plane that has electronic injection and a more aggressive ignition. Another friend is going from electronic injection and aggressive ignition to mechanical injection and Pmags. Pros and cons. Pick what you like. Fun stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I hadn't even researched those pros and cons. I was pretty settled (I thought) on Pmags, but mechanical vs electronic injection? New things to study....
 
I believe one of the big reasons Cubcrafters moved to the 363 was power to drive and fully utilize the CS prop.
The F/EX-3 series really pushed through the typical boundaries of a single mission stol type performer.
If you are a single airplane owner, the benefits gained with the power and speed offered by a 363 and CS prop far outweigh the weight and cost.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Farmboy, I just took a look at that engine and a whole new can of worms opened up. I see that CC found the 340 and a constant speed prop were an "unhappy" combination. Good to know.

Now I'm starting to feel a nosebleed at the engines (and prices) out there.
 
skywagon8a said:
It would be good to learn just what "unhappy" means in this case. Is it a mechanical issue or just a people opinion?
Click to expand...

If I remember right harmonica and shedding blades. I’ve seen the cc-340’s crack the nickle leading edges. I’ve heard the Catto’s are the only prop to stand up to the engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9a77ca840a60af830d2a11b20383adb4.jpg
 
RaisedByWolves said:
If I remember right harmonica and shedding blades. I’ve seen the cc-340’s crack the nickle leading edges. I’ve heard the Catto’s are the only prop to stand up to the engine.
Click to expand...
If it was harmonics then there should have been testing done to determine propeller/engine compatibility. The cracked leading edges indicate a flexible blade. It could be an engine/prop harmonic thing. Some props have the metal leading edges with notches in them just for this purpose.
 
stewartb said:
I wonder if the Lycoming 340 had problems. It didn't stay in production for very long.
Click to expand...
I wonder why Lycoming even bothered with the 0-340? I've never seen one. Any ideas on what airplane they were used on? The 0-320 comes in 150 and 160 hp versions. The 0-360 comes in 170 and 180 hp versions. The 0-340 is 160 and 170 hp.
 
I chose the CC O-340 Titan with a Catto 3 blade for my 12. Its lighter weight, 180 hp, and 3 blade option combined to make the decision easier. Besides, it looks WAY COOL!!!F865AE89-E6DC-4666-BA19-D44CB99674BE.jpeg9295B949-5BD3-47CD-B03A-1664ADC8EEED.jpeg3D9847A3-F7D1-4CB7-A021-FE235FB01BEC.jpeg621096E5-3BE0-41C3-8290-A06AF217F57D.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • F865AE89-E6DC-4666-BA19-D44CB99674BE.jpeg
    F865AE89-E6DC-4666-BA19-D44CB99674BE.jpeg
    227 KB · Views: 252
  • 9295B949-5BD3-47CD-B03A-1664ADC8EEED.jpeg
    9295B949-5BD3-47CD-B03A-1664ADC8EEED.jpeg
    281.3 KB · Views: 272
  • 3D9847A3-F7D1-4CB7-A021-FE235FB01BEC.jpeg
    3D9847A3-F7D1-4CB7-A021-FE235FB01BEC.jpeg
    256.2 KB · Views: 292
  • 621096E5-3BE0-41C3-8290-A06AF217F57D.jpeg
    621096E5-3BE0-41C3-8290-A06AF217F57D.jpeg
    223.5 KB · Views: 248
skywagon8a said:
I wonder why Lycoming even bothered with the 0-340? I've never seen one. Any ideas on what airplane they were used on? The 0-320 comes in 150 and 160 hp versions. The 0-360 comes in 170 and 180 hp versions. The 0-340 is 160 and 170 hp.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia
The O-340 was designed by Lycoming specifically for the TEMCO-Riley D-16A Twin Navion project. Jack Riley, the designer of that aircraft was interested in an upgraded version of the Lycoming O-320 that would produce more power to give the Twin Navion a better single-engine service ceiling. The Lycoming O-360 was still years away in development and so a modification of the O-320 was undertaken by Lycoming. The O-320 received longer cylinder barrels and a crankshaft with a longer stroke to increase displacement and different piston connecting rods. This increased the compression to 8.5:1 and boosted power output to 170 hp (127 kW) over the O-320's 150 hp (112 kW). The engine was later used in a number of airplanes and helicopters and also in amateur-built aircraft designs.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Click to expand...
 
skywagon8a said:
I wonder why Lycoming even bothered with the 0-340? I've never seen one. Any ideas on what airplane they were used on? The 0-320 comes in 150 and 160 hp versions. The 0-360 comes in 170 and 180 hp versions. The 0-340 is 160 and 170 hp.
Click to expand...
The twin navion flew real nice with them. They got put on pawnees, Apaches, and even a few cubs back in the day. Good engine if you could find one cheap but parts might be hard to find.
 
There was a Cessna 170 in the Park Rapids are for awhile that had one of the old 340's in it. Not sure where it is now.
 
skywagon8a said:
I wonder why Lycoming even bothered with the 0-340? I've never seen one. Any ideas on what airplane they were used on? The 0-320 comes in 150 and 160 hp versions. The 0-360 comes in 170 and 180 hp versions. The 0-340 is 160 and 170 hp.
Click to expand...
They were made for the Twin Navion. Yup a real common plane.
Ahh, should have scrolled down. Answered already.
 
Paul Heinrich said:
I chose the CC O-340 Titan with a Catto 3 blade for my 12. Its lighter weight, 180 hp, and 3 blade option combined to make the decision easier. Besides, it looks WAY COOL!!!View attachment 47329View attachment 47330View attachment 47331View attachment 47332
Click to expand...
It does look cool. How do you like the engine? Concerns about heat or anything else? Is the Catto more geared to climb? I've been interested in that kind of setup.

Thanks, Vic

Sent from my SM-J320V using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
New Titan 340 Engine Break in - High CHT's
2 3
Replies
72
Views
11K
stewartb
S
G
Oil cooling Titan IO-360
Replies
6
Views
1K
guidoperez
G
Crash
Certified Titan O-340
Replies
12
Views
8K
supercrow
supercrow
F
ECI/Titan 340 & Marvel 4-SPA carb
Replies
9
Views
4K
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
U
Completed Javron Super Cub
Replies
23
Views
3K
upnorth
U
Back
Top