I was going to hang this on Zzz's "core wanted" thread but thought better of it:

I've made a commitment to buy an O-320-A2B wide deck core for my Starduster project. It's off a Super Cub pipeline patroller from California's oil patch in Bakersfield. That's about as dry as you can get and the logs show that standard bearings were put in at the last overhaul. All the time has been daily time you know? I think it will be a cheap rebuilder. I just don't know what A2B means. I've looked at the chart provided by A1Skinner here: http://www.meyette.us/LycomingEngineNumbers.htm and don't really get much help there.

What is an A2B? I don't think the internal corrosion AD applies to this crankshaft even though Lycoming's SB505B says "All O-320 engines" What's to inspect? Most of the time a solid crank in Lycoming language has a 4 as the second entry in the suffix but could this crank also be a solid one?

Thanks
Dan

Lyc 320 is 5.125" bore x 3.875 stroke.
Check the TCDS #E-274 for model differences

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... Rev_22.pdf

from the TCDS:
A2B is same as A1B except no provision for controllable propeller
A1B is same as A1A except for straight-bore carb riser
A1A is same as original 320 "dash nothing" basic engine, provides for single-action controllable pitch prop

Replace the first A with a B on all of these and you have the higher-compression 160hp version.

So the same (conical) mount should fit all three. Lower cowl might need to be different, not sure if "straight-bore" riser positions the carb the same

Thanks HotRod. I didn't know that the engines had TCDS too. The A2B has no provision for constant speed prop and that means for sure there is no pad for the governor. One wonders if that meant a solid crankshaft. I'll just have to wait and see if there is a plug in the end of it or if it's machined flat.

Pretty sure it's solid. My citabria had an A2B and I'm quite sure it had a solid crank.

A1Skinner wrote:Pretty sure it's solid. My citabria had an A2B and I'm quite sure it had a solid crank.

This is a good thing. The single most dreaded thing for me buying a Lycoming core is that MSB505B. I do know of a Twin Comanche used in training that had (two years ago) 13,000 hours on the cranks and cases with no 505 issues. Bear in mind that it is always hangared, it always come up to full temp after start, and it's flown all the time. Those factors make an ideal base for re-build

My core lived in a tripacer float plane out of Fairbanks. Sat 10 months per year. Last overhauled in 1966. Passed the 505b inspection for the 160 hp conversion.

m_moyle wrote:My core lived in a tripacer float plane out of Fairbanks. Sat 10 months per year. Last overhauled in 1966. Passed the 505b inspection for the 160 hp conversion.

Not surprising actually. It's DRY in Fairbanks. When I lived there I had to smear my body with lotion daily to keep from blowing away. June, July and August (otherwise known as Spring, Summer and Fall) of course can get moist. Lots of those cranks fail. With my luck.........etc.

A2B has a hollow crank. You can pop the soft plug out of the front and check for corrosion. It its to pitted you cant use in a 160 hp engine. The back of the engine has provisions for a gov.

Well that fell through.

Corrosion?

kase wrote:Corrosion?

No, the seller had been up front with me from the beginning that he thought that the engine was supposed to be sold as a lot to a couple along with his Stinson Gullwing, an R985 core, and the O-320. The wife who's Super Cub used the same engine had told him that she didn't think they wanted the Lycoming and released it. Then the husband wrote a check for the whole works in spite of what his wife had told my seller. He's going to have it overhauled and put on the shelf for her airplane. He's a Delta captain and she's a contract 737 driver apparently so it was play money for them. Anyway, I don't think anybody had been untruthful. There was just a confusion of intent. You can't make this stuff up.

Here's an idea....
a friend of mine (now deceased) used to own a Starduster 2 with a Continental 670 radial. It was painted like Steve Wolff's Sampson. Looked awesome. Another guy I know owns a Skybolt with a 755 Jacobs. Also awesome.

Is your Starduster the original single-seater? A Warner Scarab might be a good fit. Or a Kinner.

hotrod180 wrote:Here's an idea....
a friend of mine (now deceased) used to own a Starduster 2 with a Continental 670 radial. It was painted like Steve Wolff's Sampson. Looked awesome. Another guy I know owns a Skybolt with a 755 Jacobs. Also awesome.

Is your Starduster the original single-seater? A Warner Scarab might be a good fit. Or a Kinner.

A Rotec would make way more sense than a Warner and would be tremendous fun, but, this is about a cheap knockabout. I was 15 years old and about to start my flight training when I saw my first experimental biplane. A Smith mini-plane. I got ruined.

The Rotec radial looks cool but IMHO doesn't have that radial sound, which to me takes away a lot of the attraction. A guy I know at my airport built a Kitfox with a Rotec & had a lot of problems. He didn't have any confidence in the engine after all the problems, and ended up selling it to someone who groundlooped it.

Here's a shot I took of a Starduster with a Kenner radial. It has the right sound, and a great look, but the engines are hard to come by. More important than the engine is getting the right white scarf. It clearly aids the performance of this particular Starduster!

Flyhound wrote:Here's a shot I took of a Starduster with a Kenner radial. It has the right sound, and a great look, but the engines are hard to come by. More important than the engine is getting the right white scarf. It clearly aids the performance of this particular Starduster!

Oh, yeah. That looks so right you know? I heard 15 years ago or so that a Warner rebuild cost about $25k in parts if you can find some. The Kinner is the closest thing to steam power you can get in an airplane I think; but they sure sound good. Mine is the SA-100 SINGLE PLACE! I'd have trouble keeping her on her feet with one of those monsters in it. Hunnert pound brick in the tail.

I'm kinda sorry to hear that the Rotec radial presented so much trouble. Development of a new engine is a huge project and not many succeed. Rotax made it because they had a huge multinational corporation behind them.