So I was reading through what one could do to his Cessna 172 to improve performance (as one does), and I came across an interesting engine. The normal upgrades being the O-360 and the rarer Franklin.

THE TITAN 340 STROKER!

Apparently someone in 2013 was seeking approval to drop this motor into a 172. It is extremely similar to the O-320, but features a longer stroke thus the 340 cubic inches. It is rated at close to 180 hp (176?). The info I found said the cost was around $29,900 for the motor.

Now this appeals to me and my 150hp cessna 172. At that cost, I could justify the upgrade at overhaul time. (maybe)
Granted I will stretch the life out of my 2250 hr, 50 year old engine as FAR as I can, BUT its good to think ahead.

Anyway, I am asking about what y'all have heard regarding this. I have a feeling somethings off since they seem to be very uncommon. Maybe they didn't get approval. Maybe the engines aren't good.

Thanks in advance for the info.

Update: Looks like they got approval in may of 2013 on the fixed pitch prop setup. Article said they were working on a CS setup.

Update 2: Well crap, sounds like they were bought out by Continental and they dropped it. The motor is available, just not for me.

the stroker 340 was pretty much the same weight as the 320, and a direct replacement producing 180 hp. I think yingling was suppose to hold the stc but it vanished into thin air. I know the engine was certified but nothing ever came to be... kinda sucks

If you're thinking of spending that much just get a 360 and hang a CS prop on it.

In the end you'll have a well known quantity that works and PULLS.

MTV

Cool engine, lot of experimental guys using it. As far as one in a 10/172 it would certainly be cool. As MTV said above, though, not sure it makes much sense from a value standpoint. The 320 weighted hot rod engines are neat and fly nice, but the 360 is the work horse in that class and it tough to beat. A 360 would be a home run from a re-sale standpoint too. Strong market for a nice 172 with an O-360.

I met a guy that had done a 160 HP 320 upgrade on his Cessna 170 one time....really slick set up (Alaskan field approval I think). He said while it flew really nice, he made a mistake spending all that money and not doing an O-360.

mtv wrote:If you're thinking of spending that much just get a 360 and hang a CS prop on it.

In the end you'll have a well known quantity that works and PULLS.

MTV

I don't know. Last I checked the O-360 upgrade was pushing 40,000 or above. It's true everyone wants them, but that drives up cost.

Also using that reasoning, I should just go with the 205 hp upgrade that Continental is hoping to kick out this year with their Titan IO-370.

By the time I need a new motor, I am sure they will all be very expensive.

I did see hinting that Continental might be working on getting the O-340 certified still. It would give them a boost in rivaling Lycoming. The Lycoming O-320 and O-360 are well known and liked. The O-340 and IO-370 might be able to elbow their way in.

Edit: The concern with the IO-370, however, is that it would take a little work to install being fuel injected. Not sure on cost either yet. I guess they do 'em on 170s already though.

I can certainly vouch for the O-360-A1A - so you get an impulse starter.
My original BUSH conversion came with the old SPARKY start- SO no = battery no hand prop. Ripped out the little red bastard of a box and added an impulse mag on the left side. Got stuck in B.C. once in a 180 with the Vibrator box. Girls plane.
It got changed later.

Went through 3 props till ended up with an MT around 80"

Believe yours is a 172- Delair still sells a current O-360 CS conversion for the 172.
If you have the "step" on the top of the firewall, then can get weight increase,
but loose last 10 degrees of flaps.

Chris c

ShadowAviator wrote:

mtv wrote:If you're thinking of spending that much just get a 360 and hang a CS prop on it.

In the end you'll have a well known quantity that works and PULLS.

MTV

I don't know. Last I checked the O-360 upgrade was pushing 40,000 or above. It's true everyone wants them, but that drives up cost.

Also using that reasoning, I should just go with the 205 hp upgrade that Continental is hoping to kick out this year with their Titan IO-370.

By the time I need a new motor, I am sure they will all be very expensive.

I did see hinting that Continental might be working on getting the O-340 certified still. It would give them a boost in rivaling Lycoming. The Lycoming O-320 and O-360 are well known and liked. The O-340 and IO-370 might be able to elbow their way in.

Edit: The concern with the IO-370, however, is that it would take a little work to install being fuel injected. Not sure on cost either yet. I guess they do 'em on 170s already though.

Certainly with a NEW O-360 you'd wind up there, but there are lots of 360 cores around, and a field overhaul would save a lot of that $$, and doing some of the work yourself will help. The 172 doesn't need as many cowling mods as the 170.

But, I'd bet that 340 would cost fairly close by the time you include everything in the conversion.

MTV

Certainly with a NEW O-360 you'd wind up there, but there are lots of 360 cores around, and a field overhaul would save a lot of that $$, and doing some of the work yourself will help. The 172 doesn't need as many cowling mods as the 170.

But, I'd bet that 340 would cost fairly close by the time you include everything in the conversion.

MTV

Well thats true, but we will have to wait and see what the prices end up being.
According to Continental, they ARE still trying to get it certified. I guess they're just waiting on the FAA now.
It will be interesting to see how much the price jumps.

I'm not much of a believer in reinventing the wheel. The 180hp Lycoming 360s have been stuffed into 172s forever, with both CS and fixed pitch props, both as STC'd and factory OEM. The CS prop has a performance edge, of course, because you can have both climb and cruise capabilities, but it adds about 30# to the equation. Mine's an Avcon, which is a good conversion with lousy support (lousy = pretty much non-existent). The Lycoming 360 also has a stellar reputation, although that's no guarantee of much of anything.

I frankly doubt that you'll find much different in $$, no matter what your upgrade is. For myself, I'd stick with the tried and true. Get yourself a good, meticulous engine builder, and if you're as fortunate as I've been with my custom-built engine, it'll be better than new.

Cary

Cary wrote:I'm not much of a believer in reinventing the wheel. The 180hp Lycoming 360s have been stuffed into 172s forever, with both CS and fixed pitch props, both as STC'd and factory OEM. The CS prop has a performance edge, of course, because you can have both climb and cruise capabilities, but it adds about 30# to the equation. Mine's an Avcon, which is a good conversion with lousy support (lousy = pretty much non-existent). The Lycoming 360 also has a stellar reputation, although that's no guarantee of much of anything.

I frankly doubt that you'll find much different in $$, no matter what your upgrade is. For myself, I'd stick with the tried and true. Get yourself a good, meticulous engine builder, and if you're as fortunate as I've been with my custom-built engine, it'll be better than new.

Cary

Yeah, time will tell. Remember, though, every tried and true engine was once a new thing.

I am not sure on the CS prop, though. Heavier and more costly. I don't know how much performance improvement would be.

ShadowAviator wrote:

Cary wrote:I'm not much of a believer in reinventing the wheel. The 180hp Lycoming 360s have been stuffed into 172s forever, with both CS and fixed pitch props, both as STC'd and factory OEM. The CS prop has a performance edge, of course, because you can have both climb and cruise capabilities, but it adds about 30# to the equation. Mine's an Avcon, which is a good conversion with lousy support (lousy = pretty much non-existent). The Lycoming 360 also has a stellar reputation, although that's no guarantee of much of anything.

I frankly doubt that you'll find much different in $$, no matter what your upgrade is. For myself, I'd stick with the tried and true. Get yourself a good, meticulous engine builder, and if you're as fortunate as I've been with my custom-built engine, it'll be better than new.

Cary

Yeah, time will tell. Remember, though, every tried and true engine was once a new thing.

I am not sure on the CS prop, though. Heavier and more costly. I don't know how much performance improvement would be.

Look at it this way: a fixed climb prop on a 172 gives excellent acceleration and climb characteristics, but every one that I've seen requires throttling back quite a bit at cruise to keep the rpm under redline, i.e., cruise speed suffers. At the other end, a cruise prop is really crummy on acceleration and climb, but once leveled out for cruise, allows a decent cruise speed without any danger of overspeeding rpm into the red. A CS prop gives the best of both worlds. As a consequence, my airplane climbs better than most climb prop equipped 172s and cruises faster than most cruise prop equipped 172s.

For instance, my prop governor is set so that I get just under redline rpm of 2700 for take off. After I've reached a few hundred feet, I typically dial it back to 2550 to climb out. Once level, I dial it back to 2400. I can run at slower rpm, but once I get down around 2350, I begin to lose IAS, so it doesn't make much sense. Also, I get the "feeling" that I'm lugging the engine, much like being in too high a gear in a stick shift transmission.

An added benefit to a CS prop is that when it's time to descend, I just point it down. The rpm stays the same, the airplane speeds up, and I make up some for the slower climb speed at the beginning of the trip. Similarly, it's really nice that in normal flight, changing altitudes here and there, there's no need to watch the rpm to prevent nudging redline on any descents.

There are, of course, some downsides to CS props, besides the weight penalty, compared to fixed pitch. The primary one is that they're more expensive, both to purchase and to overhaul when that becomes necessary. Normally there's not much maintenance, but once they start to leak, if an overhaul isn't necessary, a re-sealing job is required.

So just like most things in life, you have to weigh the ups and downs and decide which makes more sense to you. For me, the CS prop does.

Cary

ShadowAviator wrote:

Cary wrote:I'm not much of a believer in reinventing the wheel. The 180hp Lycoming 360s have been stuffed into 172s forever, with both CS and fixed pitch props, both as STC'd and factory OEM. The CS prop has a performance edge, of course, because you can have both climb and cruise capabilities, but it adds about 30# to the equation. Mine's an Avcon, which is a good conversion with lousy support (lousy = pretty much non-existent). The Lycoming 360 also has a stellar reputation, although that's no guarantee of much of anything.

I frankly doubt that you'll find much different in $$, no matter what your upgrade is. For myself, I'd stick with the tried and true. Get yourself a good, meticulous engine builder, and if you're as fortunate as I've been with my custom-built engine, it'll be better than new.

Cary

Yeah, time will tell. Remember, though, every tried and true engine was once a new thing.

I am not sure on the CS prop, though. Heavier and more costly. I don't know how much performance improvement would be.

The performance improvement is huge. Not only significant takeoff performance, but also gives you the ability to run fast in cruise while burning less gas. The CS prop is expensive, but it pays for itself over time. Especially the first time you clear those trees after a slight mis calculation of t/o distance.

MTV

I don't know where Waldo is, but if you're out this way, I'd be happy to have you fly my airplane. Then you could see what the benefits of 180hp and a CS prop are, even with the higher DA out here than wherever Waldo is.

Cary

Cary wrote:I don't know where Waldo is, but if you're out this way, I'd be happy to have you fly my airplane. Then you could see what the benefits of 180hp and a CS prop are, even with the higher DA out here than wherever Waldo is.

Cary

That's the joke. WHERE IS WALDO?!?!

Actually not far from you in plane terms. I will let you know if I find time to make it out that way.

Thanks.

UPDATE!

So I talked with Texas Skyways, whom are doing the STC for the 172.

Hopefully in several months, the STC to put the Titan 340 into a 172 will be available. It SHOULD be available as either fixed or constant speed prop. It should replace any Lycoming O-320, and I think it will fit the mounts and exhaust, etc.

The idea on the cost is that it should be near the cost to overhaul the O-320. So instead of spending ~$20,000 on your O-320, you send it off to them and spending ~$20,000 on your brand new 180 HP Titan O-340.

Now, how much that will all change by the time its available, I don't know. I believe they are working on finding the right prop for it.

Time will tell.

Is it possible to consider an MT CS prop for the Avcon et al 180 hp conversions? The MT is at least 17 lbs lighter and would be a huge advantage for CG issues on the increased engine weight.

DeltaRomeo wrote:Is it possible to consider an MT CS prop for the Avcon et al 180 hp conversions? The MT is at least 17 lbs lighter and would be a huge advantage for CG issues on the increased engine weight.

It is. When my prop went to the prop shop for examination about 3 years ago because it was leaking too much, we were doing some exploring about what to do it if needed to be overhauled, because the parts are no longer available to overhaul that model McCauley. My IA learned that an acceptable substitute is the same Hartzell as a twin Comanche uses, and I learned that there's now an MT model. In either case, a new one was going to run into the $12,000-$13,000 range (probably more now), but luckily, all mine required was re-sealing.

FWIW, I've never found the increased weight of the Lycoming/CS prop to be a problem. I understand that the Lycoming 360 is about 35 lbs more than the Continental 300 that it replaced. Since the P172D came with a CS prop from the factory, that didn't change on my airplane, although it might be a factor with stock 172s converted to Lycomings and CS props. I've never run out of elevator authority, even at pretty low airspeeds. So while taking some weight off the nose might be beneficial, I'm not sure that it would be a "huge advantage for CG issues".

Cary

Looks like they are trying to find the right prop to go with the O-340. I am unfamiliar with the testing process.

What would they be trying to figure out exactly?

I know of other planes using the O-340, but I take it they have to use different props depending on the airframe model?

Seems odd. Maybe someone with engine harmonics knowledge could weight in.

ShadowAviator wrote:Looks like they are trying to find the right prop to go with the O-340. I am unfamiliar with the testing process.

What would they be trying to figure out exactly?

I know of other planes using the O-340, but I take it they have to use different props depending on the airframe model?

Seems odd. Maybe someone with engine harmonics knowledge could weight in.

You nailed it. Even with the experience of years and years of conversions, most still have some restrictions on power settings and speeds at certain rpm. If those restrictions were to be necessary right in the rpm band that is most useful, that would make the prop/engine combination unacceptable.

Cary

My over 10,000 hours in 172s supports what MTV and Cary have said about Lycoming O-320 and O-360 engines. Treat them right and you get an honest 3,000 hours per overhaul.

I liked the 0-320 best but what Cary said about lugging made me think about a patrol company pilot that got near 8 gph with the 0-360 running 21 MP and 25 RPM. We needed to keep the engine spooled up down low but didn't need to go fast. I didn't like the heavier nose but I was missing a backbone disk. I didn't like the 182 for the same reason.