Well, I hope they get something figured out. I will study up a bit on aircraft engine harmonics.

Looks like the O-340 has been used quite a bit in the experimental world. I know Rans is using it on their new model. I think the engine is good (It's almost identical to the Lycoming o-320, in fact, I think it IS a Lycoming design from way back.

And they are hoping to get a CS prop for it.

Regarding reliability, I think the engine is fine (though I will do more research). I trust my O-320. I believe its the original motor from 1969, and at 2300 hrs, its going strong.

The old stuff seemed to be made a bit better. Anymore, you need to be very careful with ANY engine today. My mechanic mentioned how many parts that at one time didn't wear much, but need replacing relatively often now. I think I would be just as comfortable with a new O-320 as I would be with a new O-340.

Time will tell, more engine options are never a bad thing.

Don't forget the cost of mags, exhaust, starter, hoses, mounts, baffles and so on in the cost. Don't put old worn out accessories on a new engine.

The 360 with the MT prop is a home run, that has been a fantastic combination in many airplanes. Expensive? Yes, but the value is there and that is what counts.

Kurt

I read somewhere that a well-known prop maker (Catto, maybe?) said the 340 has the largest impulses transmitted to the prop of any engine - from the individual cylinders firing.

I'd replace my 320 with a 340 as well, but if the above statement is true and I'm not mis-remembering that could explain why they're having a hard time certifying a prop.

G44 wrote:Don't forget the cost of mags, exhaust, starter, hoses, mounts, baffles and so on in the cost. Don't put old worn out accessories on a new engine.

The 360 with the MT prop is a home run, that has been a fantastic combination in many airplanes. Expensive? Yes, but the value is there and that is what counts.

Kurt

I agree that you wouldn't want to put worn out accessories on a new engine. However, "old" might be just fine. The new stuff may not be much better. (Now hoses, yes, definitely new ones). If it isn't good enough for the new engine, then it wasn't good enough for the old. But the upgrade would definitely be the time to check to see if new accessories were needed.

The O-360 is a great engine, no doubt. However, the value might not be quite there, at least, not anymore. Airplains quote was $50,000+ (fixed pitch). You could almost buy TWO O-340s or a 172 that already has the O-360. I know people love the O-360, but ironically, that's also the problem. All that love drives the cost up.

If this comes about, it will be great for the 172 fleet. As good an airframe as it is, The models with the H2AD engine, although workable, are to me less desireable. This is where I think the big gains could be made with the O-340. It's a large group.

Texas Skyways appears to have a strong relationship with Hartzell. I would put my money on their solution being a Hartzell model, not an MT. Too bad. The MT might get certified as an add-on later by someone else, but I think that would be tough, and still require the cooperation of Texas Skyways. TS might see it as limiting their sales of Hartzell's.

The counterweight configuration on the O-340 is more of a factor than the pulses from the cylinders firing. Too bad there wasn't a model with the 6th and 8th order counterweights like some of the 360s. It would make prop selection easier, eliminates the prohibited RPM ranges, and generally smooths the engines.

ShadowAviator wrote:...Looks like the O-340 has been used quite a bit in the experimental world. I know Rans is using it on their new model. I think the engine is good (It's almost identical to the Lycoming o-320, in fact, I think it IS a Lycoming design from way back.
....

If Wiki can be believed, the Lyc O-340 was originally designed for the Twin Navion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-340

Don't know what if any (single engine) factory airplanes it was installed on as original equipment.
There was a mod for the C170A & B models called the "Doyne conversion" which used a Lyc 340 and a Hartzell prop.
Can't recall his handle, but a guy on this site from Washnington has a B model so equipped.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... SA3-13.pdf

Someone might be able to swap the "new" 340 for an original Lyc 340 on one of these,
or use the Doyne STC as basis for a field approval (unlikely).

I had a 170 with the Doyne 340 in it. Performed ok, not a 360 by any means. It was essentially a stroked 320. Parts availability was the issue with it as the cam, crank and jugs are not suppported anymore. The stc was sold off years ago and is owned by D Shannon and they are completely unwilling to help out in any way with it. I think I have some of the papers if anyone is looking for a copy. We did get an MT approved for it as well.

Hotel Yankee wrote:I had a 170 with the Doyne 340 in it. Performed ok, not a 360 by any means. It was essentially a stroked 320. Parts availability was the issue with it as the cam, crank and jugs are not suppported anymore. The stc was sold off years ago and is owned by D Shannon and they are completely unwilling to help out in any way with it. I think I have some of the papers if anyone is looking for a copy. We did get an MT approved for it as well.

Hey buddy! Good to hear from you.

Hotel Yankee wrote:I had a 170 with the Doyne 340 in it. Performed ok, not a 360 by any means. It was essentially a stroked 320. Parts availability was the issue with it as the cam, crank and jugs are not suppported anymore. The stc was sold off years ago and is owned by D Shannon and they are completely unwilling to help out in any way with it. I think I have some of the papers if anyone is looking for a copy. We did get an MT approved for it as well.

Well, one difference between Lycoming's old O-340 and Titan's is that Titan uses higher compression pistons. Its just like upgrading an old O-320-E2D with the RAM stc.

The Lycoming was 170 hp, the Titan is 180 hp.

Sounds like Titan is Continental's way to get into the lower horsepower range of engines. At least that's what a few videos from Titan implied.

Actually, it seems more like a way for Continental to build Lycoming engines to me, without having to worry about patent/copyright infringement.....

MTV

mtv wrote:Actually, it seems more like a way for Continental to build Lycoming engines to me, without having to worry about patent/copyright infringement.....

MTV

That, too.

ShadowAviator wrote:

mtv wrote:Actually, it seems more like a way for Continental to build Lycoming engines to me, without having to worry about patent/copyright infringement.....

MTV

That, too.

Ewwww--that sounds like potential lawsuit problems. I'd hate to be the one caught in the middle, with a bastard engine that nobody could support. That'd be something like having one of the 220hp Franklin conversions--great website promises, and very likely a good engine, but the whole kit & kaboodle is for sale.

Cary

Cary wrote:
Ewwww--that sounds like potential lawsuit problems. I'd hate to be the one caught in the middle, with a bastard engine that nobody could support. That'd be something like having one of the 220hp Franklin conversions--great website promises, and very likely a good engine, but the whole kit & kaboodle is for sale.

Cary

Well Titan has been making the engine for a while, so I think we are good.

Well, I talked with Texas Skyways, today.

Sounds like progress has been made. They said they decided on a synthetic prop (I think they meant composite). Its a constant speed.

So the test plane is ready and the plans have been submitted to the FAA, and they are just waiting on the FAA's very slow approval.

Now we wait. It would be nice to go with an MT prop, but at least we are getting somewhere.

In 1999 I almost bought a 172 with a tired engine. I was going to put in an 0-360 to make a sweet plane out of it. I found a 182B and bought it instead. Less expensive then but maybe not now.

Tim

qmdv wrote:In 1999 I almost bought a 172 with a tired engine. I was going to put in an 0-360 to make a sweet plane out of it. I found a 182B and bought it instead. Less expensive then but maybe not now.

Tim

If you can find a good deal on a 182, then its definitely worth considering. I know I have looked at them a lot.

Seems like most of the "cheaper" 182s either aren't that nice or will need some money spent on them. Overall their cost seems to be going up more than people realize.


On the 172, at one time the O-360 upgrade made sense, but now that upgrade is ~$55,000 (Airplains). Better off buying a 182, in that case.

The O-340 might be worth doing, if they can keep the cost down.

If I had a family, or had plans to start one, I would be looking harder at the 182s. That said, if a good deal on a 182 come along, then it would be very tempting.

I think the IO-340 will be an excellent engine upgrade for the 172. I talked to Stoots, who is trying to finish up the IO-370 STC (205HP) for the 170/172/175. We really are waiting on Continental for that. The Titan line has a ton of potential. I too think that a CS is the way to go. It should be done any day now... 2000hr TBO was the goal right out of the box, with an increase in the future....

The biggest user of the O-340 has been the Carbon Cub guys. Most Carbon Cubs had that engine out of the factory. They market it as a Cub Crafters engine, but it's a Titan.

WorkingWarbirds wrote:I think the IO-340 will be an excellent engine upgrade for the 172. I talked to Stoots, who is trying to finish up the IO-370 STC (205HP) for the 170/172/175. We really are waiting on Continental for that. The Titan line has a ton of potential. I too think that a CS is the way to go. It should be done any day now... 2000hr TBO was the goal right out of the box, with an increase in the future....

Might have been a typo on your part, but the engine is an O-340 not an IO-340, at least the one they are trying to stick in the 172.

I asked Dave about 205HP upgrade, but if I remember correctly he said it would cost alot, about the same as say an Airplains O-360 upgrade. Might still be worth doing, but you again run into the issue of "with all this money spent, I could buy a nice 182".

That said, the O-340 upgrade might cost way more than predicted, too. So now its just waiting to see how things go.

Why would a conversion with a new O-340 be any cheaper than a conversion using a new O-360?
At least with the 360, there are used engines available.
Probably not so (or not so much amyway) with the 340.

hotrod180 wrote:Why would a conversion with a new O-340 be any cheaper than a conversion using a new O-360?
At least with the 360, there are used engines available.
Probably not so (or not so much amyway) with the 340.

I don't know the exact numbers, but as I understand it O-360's are simply priced higher. They are a VERY popular motor and are in demand usually.

We will have to wait and see what the O-340 upgrade cost will be once its finished. It may be similar or very different.

What I know is that Texas Skyways is trying to keep the cost to upgrade to the O-340 similar to the cost to overhaul an O-320 (around $25,000 maybe, I am not sure). You may have to pay extra though for the prop. Not really sure how that all works out. (It's a CS prop)

Last I checked, Airplains wants around $50,000 to do an O-360 upgrade. And thats with a fixed pitch prop. I haven't priced others, but I would think it to be similar.

I hope the O-340 works out, though it could end up just as expensive or not go through at all. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt.