What Lycoming O-360 for Patrol

[noema]

I am leaning towards getting a new engine over a rebuilt one. What new Lycoming O-360 do you order if you want a fairly standard and simple installation? There is good information for the 4-Place but not so much for the Patrol.

My starting point are the Vans order forms for Thunderbolts and OEMs EXP engines:

• Thunderbolt Order Form
• OEM Order Form

Also what's the advantage of the more expensive Thunderbolt line other than some paint and polishing?

So far I have the following specs:

• mount: dynafocal type I
• CS prop provision
• 8.5:1 compression (90 autogas)
• wide deck (standard for new engines)
• parallel valve (better fit)
• non-mass-balanced crankshaft (lighter)
• ignition: E-Mags (would prefer the fuel savings and less maintenance)

I am still not clear about the position of prop gov, oil sump, carb and what requirements the Patrol has.

Mark Goldberg if you read this, I would be curious what's your take. I though of posting it here over asking you directly. I feel it's a recurring question.

[Mark Goldberg]

You are on the correct track Stefan. I can help you get a new Lycoming at a good price. Titan/Continental seems to be WAY behind on shipping engines as I have a customer who was promised an engine from them in March, and now Titan says June. So Lycoming seems a good bet.

There are several models that work. But I will email you some choices privately. Mark

[spinningwrench]

I just went through the same gyrations figuring out what O-360 for my Patrol. The only thing you are missing is whether you want a front or rear governor mount for your C/S prop. I had great response from Thunderbolt in terms of a quote, not so good for the stock Lycoming lineup. The Thunderbolt is fancier in terms of custom paint and chrome valve covers but also the engine is much better mass balanced and assembled by a team of two if that is important to you. Regarding electronic ignition, only the P-Mags or E-Mags are internally excited and don't require a battery. In the end I ordered an engine from Bob. I will get a rebuilt crankcase and crankshaft but ordered a new camshaft, lifters, and Superior cylinders.. I also specified the Diamond Coat lifters from Lycoming which get extremely good reviews from mechanics, Bob wasn't familiar with them but is looking into them. It was about $8K cheaper from Bob which is considerable.

[Pbruce]

Just went through about 6 months of looking hard for a used 0-360. I ended up ordering a rebuild from Bob. I found very little value in the used stuff on the market (too old, too many hours, too few logbooks, wrong intake, counter weights which I don’t need, and most of all too much money for old stuff). I’m really close to Aerosport and I know them, and would be happy to use them, but they seem to be basing all their prices on a core value of $8500. It ends up putting their price about 4K above Bob’s for a similar rebuild. Interestingly, without looking at this thread first, I ended up specking my engine the same as Neoma (and Bruce except used cam and lifters) for the same reasons they listed. I didn’t know Mark could get engines at a good price but I don’t think I can afford a new one anyway. I may look into the cams and lifters Bruce mentioned, they being the most corrosion sensitive bits.

Some advantages of using Bob: low down payment. All suppliers are delivering many months to a year out and so is Bob, but less money up front is a benefit to me. Bob doesn’t supply the emag, pmag, and governor, but again, I can buy them when needed. I’m using an auto alternator, so ditto there. Bob seems flexible about changing the order if he’s able down the road, but I wouldn’t hold him to it. I talked to Bobs engine builder, and he was really knowledgeable and professional in his discussion with me. He verified that a rear governor will fit my QB Patrol. I’m no great mechanic, and the piece of mind which comes with a good rebuild vs cobbling together parts and doing my own quality control seems like a good value to me. I’m trusting Bob to deliver a good product and I have faith that he will, on the basis of general reputation and my discussions with him and Mike, his builder.

[noema]

Sound like people are generally very happy with engines from Bob.

[Bcone1381]

I am a bit ahead of you all. My thoughts are

-Prop Govenor....If your drive pad is on the accessory drive case (likely) then the Jihostoj governor will fit with about 1/2 inch clearance from the firewall. The Hartzell Gov that I first tried did not fit without a firewall modification. Rather than dish out the firewall, I switched to the "Czech" Jihostroj Governor. I ordered it right from the factory and the transaction with them worked out well.

http://www.propellergovernor.com

-Hartzell & un-counterweighted cranks. I have a non counterweighed crank with the Hartzell Trailblazer composite prop. It seems to me like that prop and engine combo is good and does not require RPM limitations. However, since I got my engine, it appears to me as thought Hartzell has not tested things using dual electronic ignition, and carb/Bendix FI and basically says we are on our own. What does that mean to me? They must suspect something. Do We have an unknown risk not running counterweighted cranks and dual Surefire Mags? If this bothers you, you might rethink the crank counter weights or look into it. I wish I has more information on it, rather than just casting doubt and uncertainty. Please report back what you find. Until we learn more I will operated mine with RPM limitations of a Hartzell Aluminum Prop.

[noema]

I guess this means the Hartzell gov can only be mounted on the front (needs a YO-360-A1P or similar) and the Jihostroj/PCU5000 gov can also be mounted on the rear (like the YO-360-A1A Van's uses).

[Pbruce]

Interesting and compelling topic. I was planning to use whirlwind composite blades (284 I think they call them) on a reconditioned McCauley hub. I think it will give performance roughly equal to the trailblazer with less cost and it looks like a pretty robust prop. Whilrlwind is hard to talk to to get firm answers though, so I may yet go Hartzel. Mark has good pricing on the Trailblazer, but it’s still a very expensive piece of kit.

What are the limitations you speak of? Transient only between 2200 and 2350, or something like that? I don’t think that would be terribly limiting so operating accordingly makes good sense. I’d probably rather live with a limitation like that than counterweights. I had not considered the effect of the e-mags at all. I guess the theory is: more advance equals potentially more vibration or different vibration?
Looks like I have a few more questions to ask.

[Bcone1381]

For an O-360-A I found a limitation of around 2300rpm when above 25" MP and when below 15" rpm above 2600, plus continuous operations between 2000-2250 RPM.

I research this by looking at the FAA's Type Certificate Data Sheet for my Prop. I pasted a link to that below. If you go here, you'll see a number of morsels of good information. A little over half way you'll find Note 9, "Special Limits." There are a number of limits that depend on engine, hub and prop. I don't know what is prudent if I install dual EI. I'm thinking a call to Hartzell is in order. Note, with normal configuration the Trail Blazer has no limits.....its just that outside of a normal configuration, no testing has been done yet by Hartzell.

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/d7115816308185568625843f00661353/$FILE/P-920_Rev39.pdf

[Mark Goldberg]

I think the vibration issues and rpm limitations of aluminum blades are not at all the same as composite blades. I know very little but that is my understanding.

Pat - the Whirlwind is a good prop. But different construction than the all carbon fiber Trailblazer. The Whirlwind has a wood core with composite on top. Like the MT. Mark

[Pbruce]

I think that was the case for their earlier series of bushplane props. However, this is right off their site regarding construction of the new(ish) 284:

“The extremely aggressive, thin blade airfoil of the 284 could only be achieved by using the advanced carbon composite structure manufacturing techniques that Whirl Wind developed. This cutting edge process involves overlaying the thermoset carbon fiber composites over a high density foam core.”

I’m thinking that the Trailblazer is all composite, but I wonder if it’s truly “all carbon”? If so, I have no idea what the merits of sandwich vs solid carbon would be other that a little bit of weight. Id like to think it wouldn’t be for cost reasons on a set of blades which retails for 10K.

The WW 284, (the prop they sell for Carbon Cubs) and Trailblazer are about the same in price, but WW will mount its blades on certain McCauley hubs which saves a whack of money over buying their hub. If I end up buying the whole shebang though, I’ll probably go with a Trailblazer. The more I learn, the more I see how little I know, so much could change.

[Pbruce]

I am leaning towards getting a new engine over a rebuilt one. What new Lycoming O-360 do you order if you want a fairly standard and simple installation? There is good information for the 4-Place but not so much for the Patrol.

My starting point are the Vans order forms for Thunderbolts and OEMs EXP engines:

• Thunderbolt Order Form
• OEM Order Form

Also what's the advantage of the more expensive Thunderbolt line other than some paint and polishing?

So far I have the following specs:

• mount: dynafocal type I
• CS prop provision
• 8.5:1 compression (90 autogas)
• wide deck (standard for new engines)
• parallel valve (better fit)
• non-mass-balanced crankshaft (lighter)
• ignition: E-Mags (would prefer the fuel savings and less maintenance)

I am still not clear about the position of prop gov, oil sump, carb and what requirements the Patrol has.

Mark Goldberg if you read this, I would be curious what's your take. I though of posting it here over asking you directly. I feel it's a recurring question.

I’m also leaning toward e-mags. I’ve read that since my engine will be carbureted rather than injected, I shouldn’t expect to enjoy all the fuel savings of EI due to the uneven induction of carbureted setups. Running LOP seems unlikely, although some claim they can do it. I had one light speed and one mag on my last plane (160 hp RV9) and it saved 1/2 gallon per hour compared to my 172 with 2 mags, so you can still achieve significant savings.

Ultimately, think it’s worthwhile on the basis of less maintenance, fewer moving parts, less weight and hotter spark with advance. I also want to run auto gas at times. Darren at Aerosport Power told that emag will allow you to reduce the amount of spark advance to mimic mags with a switch on the panel, which would make 8.5/1 pistons safer at high power, hot, and high conditions while burning straight auto fuel. Darren told me to give the manufacturer a call to find out more, and I intend to do this.

Another thing Darren at ASP told me was that the porting and polishing used to yield a bigger benefit in days past. He said that due to manufacturing practices, the new Superior cylinders were better and more consistent in this regard, FWIW.
people really seem to notice and like the balancing done on Thunderbolt engines. I don’t think Bob does this, but I didn’t ask. My stock Lycoming 172 is “electric” smooth, whereas my custom-built (conical mount) 0-320 on the RV9 vibrated so bad it was fatiguing. Engine/prop combinations seem to have their own character.

[Bcone1381]

Bob can send out parts for balancing. He did it for my Crank at my request a few years ago. I suspect Bob thinks it may be a bit overkill but it was not expensive. Bob thought the Superior cylinder parts were high tolerance in regards to weights so we skipped that part.

[Hewko]

I'm running one Pmag on a 160 hp carbureted 0320, it allows me to run lean of peak, using premium mogas. It really improves fuel economy, runs smoother, and only has a slight mag drop when doing the mag check. Great product.

[noema]

That's an interesting data point. Good to hear. Do you have any comparison without Pmags? From what I read, some carb engines can run LOP but it mostly depends on fuel distribution and can be measured by determining the GAMI spread (fuel flow delta between EGT peaks of individual cylinders). Some engines (of the same type) do better than others.

If you think the Pmags significantly contributed to even out EGTs I would love to hear more. For example, what spark advance profile are you running on the Pmags?

[TTAero]

This is probably a pretty elementary question, but since everyone is talking engine and props I thought this may be the place to ask. Is it possible to have an engine built for a constant speed , but run a ground adjustable prop? I’m thinking I would like to have the option to upgrade later on, but would like to use a ground adjustable carbon prop to get flying sooner on a budget.

[noema]

Yes you can go back and forth if you un/plug the right holes. For example see: https://vansairforce.net/community/s...d.php?t=167258

[gregc]

"Is it possible to have an engine built for a constant speed , but run a ground adjustable prop?

That is what I did. If you get an engine from Bob, just let him know that's what you want.

[Hewko]

"If you think the Pmags significantly contributed to even out EGTs I would love to hear more. For example, what spark advance profile are you running on the Pmags?"

I have a dash switch to change between the two spark advance profiles, depending on whether running avgas or mogas. The Pmag seems to even out the egt's, put it on at the same time as the egt gauges so don't have a comparison. Really noticed the ability to lean much more. I don't have the model number of my carb, but the shop that rebuilt it for me last winter said that model is better for leaning. It goes lop before it starts running rough, easy to adjust mixture based on rpm drop.

[Pbruce]

Can you flick that switch in flight, or must it be done before power-up?

[Hewko]

can change it in flight