Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High performance piston options for the O-200

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: High performance piston options for the O-200

    Ok, I updated my first post to include the aero performance piston, and it weighs 655 grams.

    Does anyone have access to a Lycon 10.0-1 piston data? Tim
    N29787
    '41 BC12-65

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: High performance piston options for the O-200

      I'm still undecided on what direction I'm going to go for a engine. While reading up on another site, something had been posted about Lycon and 0-200 pistons. Looking on the Lycon site ( http://www.nfspistons.com/store/c22/...%26_O-300.html ) it looks like 9.0-1 is all you can get anymore. Did they drop the higher comps. for some reason?
      Dave

      F22 Experimental Build
      46 BC12-D
      N95078

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: High performance piston options for the O-200

        Stick to low compression if you ever have to use auto gas 8.0 - 1 at the most or you will have preignition problems
        N29787
        '41 BC12-65

        Comment


        • #34
          I run 9.5:1 NFS LyCon pistons in my O-200A at the original 28BTDC on 93 octane mogas with alcohol (I use a steel needle and seat in an MA-3SPA 10-4115 carb - the original two-piece venturi - it atomizes much better than the pepperbox). No preignition problems.

          Those power and torque curves assume the O-200A is running the original 28 and hasn't been retarded.

          Also, that 643183 number is a casting number, not a part number. It appears to be a mistake.
          Last edited by JimC; 02-25-2019, 23:49.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JimC View Post
            I run 9.5:1 NFS LyCon pistons in my O-200A at the original 28BTDC on 93 octane mogas with alcohol (I use a steel needle and seat in an MA-3SPA 10-4115 carb - the original two-piece venturi - it atomizes much better than the pepperbox). No preignition problems.

            Those power and torque curves assume the O-200A is running the original 28 and hasn't been retarded.

            Also, that 643183 number is a casting number, not a part number. It appears to be a mistake.
            Why are you running alcohol? Big no no certified or not. It will corrode anything aluminum in the fuel sysytem

            Comment


            • #36
              True, but it is what is easily available at the service station.
              ​​I've been using it since about 2007 (the year it was mandated in automotive fuel).
              I watch it pretty closely - No detectable damage in the last twelve years, but it will likely get me eventually, if I live that long.
              I probably won't - I'm getting a bit long in the tooth.
              I'm leery of running no-alcohol regular at 9.5:1 and 28 BTDC, and 100LL is both expensive and potentially a bit hard on the valves (edit - sparkplugs, not valves). I do use a steel needle and seat.
              So in short, I just go with the flow and luckily, haven't had any corrosion.
              I consider engines to be consumables anyway :-)
              Last edited by JimC; 02-26-2019, 17:30.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimC View Post
                True, but it is what is easily available at the service station.
                ​​I've been using it since about 2007 (the year it was mandated in automotive fuel).
                I watch it pretty closely - No detectable damage in the last twelve years, but it will likely get me eventually, if I live that long.
                I probably won't - I'm getting a bit long in the tooth.
                I'm leery of running no-alcohol regular at 9.5:1 and 28 BTDC, and 100LL is both expensive and potentially a bit hard on the valves. I do use a steel needle and seat.
                So in short, I just go with the flow and luckily, haven't had any corrosion.
                I consider engines to be consumables anyway :-)
                Where do you live? and lead is SUPPOSED to be there to cushion the valve seats in older designed engine. The alcohol can kill you, it will corrode any aluminum fittings, gascolator and inside the carb. Just because you got away with it does not mean it is good. Oh and unless you are running e-85, the alcohol is a dead filler that lowers the octane...

                Oh do you have any measurements on those lycon pistons?
                Last edited by astjp2; 02-26-2019, 11:28.
                N29787
                '41 BC12-65

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by astjp2 View Post

                  Where do you live? and lead is SUPPOSED to be there to cushion the valve seats in older designed engine. The alcohol can kill you, it will corrode any aluminum fittings, gascolator and inside the carb. Just because you got away with it does not mean it is good. Oh and unless you are running e-85, the alcohol is a dead filler that lowers the octane...

                  Oh do you have any measurements on those lycon pistons?
                  what he said^^^^^

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "Just because you got away with it does not mean it is good".

                    I totally agree. I don't run the alcohol for any performance benefit; I do it because it is what is available at the pump, and I was curious about what it would do to the engine. I am aware of both the benefits and downside of lead. There are no aluminum fittings in my fuel system. And of course, the alcohol will corrode the carburetor itself in the same way that it corrodes the carburetors in our cars. Though I fully expect to die of old age before it does so (as I mentioned, I'm a bit long in the tooth).

                    The reason I posted this was because someone had previously posted my two graphs of Continental's power and torque curves for their small engines (plus a couple of curves for the thermodynamic effect of increased compression), and I was responding to those previous posts.

                    I'm not encouraging or suggesting that everyone should run out and install 9.5 or 10.0 pistons in their small Continentals. Just posting what I observed after I did 0.015" oversize 9.5 pistons in an experimental O-200. BTW, I usually cruise it at 2250-2300rpm (avg fuel burn 4.3 gph including one climb to altitude) and climb out at 2640 rpm (most rpm I've turned in a J3 55mph climb was 2850rpm with a Cessna 150 seaplane prop - a Mac 1B90 CM7535). As an aside, I don't like that prop - I prefer a 7440. Also, I make it a point never to turn it faster than 3150 rpm, and I've only done that twice, as a test.

                    Again, just posting results, not suggestions.

                    I may have some measurements of the LyCon pistons, I'll fish around in my files and look.
                    If not, I'll measure them next time I open the engine up to look at the condition of the insides (since it is an experimental test engine, I do that fairly often).
                    Last edited by JimC; 02-26-2019, 12:32.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      JimC I pirated and posted those graphs you developed from other Forums. Your experiments and comments regarding performance have been very worthwhile and informative. Locally experiments I'm aware of with compression over 8.5:1 have not always gone well. Despite using 100LL there have been issues with increased CHT and in once case cylinder failure and precautionary landing. Things break for various reasons of course and tying issues to a single cause without complete engine monitoring (CHT-EGT) plus uniform parts quality begs the question as to source.

                      I agree on your prop assessment and have flown both the 7535-38, 7440, and now a Sen 76AK-2-40. The Sen is field approved on my T while the others and Catto fly at night and on weekends.

                      Gary
                      N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        If you are having trouble finding no alcohol fuel try your local marinas. Lots of outboard motors can't take alcohol either. Another place is to talk to the guys at local race tracks. The bike and car racers know where to get the "off road" fuel, some of which still may even have lead. Excess lead DOES NOT INCREASE POWER!!!! It allows you to pack more fuel air charge into the engine at higher compression ratios. THAT makes more power with a LOSS of HP/# of fuel. You just more than make up for it in the number of # of fuel you can use per hour. Our old engines were designed to run on the "normal" fuel of the 1920s and 1930s. That was down around 66 octane! The timing is advanced from back then to take advantage of the "high octane" fuel that was WAY UP THERE at 80/87 from around WW-II. The Battle of Britain was fought with 87 octane fuel. The 115/145 fuel from later in the war worked by running very high compression ratios. One of the big false information wins from the US in WW-II was to convince the Germans there was so much Lead compounds in our fuel because we had poor refineries. They didn't figure it out until the war was almost over.

                        Hank

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Old Continental cylinders tend to crack no matter what compression or fuel you are running.
                          I always keep a couple of extras on hand so I can be up and running again in an afternoon.

                          In the oops department, I wondered why valves were mentioned in conjunction with 100LL.
                          So I went back and looked at my post. Fumble fingered me wrote valves when I meant to write sparkplugs (those pesky lead balls - Wish I had said more so I could take that back too :-)

                          Another aside. Back in my J3 Search & Rescue days in the late 60's, I used to run a Mac 7438 on my C85-12F. I loved that prop, but it sure was hard on cylinder base studs.

                          I got my O-200 in 1969. It's still hanging in there in sort of a continually progressive overhaul. Crank and cam are still in OK shape. I think it's gonna outlast me.
                          Last edited by JimC; 02-26-2019, 15:18.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Gary, what engine are you currently running and which prop do you prefer?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              "Locally experiments I'm aware of with compression over 8.5:1 have not always gone well".

                              I find that interesting.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                "Gary, what engine are you currently running and which prop do you prefer?" I have a new C-85 Stroker w/C-90 cam in my Taylorcraft. The Sen M76AK-2-40 was transferred from my PA-11 that had a fresh overhaul on a C-90-8 in 2003. No longer owned. The current engine with C-150 exhaust, Donaldson air filter (+35-50 static over Brackett), 7:1 flowed cylinders, and C-85 timing does 100-115 more static on the same outboard optical tach (2440). More than Taylorcraft allows so I can pull it back some but cruise at 2350 is in the low 90's on floats. It turns 2625 redline an ok figure for a C-90 equivalent for 5 minutes. I've not tried other props with this engine as there's nothing as long approved on the C-85, just O-200 F-19 Taylorcraft and C-150 seaplane. But 44-45 years ago I tried a 7535-38 and 7440 on another Taylorcraft C-85 and they both pulled well but saw slower cruise on floats. I've no doubt a Mac 7440 would be good same for a Catto.

                                "I find that interesting." Not my personal experience just ramp chatter from those that have. Heat and wear were comments I heard but performance was better over 8.5. Makes sense but who knows what cylinders were reused or what fuel flow was available via jetting if volumetric efficiency was improved. Then there's engine baffling and flat props that can create heat where it shouldn't. Don't know but as you mention if there's a progressive overhaul then things can be monitored for change.

                                Edit: I had the Sen prop overhauled recently to confirm the pitch and quality plus a dynamic balance done after the installation. On floats it starts up on step well then at about 20-30 mph it starts to pull hard into a takeoff and climb. If I wanted better climb I'd go to a 42" pitch to stay on top of the torque curve I think. I need to monitor rpm with the digital reach onboard better and see where and when it pulls the best. Maybe 2500 is a good rpm to shoot for during takeoff?

                                Gary
                                Last edited by PA1195; 02-26-2019, 16:54.
                                N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X