Looks like a new IO-390, but purchased from Ly-Con instead?
http://rvbuild214sw.com/lycoming-at-vans-booth/
I am curious what you paid for that vs getting it from Vans, and also some of your rationale. At Sun and Fun this year I saw the Aerosport 382 Wildcat, and also spoke with a number of other vendors (Barrett, etc) who mentioned various forms of IO-360 and/or 390 type engines built with Superior parts as competitors here for the io-390.
Was the only change to the IO-390 P Mags?
No, here is what Lycon did:
Add dual P-Mags
Port Flow and Balance Cylinders
Alodine heads and paint barrels black
Disassemble engine, exchange camshaft for performance grind, O-Ring case, precision re-balance.
Test cell run
You mean anodize?
My 230 hp IO-360 was made by Lycon with same mods and a few more, you won't be disappointed.
I find this pretty amazing...I trust LyCon's dyno is properly calibrated and the tests were conducted around standard atmospheric conditions to get a fair apples-apples comparison with Lycoming's rating of 210 hp...? If they were boosting the compression ratio it would make more sense, but getting an extra 43 hp out of the IO390 without changing compression is really surprising. If you look at the list of mods, adding electronic ignition doesn't typically increase hp much...it improves efficiency, but most of the spark advance happens at lower manifold pressures (high altitude cruise). At least that's what Klaus Savier told me when I put Lightspeeds on my O-360, maybe the Pmags have a new trick that provides a measurable max hp increase.
The port flow surely helps, but Lycoming claims the 390 already has a tuned induction system and the angle valves breath better to begin with than the parallel valve engines, so I thought the port flow process didn't make a huge difference for angle valve engines.
Balancing will give you a very small gain by reducing vibration losses, and the only other significant thing on the list is the performance grind on the camshaft. Not sure how much that is worth, but it begs the question what does LyCon know the Lycoming doesn't know? What is the tradeoff? If they are opening valves more abruptly and keeping them open longer, does that put more stress on the valve train? Is this a brand new camshaft for the 390, or does it have a good service history with other engines like the IO-360? Is it getting better max hp at the expense of performance in some other part of the operating envelope?
Sure would be nice to understand the physics of how they are doing this, and why Lycoming doesn't do the same with the stock 390...
Lycon does know their stuff and build great engines, but their dyno is notoriously optimistic, borderline comical.
I find this pretty amazing...I trust LyCon's dyno is properly calibrated and the tests were conducted around standard atmospheric conditions to get a fair apples-apples comparison with Lycoming's rating of 210 hp...? If they were boosting the compression ratio it would make more sense, but getting an extra 43 hp out of the IO390 without changing compression is really surprising. If you look at the list of mods, adding electronic ignition doesn't typically increase hp much...it improves efficiency, but most of the spark advance happens at lower manifold pressures (high altitude cruise). At least that's what Klaus Savier told me when I put Lightspeeds on my O-360, maybe the Pmags have a new trick that provides a measurable max hp increase.
The port flow surely helps, but Lycoming claims the 390 already has a tuned induction system and the angle valves breath better to begin with than the parallel valve engines, so I thought the port flow process didn't make a huge difference for angle valve engines.
Balancing will give you a very small gain by reducing vibration losses, and the only other significant thing on the list is the performance grind on the camshaft. Not sure how much that is worth, but it begs the question what does LyCon know the Lycoming doesn't know? What is the tradeoff? If they are opening valves more abruptly and keeping them open longer, does that put more stress on the valve train? Is this a brand new camshaft for the 390, or does it have a good service history with other engines like the IO-360? Is it getting better max hp at the expense of performance in some other part of the operating envelope?
Sure would be nice to understand the physics of how they are doing this, and why Lycoming doesn't do the same with the stock 390...
You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.
Better breathing, and higher hp, but at the expense of higher specific fuel consumption. Maybe Tom (gZero) can tell us about his new 8, and compare his fuel burn for cruise compared to others. That is the only way to know for sure.
This is going to be one nice performing 14!
BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.
You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.
Better breathing, and higher hp, but at the expense of higher specific fuel consumption. Maybe Tom (gZero) can tell us about his new 8, and compare his fuel burn for cruise compared to others. That is the only way to know for sure.
This is going to be one nice performing 14!
My lycon built IO-360 cruises at 170kts TAS on 8 gph with a three blade MT for comparison.
You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.
And it apparently does that inverted!!!
My lycon built IO-360 cruises at 170kts TAS on 8 gph with a three blade MT for comparison.
Ah, the old X dyno vs. Y dyno. The only way to know if your statement is true would be to do a calibration test. Who's to say that some other engine builder's dynos are correct? Everyone likes to think their dyno is dead on.
230 HP. Gee, why so slow?
Way back, when Monty asked what I wanted, I told him to build a tractor motor, no hot-rodding at all, just careful dimensioning and balancing. I wanted one that would last.
So, my poor 'ole wimpy IO-390 was only making 205 corrected-to-standard-day horsepower when it left the Barrett dyno. It probably picked up some power with additional break-in, so I figure it makes the rated 210 now. It's still running mags, and breathes full time through a filter.
Yet, strangely enough, it seems to run with mega-motors from the land of fruits and nuts.
Here's the same altitude, 25~30F lean of peak; 7.8 GPH, 178 ktas. The 58% power figure is based on MP and RPM alone, as GRT doesn't bother with corrections for mixture. Running LOP, it's it's probably not even doing 55%.
Here's flat out on a good day:
Sure, I've done some cooling drag work, and it has a one-piece bubble. There are no other drag reduction tricks...no faired hinges or drains, no funky wingtips, single-sided tailwheel links....nothing. But, it's OK if you figure this strange equality with the Big Dog motors is all due to the airframe. That view simply illustrates that any drag reduction is a lot cheaper than hot-rodding, with more reliability.
There are subtle differences, even when both dynos are perfectly accurate. For example, consider dynamic pressure. The prop reaction dyno in the first photo will show more peak HP than an identical engine will show on a water brake dyno. The prop dyno is pushing a strong stream of air at the horizontal intake, while the water brake dyno sits in a room full of still air. A nice little 145 knot breeze is good for an extra inch of manifold pressure at sea level.
Well if they use corrected or observed hp in these two cases, could be very different even if the dynos are calibrated accurately. In the auto world, we usually correct to 29.92, dry air and 59 or 60F.
Using uncorrected or observed hp to compare two different engines or two different dynos is apples to oranges and a waste of time.
In the example given (prop dyno with a horizontal intake vs a water brake dyno), corrected or observed would not change the comparison, assuming they both used one or the other. The engine on the prop dyno would still enjoy higher MP. Sure, a sharp observer would note the higher MP, but higher MP at the valve is the whole point of atmo engine intake tuning. It sure as heck isn't going to appear on most torque and HP graphs.
That said, yes, it's a safe bet that a lot of buyers, not understanding the difference, would talk about the best number they heard or saw, be it corrected or observed. To complicate the issue, some dyno software will make the correction, and some output observed only, thus requiring post-run correction by the operator.
Yes, most dyno's software packages are correcting for atmospheric differences so the experienced operator using a prop dyno should also be applying a correction for static MAP vs. actual MAP WOT. In this way, corrected hp should be the same on the 2 different dyno types on the same engine.
As a further thought, many dynos don't make correction for reduced exhaust back pressure at high altitude so if your one dyno was in Denver and the other near SL, corrected hp might not be quite the same on the same engine.
Absolutely, many engine builders and dyno operators love to show peak numbers and possibly even over corrected ones to impress the less well informed customer.
I really didn't care if a competitor claimed 315 hp (a peak value) on some dyno in California. If we spanked him down the straight, that was all that was required, regardless of dyno numbers.
I too have a Barrett IO 390 with a measely 212 HP. However I fly with many guys with Lycon 230+ HP engines. My 8 weighs 1134 empty and I weigh 290 lbs. So there is no weight advantage over the others. But when we go flat out I always move to the front. I have no drag mods like some do other that the 10 knot fuel drain fairings. (If I put on all the 10 knot mods on would I really have the speed of a glassair?) Horsepower is fun to look at but torque moves things. Lycon builds a good engine but I think their DYNO is there best salesman.
I have no drag mods like some do other that the 10 knot fuel drain fairings.