What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Is the 340 Stroker a fad???

cjensen

cjensen

Well Known Member
Is the 340 Stroker a fad that'll pass???

I've talked to several of the vendors about the engine, and they say they are selling a few, and James Ball of ECi, gave me a list of customers I could contact. The list wasn't long...

I have the mount for the 320 for my 7, but the 340 will work with this mount (probably with better WB results).

The reason I want to put this out there, is if I move ahead with the planning of the carb'd version 340, is it going to be around in two or three years when I can feasibly afford an engine?

I've talked to Larry Vetterman about an exhaust, I have Fred Felix working on the numbers for a prop for me, and these are items that I can afford to buy ahead of time without including them in the finance package for the engine and a few avionics. I think the engine will be around for quite a while, but I also have thoughts in my head that if I buy the exhaust, prop, etc...that I'll get news down the road that it's no longer available.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Robbie?
 
Last edited:
The prop

Chad,
I seriously considered the O340 for my RV-4 in the finishing stages. Especially since my O320D1A crank failed the overhaul inspection. The "Stroker" crank & rod package is about the same cost as the O320 replacement crank. I decided not to use the O340 purely based on prop selection. I wanted to keep my options open for prop changes in the future. If you want more horses, the O360 has a huge array of propeller options. I don't think the O340 is a fad because not that many folks are using them.
 
Chad,
Buy a mid-time 360 from Wentworth for about 12K when you are ready for it.
Not my idea.......Van's.
 
Yukon said:
Chad,
Buy a mid-time 360 from Wentworth for about 12K when you are ready for it.
Not my idea.......Van's.
Click to expand...

I bought the O-320 mount from Van's...can't return it, and I want either a 320 or 340...If I go with a 320, I will be talking to Wentworth, as well as a local guy here that overhauls engines for us at my FBO.

The 340 is appealing with this engine mount though because it's ever-so-slightly heavier than a 320, still lighter than a 360, and I think the WB will work out great.

Brian,
I may have used the wrong word in "fad"...I used it in the sense that since there are so few using it so far, that it will soon pass...:) I do think that the prop selection wouldn't be an issue. The O-340 is rated at 177hp stock with mags. Could 180hp be had with EI??? Maybe, but I think the props available would be the same for the O-360. I'm more worried about getting a prop pitched for 177-180hp, then finding out I can't get the 340, and my only option is the 320 because of my mount.

I bought the mount knowing this full well...:cool:
 
Doesn't ECI sell 320 kits? get one of those and assemble w/ help or have someone assemble it for you... I'd rather do that than Wentworth.. for about same money...
 
Radomir said:
Doesn't ECI sell 320 kits? get one of those and assemble w/ help or have someone assemble it for you... I'd rather do that than Wentworth.. for about same money...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been talking to Jesse Robinson at A.E.R.O. in Stock about the ECi kits as well. Yes, they do have 320 and 340 kits for $12-13k. Great deals, and since I work at an FBO, I have many A&P friends to help me build it. Lots of planning routes floating thru my head...:)
 
Chad, I looked long and hard at the IO-240 also, but gave it up after finding the only way I could get one was with 9.5 c/r pistons. After my experiences of owning a '63 VW Beetle upgraded to a 1500 transporter engine with super heads & pistons (8.5 c/r) and a 1966 Porsche 912 with 9.3 c/r pistons, I won't build or buy an acft engine with anything greater than 8.7 c/r pistons.

You're probably wondering why?

Well, the bug was extremely anemic until after the aforementioned upgrade. Afterwards, it was a SCREAMING TIGER! Plus, it wasn't a problem to keep in tune.

The Porsche, even though it's compression ratio had been downgraded from the Super 90's 9.5 pistons to 9.3 to improve driveability, was still finiky, & required considerably more attention, unless you could run it hard. That was just not an option in the flatlands around Houston. :(

Therefore I prefer the combination of power when desired plus docility and reliability when desired offered by the lower 8.5 c/r engine, both in my automobile as well as aircraft engines. :) Caveat: This applies to AIR COOLED engines only.

Another thing to look at Chad, is the weight difference between IO-320, 340, & 360 engines. It really isn't all that much. Plus, the '360 has a slightly greater volumetric efficiency, POSSIBLY yielding slight fuel consumption advantages.

A couple of resources that have been particularly helpful in my acft engine research are:
1. Jack Norris' "Logic of Flight" & "Propellers" combo book
2. Sea and Sky Aviation Engines Page webpage, &
3. these forum's, especially Paul Lippes' comments.

Hope your choices enable you to fly long, safely, and enjoyably. Joe
 
Joel said:
<snip>Another thing to look at Chad, is the weight difference between IO-320, 340, & 360 engines. It really isn't all that much. Plus, the '360 has a slightly greater volumetric efficiency, POSSIBLY yielding slight fuel consumption advantages.<snip>
Click to expand...

Trust me (others can verify), I've researched engines until my head was about to explode...I'm down to two, the 320 or the 340.

The problem with weight being a valid point, is there is no real magic number available. Yes, okay, the 320 might be lighter than the 340, and the 340 might be lighter than the 360. How much lighter? No two people can give the same answer because there's too much variation in installed weight. The engine itself, yeah, that can be a hard number, but at 8-10 lbs spread between them on average, an O-320 with mags and a heavy starter could weigh as much as an O-360 with dual EI and a lightweight starter. I am trying to build as light as possible, hence the 320 or 340 engine.

Anyway, as I've said before, I cannot use a 360 due to the mount I ordered.:)

Back to the 340...is it going to be around for a while???

:cool:
 
Joel said:
Chad, I looked long and hard at the IO-240 (340?) also, but gave it up after finding the only way I could get one was with 9.5 c/r pistons.
Click to expand...

Just a small technical correction...the pistons are 9.0:1, but you're right, that's the only way to get the 340. 100LL only.:rolleyes:
 
cjensen said:
Trust me (others can verify), I've researched engines until my head was about to explode...
Click to expand...


I thought it did? I swore I heard a popping sound NE of STL one day...Must have been a Subie turbo going T.U. Glad to hear you're okay!:D:D

Joe
 
Not trying to talk you into or out of anything, there all good, just an honest question. What is different about the 320 and 360 mount? I have an RV-4 and build the mounts for the -4 and the 360 and 320 use the same mount so how is it different on a -7. As I said, just asking.

Russ
 
Russ,
Because the O-320 is lighter Van has made 2 mounts for the -7. The O-320 mount is longer, as is the cowling.
 
Just to point out,

I have the O-320 mount and an O-320. It will absolutely fit the O-360. As I understand it, the new tapered fin cylinders on an O-360 make it a match in weight for an O-320, assuming that both are new engines. The new kit engines use the same case for both, and as a result the new 320's are heavier than some of the older 320's. The earlier 320's had different castings, which, while perfectly durable were lighter, some of them are listed as less than 250 lbs from lycoming.

I have an O-360 RV-7 right next to my 320, and I can tell you that it would be really easy to use an O-360 on the mount. If you are using a lightweight prop, it might make alot of sense to do it. You will need the correct cowl, either the 320 cowl from Van's which will fit but will require you to use vertical induction, or the Sam James cowl, which will require the long cowl, not the shorty, and will require a 4.125" dimension between the flywheel and back of the prop spinner. To accomplish this with a hartzell, you would need a 2"spacer. With a fixted pitch sensenich, their 4" spacer will work, as will any 4" spacer with a wood or Catto prop.

I personally like the extra room behind the engine, and with the James cowl, the extended hub prop, and the 320 mount, I think it gives my plane a nice long nosed look. JMHO

With the O-320 mount, you can eliminate the Firewall recess, (assuming jihostroj style governor). This would allow some movement of the heat flapper placement, and frankly if you put the flappers on iether side of the footwell, and eliminate the recess, the center tunnel would become an almost unlimited wire routing conduit.

Alot of options to think about now that you have the long mount. Remember that the 320 and 360 are exactly the same length. The 360 measures about 1/2" wider on each side at the front.

I often have thought that if I did it again, and I wanted to make progress while saving money...who doesn't...I would buy a 320 from wentworth with a good case, good sump, good accessory case, but no rods or pistons, enough of a junk crank to have a crank flange for mock up, and 4 junk cylinders. Could probably get it for $2,000. I would loosely assembly these parts, mount it, and mock up the whole FWF, cowl, etc. Then I would buy the stroker kit, which for $3400 gets you crank, rods, and pistons, and put the engine together. You could buy new dual lightspeed, and new experimental RSA injection and have a new injected engine together for $12-13 thousand.

I will do it that way next time around because each chunk is still a few thousand, and I can get the thing darn near done, before laying out the big dough for the panel and final engine parts. Also, the approach of mocking it up, then finishing the parts off the airplane would probably make it nicer.

Soory for the rambling, already dreaming of the next build....pure insanity.
 
Jconard said:
Just to point out,
Click to expand...
Just had to go and do this, didn't ya...;)

Jconard said:
I have the O-320 mount and an O-320. It will absolutely fit the O-360. As I understand it, the new tapered fin cylinders on an O-360 make it a match in weight for an O-320, assuming that both are new engines. The new kit engines use the same case for both, and as a result the new 320's are heavier than some of the older 320's. The earlier 320's had different castings, which, while perfectly durable were lighter, some of them are listed as less than 250 lbs from lycoming.
Click to expand...
This is actually pretty interesting. I hadn't thought at all about the tapered fins making the O-360 lighter. Light is what I am after with the 320/340 idea...360 as light? May have to look at it again...:eek:

Jconard said:
I have an O-360 RV-7 right next to my 320, and I can tell you that it would be really easy to use an O-360 on the mount. If you are using a lightweight prop, it might make alot of sense to do it. You will need the correct cowl, either the 320 cowl from Van's which will fit but will require you to use vertical induction, or the Sam James cowl, which will require the long cowl, not the shorty, and will require a 4.125" dimension between the flywheel and back of the prop spinner. To accomplish this with a hartzell, you would need a 2"spacer. With a fixted pitch sensenich, their 4" spacer will work, as will any 4" spacer with a wood or Catto prop.
Click to expand...
Makes sense...they are both Dynafocal I mounts. I will be using a Felix BiCambered prop that weighs all of 13lbs, and I planned all along to use the SJ cowl. Liz told me that I would need the long cowl even with the 320, so no change there. I have to use a spacer anyway for the 320...hmmm...

Jconard said:
I personally like the extra room behind the engine, and with the James cowl, the extended hub prop, and the 320 mount, I think it gives my plane a nice long nosed look. JMHO
Click to expand...
I like that look too...that's one reason I wanted the SJ cowl.

Jconard said:
With the O-320 mount, you can eliminate the Firewall recess, (assuming jihostroj style governor). This would allow some movement of the heat flapper placement, and frankly if you put the flappers on iether side of the footwell, and eliminate the recess, the center tunnel would become an almost unlimited wire routing conduit.
Click to expand...
Won't have a governor with the Felix prop...and I already have the flat plate to take the place of the recess (from back in the Subie days...:rolleyes:)

Jconard said:
Alot of options to think about now that you have the long mount. Remember that the 320 and 360 are exactly the same length. The 360 measures about 1/2" wider on each side at the front.
Click to expand...
HHHHMMMM....

Jconard said:
Soory for the rambling, already dreaming of the next build....pure insanity.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you rambled...throws that option in the basket again...

:cool:
 
Other Options

Don't worry about getting an O-320 to put out 175 to 180 horsepower if the O-340 is no longer viable. You can put angle valve jugs on the O-320 with standard 160 HP pistons and make that kind of power. The cylinders were originally used on the GO-480 engine. I have that combination in my RV-6 with a Catto 3 blade and it runs great. Tops out at 200 mph with the old style wheel pants.
Ron Voss
N642R with 53 hours
 
ron voss said:
Don't worry about getting an O-320 to put out 175 to 180 horsepower if the O-340 is no longer viable. You can put angle valve jugs on the O-320 with standard 160 HP pistons and make that kind of power. The cylinders were originally used on the GO-480 engine. I have that combination in my RV-6 with a Catto 3 blade and it runs great. Tops out at 200 mph with the old style wheel pants.
Ron Voss
N642R with 53 hours
Click to expand...
Sounds like it works great...I would assume (I know) that using angle valve cylinders will up the weight???

N395V said:
Ain't it great to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...
It sure is Milt! The light is somewhat dim...but it's nice to be at this point!
 
bicambered prop?

Chad,
Have not heard of the Felix bicambered prop. Can you tell me more about it?
Do they make one for an RV-4/0-320? Do they sell retail? I went to their website and couldn't tell exactly what they are offering. Any info??
 
Sure Dave! The BiCambered Technology website is just an overview of that airfoil (which has a ton of info once you get in to it). I've been talking directly with Fred Felix about my prop. He will make a prop to suite your needs, and he's made lots of RV-4/320 props. Here's his email-
[email protected]

cross-section-chart.gif


Also, here's some info I copied and pasted from the word documents he sent me...couple RV-4/320's in there-

Propellers Inc
10433 S. Leisure Drive
Hazelhurst, WI 54531 Phone & Fax: (715) 356-6856 or (800) 776-7357
USA e-mail: [email protected]

LEARN MORE ABOUT BICAMBERED? AIRFOILS AT: www.bicambertechnology.com
MORE BITE ? LESS BARK

Felix Propellers Inc supplies BicamberedTM (quiet) propellers developed under license with Bicamber Technology LLC. This airfoil substantially reduces prop noise, increases thrust efficiency and is remarkably smooth. This new design enhances our reputation for the smoothest operating propellers customers have experienced.
Our mission is to provide propellers that exceed all others in; smoothness, quietness and efficient performance.

Excerpts from user reports:


Cygnet, 2,000 cc - 67 HP Volkswagen. There is much less noise at any power setting. Take-off roll is 1/3 shorter. Same top speed delivered at 50 RPM more. Climb is 800?/min., increased 300?/min. This is the smoothest running prop of the six I have had on my aircraft. Z.B. Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

Bucker Jungmann, Lycoming IO-360, 200 HP. More acceleration, better roll -out, improved rotation performance. Slightly quieter in cockpit, quieter from ground. Snaps better, increased vertical performance. T.M. White, GA

RV-6, Lycoming O-360, 180 HP. Better thrust at low RPM. Cruise prop ? hard time to get to 2,700 RPM. Lower cockpit noise; lower noise on ground ? when taxiing, etc. R.N. Prescott, AZ

CM-30 Longeze ? Lycoming O-360, 220 HP. Two blade Bicambered? Felix Propeller compared to competitor?s 3 blade - Better climb, 13 MPH more top end at 250 RPM?s less. Manifold pressure down at all RPM?s, fuel economy improved for 130 knots extra range, much quieter and very smooth running.
W. Clark, Daytona Beach, FL

RV-4, Lycoming O-320, 160 HP. Better performance than previous prop. Lower noise in cockpit, quieter from the ground. More static thrust. The ground run is shorter. R.B. Stroudsburg, PA

Here are typical comments from customers for standard airfoil Felix Propellers for several types of homebuilt aircraft.

RV-6, Lycoming O-360, 180 HP. I am impressed in your propeller it runs very smooth and I really like it. TAS, 201 @ 2.700 RPM, 8.500' MSL. Climb from brake release to 5,000 ft at 105 MPH - 3 min. 13 sec. M.J., Ostervala, Sweden

Cassutt, Continental, O-200, 100 HP. Following is a performance report on the 58 X 72 prop that you built for me. Static RPM 2,300. The prop is performing very well. It runs a little smoother than the 60 X 66 (other make prop) it replaced. The rate of climb is about 150 - 200 FPM better. Take offs also seem to be better although I don't have any exact number for that. Top speed and cruise speeds at the same MP are about the same. but RPM is 150 - 200 less, - what I wanted. ROC 1,400 FPM @ 1,000' to 3,000' density altitude. Max speed 207 MPH, 3,125 RPM 27" MP, 2,500 pressure altitude. R.G., Pella, Iowa

Flybaby, Continental, C-85. My cousin and I thank you very much for making a great prop that exceeds our expectations and performance requirements. Static - 2,100, top speed - 115 to 120 MPH @ 2,500 RPM. C.R. St. Paul, MN

Lancair 320, Lycoming O-320 modified, 168 HP. Static RPM 2,000, but can't hold long with brakes, 3 to 4 seconds and it starts moving. Never saw an airplane engine run so smoothly. G.M., Covington, VA

Thorp T-18, Lycoming O-320, 160 HP. Static 1,900 RPM @ 28" MP. IAS Cruise, 165 MPH, @ 2,200 RPM, @ 22" MP. IAS max, 190 MPH @ 2,500 RPM, 25" MP. Climb 1,400'/min @ 110 MPH, 1,500' MSL. Compared to previous prop, climb with Felix prop is slightly improved, cruise improved 7 - 9 MPH. Felix prop is much smoother. This is about the most vibration free aircraft I have flown in 9,000 hours of piston engine aircraft time. I have flown in rain several times and leading edge shows no sign of erosion. Appearance is like fine quality furniture. Looks great and flies great. I am building another aircraft and a Felix propeller will be my first choice. Fuel economy has improved from 8.5 - 9.0 GPH to 7.5 GPH T.O., Lakeland, MN

Wittman Tailwind, Lycoming O-235C, 108 HP. Static 2,250 RPM @ 28"MP. IAS cruise 155 MPH, 2,500 RPM. IAS max, 3,000' MSL, 168 MPH, 2,700 RPM, 26"MP. Climb 1,000'/min @ 100 MPH, 3,000' MSL. RPM at 100 MPH on climbout was 2,300, picked up another 75 RPM when leaning. Speed runs done at 1,110# take off weight. Felix prop smoother running, max RPM's 100 higher. Prop was carved with an excellent finish. Very smooth propeller delivered as promised. I have 25 hours on prop now. D.A., Dayton, Ohio

Pietenpol Aircamper, Model A Ford, 45 HP. Cruise 71 MPH @1,800 RPM. Picked up 6 or 7 MPH. Climb out RPM 2,000, same as before, but climb is improved. Smooth running at all RPM's. D.R., Warrens, WI

LongeZe, Lycoming O-360, 180 HP. Static RPM 2,300 @ 25" MP. TAS cruise, 190-195 MPH, at 5,500' MSL, 2,600 RPM @ 20"MP. TAS max 205-210 MPH, at 5,500', 2,800 RPM @ 24.5"MP. Climb 1,800'/min., 90 MPH, 3,200' MSL. Felix prop gives better take-off, climb, engine and prop smooth at all RPM's. H.E.C., Pampa, TX

RV-4, Lycoming O-320, 150 HP. Static RPM 2,250. IAS cruise 150 MPH (GPS reading 175MPH). IAS max 155 MPH (GPS reading 182 MPH). Both at 6,000' MSL altitude, and at 2,500 and 2,700 RPM respectively. The Felix propeller is superior in overall performance and smoothness, compared with (other make prop) I was using before. The workmanship on the Felix prop was excellent, fit of the hub was good. Being a machinist, I do appreciate the precision workmanship of the Felix prop. My RV-4 is smoother than it was before, and the performance is better. B.G., Trona, CA
Click to expand...
 
Have you checked CG

cjensen said:
Trust me I am trying to build as light as possible, hence the 320 or 340 engine.
Click to expand...
Does the RV-7, 320 engine mount extend further than a 360? Did not know that. On the RV-7 it needs the engine hung out further. The only RV-7 I found with a 320 had a metal sensenich. The CG was not too bad. Prop wt. has a little more affect on CG than the engine. If you go light prop & engine, you kind of mess your self up CG wise. Have you looked at RV-7 CG scenarios with a light engine/prop combo? It really restricts baggage and ability to do two-up aerobatics. You can save weight in other places. If you save 10 lbs on an engine and load the panel, upholstery and equip up than its moot. The 320/Sensenich RV-7 was not a lot lighter than many some 360/hartzell C/S RV-7's. 320 v 360 weight is not much different as Wood v Metal props (for guys that made it light else where).

Ref: http://www.rvproject.com/wab/
 
Last edited:
Hey George,

Yeah, I've messed around with all kinds of scenario's for W&B with Dan's calculator, and Walter's Excel calculator.

The 320 RV-7 mount is 2" longer than the 360 standard mount. With a light prop, a Saber spacer, and the longer mount, it comes out okay for most situations. I am designing a smoke system to go on the FW for more weight up front. I also will have a fairly spartan panel, but will have a Sportsman interior in cloth. A polished "warbird" theme paint design in also in the works to keep off weight rearward.

What I have considered lately, is a 360 on the long mount with the light prop. I'm running in to issues with the cowl fitting now with that idea...see my other thread in the 7/7A section on SJ cowls...
 
cjensen said:
I've talked to several of the vendors about the engine, and they say they are selling a few, and James Ball of ECi, gave me a list of customers I could contact. The list wasn't long...

I have the mount for the 320 for my 7, but the 340 will work with this mount (probably with better WB results).

The reason I want to put this out there, is if I move ahead with the planning of the carb'd version 340, is it going to be around in two or three years when I can feasibly afford an engine?

I've talked to Larry Vetterman about an exhaust, I have Fred Felix working on the numbers for a prop for me, and these are items that I can afford to buy ahead of time without including them in the finance package for the engine and a few avionics. I think the engine will be around for quite a while, but I also have thoughts in my head that if I buy the exhaust, prop, etc...that I'll get news down the road that it's no longer available.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Robbie?
Click to expand...
Chad, I just came across this thread tonight. I don't know why I did not see it earlier. I guess there have been too many things running through my head of late. Anyway, I am planning on the ECI IO-340 in my plane. I have been talking with America's Aircraft Engines for about 2 years now. I plan to have them build the engine when the time comes. They have talked to me about the 360 vs the 340 and I am of the same mind as you. The weight is the issue for me. Since my airplane is the 9A not the 7A there is some concern about putting the fuel injected 360 on my plane. I have felt the stroked 340 was the best fit. I do not know of too many flying in any aircraft though. I would love to talk with others who know any about this engine in flying aircraft.

Radomir said:
Doesn't ECI sell 320 kits? get one of those and assemble w/ help or have someone assemble it for you... I'd rather do that than Wentworth.. for about same money...
Click to expand...
I have also been thinking about the ECI 320. Whatever engine, I have made my mind up to go with the FI though.

cjensen said:
Just a small technical correction...the pistons are 9.0:1, but you're right, that's the only way to get the 340. 100LL only.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is really the only negative in my mind for this engine. The 9.0:1 ratio lends itself toward worrying about fuel selection. I do not like the idea of having to use 100LL for various reasons. I am not completely opposed to it for any specific reasons but there is the issue of what will happen if it goes away. Also I think about the issue of price. I would much rather burn high octane mogas but this engine has some manufacturer restrictions on doing that.

So far it has not been enough to convince me not to go this route but it is a legitimate concern of mine. One thing about the higher compression. My plans are for this plane to be a cruiser. For me that means getting up to altitude setting power at about 55% - 65% then leaning out to optimal fuel burn and engine performance. At that point I will just let it run steady until ready to come down. From my limited knowledge on the subject I think this will work good with this engine.

Any thoughts on any of my above comments you can share from your research?
 
...it's an experimental engine, isn't it?

if 100LL becomes too expensive, a 0.034" shim under each of the jugs will drop the CR down to 8.5:1. Can't be an impossible task, surely?

A

(RV-8, also keen on IO-340 option)
 
RVbySDI said:
<snip>I do not know of too many flying in any aircraft though. I would love to talk with others who know any about this engine in flying aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's the big problem I have...no one to talk to about flying examples.

RVbySDI said:
I have also been thinking about the ECI 320. Whatever engine, I have made my mind up to go with the FI though.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna stick with a 320, though I am leaning FI now. With cold air induction, it should put out about 165hp, and the SJ cowl should help cruise speeds as well. I'll probably stick with AFP FI though...I don't want to plumb return lines required for the ECI FI system.

RVbySDI said:
This is really the only negative in my mind for this engine. The 9.0:1 ratio lends itself toward worrying about fuel selection. I do not like the idea of having to use 100LL for various reasons. I am not completely opposed to it for any specific reasons but there is the issue of what will happen if it goes away. Also I think about the issue of price. I would much rather burn high octane mogas but this engine has some manufacturer restrictions on doing that.
Click to expand...
Yep...another reason I keep coming back to the 320 with 8.5:1 CR.

RVbySDI said:
So far it has not been enough to convince me not to go this route but it is a legitimate concern of mine. One thing about the higher compression. My plans are for this plane to be a cruiser. For me that means getting up to altitude setting power at about 55% - 65% then leaning out to optimal fuel burn and engine performance. At that point I will just let it run steady until ready to come down. From my limited knowledge on the subject I think this will work good with this engine.
Click to expand...
I think so too! The 340 IS a great idea...I just want to see it in practice before I'd be ready to commit to it...
 
Seth,

Which cowl are you using with a throttle body? I'm still beating myself in the head over FI/Carb...:rolleyes:
 
similar ideas

Chad and Seth,

It sounds like we are all looking at similar setups. Here is what my plans are for my RV9A:

ECI IO-340
ECI throttle body fuel injection
cold air induction
Sam James Cowl
Sam James Plenum
Vetterman tuned exhaust
one mag
one Light Speed Electronic ignition
Catto three blade prop
Plane Power 60 amp alternator

I have ordered my finish kit from Van's with the Dynafocal I engine mount for the 320. I have requested from Van's that they delete the fiberglass cowl as I am using the James cowl instead. Van's tells me they have a ship date of March 10th for the finish kit.

I have already plumbed the return line in the right fuel tank and am working on the left fuel tank now. If you are holding off on not doing this because of the work involved I would say do it. ECI has some very good detailed instructions on installing the return lines. You can download them from their website http://www.eci2fly.com/exp/kitEngine_exp.aspx

I am planning to use the Andair dual line fuel valve to return fuel to the appropriate tank. I have not started on any plumbing from the tank to the engine yet.

As mentioned earlier, I have not heard from anyone who is already flying this setup so it sounds like I might be somewhat of a pioneer. I do think it will be a good one though.

Seth, your ideas about burning Mogas in high compression engines is interesting to me. I have had experience with autos with higher compression (10.0:1) burning 87 octane without issues.

Lest, the naysayers see this and head down the road of detonation and the such, please use another thread for that. I am very aware of those dangers and risks but do not wish to have this thread bogged down with that topic.
​

I also think that there are some other choices for fuel selection with a 9.0:1 compression. Any input about any of the above is appreciated.
 
It's my understanding that once you put the ECI CAI on you can not go back to a standard intake. If this is true i would not want to be locked in to something that has been through limited real world testing.

Can anyone confirm this?
 
10:1 and mogas

lcnmrv8r said:
I'm also looking at some other performance parts for the engine. I'm going 10:1 with a cam to match, flow the heads, and vetterman exhaust.
I plan to use mogas as much as possible even with the compression. I've run compressions higher than that on mogas and am not that concerned. I know most won't agree with that but my experience tells me otherwise. .
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if this was a water cooled engine but being as it is aircooled (the assumption being that its easier to get hotspots) and detonation is basically a function of temperature, then I think the risk factors are going up.

not saying it won't work and maybe you have specific experience here but I would be cautious in this area if you are basing your knowledge on automotive experience..

If you know it will work fine then cool...It means i can run rehular instead of premium...:)

Cheers

Frank IO360 (8.5:1 mogas!)
 
I just got my IO-340S kit from ECi via A.E.R.O (Jesse) last week. It took almost 2 hours to do my inventory of the parts. I to also have a small voice telling me to worry about 100LL, however in the grand scheme, I am not worried enough to not get the added HP in about the same package as a 320.
One important note, I created a parts list of every item ECi had in the kit. There are very few unique parts that make this a 340 vs a 320. The crank, cam and connecting rods come to mind. Every other part is a FAA/PMA part (with the info on each box/bag). This tells me they are all 320 parts. Although not cheap, this 340 can be converted back to a 320 with the replacement of the crank, cam and rods. Granted, this may not be cheap, but down the road it can be done.

Regards,

Henry
 
cjensen said:
I've talked to several of the vendors about the engine, and they say they are selling a few, and James Ball of ECi, gave me a list of customers I could contact. The list wasn't long...

I have the mount for the 320 for my 7, but the 340 will work with this mount (probably with better WB results).

The reason I want to put this out there, is if I move ahead with the planning of the carb'd version 340, is it going to be around in two or three years when I can feasibly afford an engine?

I've talked to Larry Vetterman about an exhaust, I have Fred Felix working on the numbers for a prop for me, and these are items that I can afford to buy ahead of time without including them in the finance package for the engine and a few avionics. I think the engine will be around for quite a while, but I also have thoughts in my head that if I buy the exhaust, prop, etc...that I'll get news down the road that it's no longer available.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Robbie?
Click to expand...

Chad, I think the more flying 340 stroker engines that we have out there the more popular they will continue to get. They do have less stress and are a smoother running engine so I think they will gain more popularity as more pilots fly behind them and report good things. As far as buying stuff long before your are ready for it, I would wait until I need it, something new may come along. And I do think the 340 stroker is here to stay. Good Luck, Robbie
 
Last edited:
Thanks Robbie! I'll keep an eye on it, as it definitely sounds like a good option at 177hp for the carb'd version. My prop can be repitched if need be. I've already talked to Fred about that, so I went ahead with the order for a prop.

:cool:
 
Smoooooooooth baby

robbieattaway said:
They do have less stress and are a smoother running engine.Robbie
Click to expand...
Why do they have less stress or what kind of stress are we talking about? What is the high time ECI 340 engine? I once stroked a Chevy 350 V8, making it a 383; it was a nice engine.
Indycanard;;199877 said:
I to also have a small voice telling me to worry about 100LL, however in the grand scheme, I am not worried enough to not get the added HP in about the same package as a 320.
Click to expand...
As long as you have enough money to buy it, there will be 100LL gas for good awhile, I think. 100LL might (who knows) become more rare if/when we go to 95UL or 98UL, which is coming at somepoint. Last I heard, about 20% of the total current GA fleet needs 100LL. My O360 (8.5:1cr) will run on 95/98. I guess you can always cut the timing back a few degrees. This allows lower octan but also causes loss of power, booo. :D

I just filled my car's gas tank & broke the $60 mark. Yea!? :rolleyes: The local big airport 100LL price just hit $6.29 (where's the cry emoticon). Fortunately the GA airport is holding at $4.49. Just remember there's always the throttle & mixture control, use them. I'd think the higher compression 340 stroker 177HP will get as good or better spacific fuel burn than a 360 180hp Lyc.
 
Last edited:
Stroker 340 - less stress?

robbieattaway said:
They do have less stress and are a smoother running engine. Robbie
Click to expand...

I'm with George on this one. What do you mean they have less stress? Are you talking torsional vibration, stress on the pistons, cylinders, rods . . . . and less stress than what? I would like you to give a response with information that can be digested, analysed and validated.
 
Stress

I'm sorry, I should have said dynamic stress on the crank as measured with a strain gauge test conducted by Jimmy Tubbs VP of Engineering at ECi. I do talk to Jimmy regularly and this is what he had told me about the test that they do on new engines. I am just repeating what Jimmy said. If you would like an explanation of this test, to resolve your indigestion, and questions, I would suggest you call Jimmy at ECi. He can elaborate on engine strain gauge testing and how to determine if it is a smooth running engine. I can only determine what a smooth engine is by flying an airplane that has one.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Robbie. No indigestion, just like to see data to back up those kinds of statements. Happy to contact Jimmy, and with his permission will post his response here.

Thanks again!
 
340 Vibration Testing

Jimmy Tubbs responded to my email regarding strain gauge testing from last week with the following response, posted with his permission.

Rhonda: Good to hear from you. How is Monty? In answer to your question, we have conducted vibration testing, and the 340 engine balances out with almost no balance washers. We have run-in a number of them on the test stand, and also on airplanes, and the effort to balance is almost nil. The smoothness of the engine in the test cell and in the air is very noticeable, but that is not scientific!

We are conducting more sophisticated instrumented vibration testing, and I will let you know when that is completed and what we find.
Click to expand...

This is prop balancing, not strain gauge testing. The washer corrections deal with the fundamental frequency or 1 per rev. Strain gauge testing measures the torsional inputs between the engine and prop. Strain gauge testing as required by the FAA for certification is generally considered a minimum test of torsional stress by most "think tank" engineering standards. The gauge is placed forward of the slinger. This is not really an ideal location because this area is not nitrided and is more ductile than the rest of the crankshaft. As you move further down the crank, the crankshaft becomes more rigid. This is why counterweights are put at the end of the crankshaft. Editing note: I should have said this is why they use dampeners on the crankshaft - to reduce twist.

As a side note, you will not feel how smooth an engine is relative to crankshaft vibration during flight. C/S vibration/twist occurs at the sixth order, meaning that it is at 6 times the engine speed. So for easy math sake, let's say you're spinning the crankshaft at 2000 rpm, that means the vibrations would occur 12,000 times per minute, and no one will feel that.
 
Last edited:
rgbewley said:
Jimmy Tubbs responded to my email regarding strain gauge testing from last week with the following response, posted with his permission.



This is prop balancing, not strain gauge testing. The washer corrections deal with the fundamental frequency or 1 per rev. Strain gauge testing measures the torsional inputs between the engine and prop. Strain gauge testing as required by the FAA for certification is generally considered a minimum test of torsional stress by most "think tank" engineering standards. The gauge is placed forward of the slinger. This is not really an ideal location because this area is not nitrided and is more ductile than the rest of the crankshaft. As you move further down the crank, the crankshaft becomes more rigid. This is why counterweights are put at the end of the crankshaft. Editing note: I should have said this is why they use dampeners on the crankshaft - to reduce twist.

As a side note, you will not feel how smooth an engine is relative to crankshaft vibration during flight. C/S vibration/twist occurs at the sixth order, meaning that it is at 6 times the engine speed. So for easy math sake, let's say you're spinning the crankshaft at 2000 rpm, that means the vibrations would occur 12,000 times per minute, and no one will feel that.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. Thanks for the input.

So to address the issue of anyone stating their 320 is smoother than another guy's 320, we can infer that any comments are going to be a subjective comment no matter which builder states it then? Or, if a stroked 340 is smoother than a comparably powered 320 or 360. If this is true, how could anyone determine with any measure of meaning whether one engine manufacturer's engine is "smoother" than another?

Of course I do understand the issue of adding more cylinders to smooth out the pulses and all that. However, the issue of comparing like to like engines, or at least engines with the same number of cylinders and similar HP ratings sounds like a marketer's statement not an engineer's statement.
 
340 Stroker kit contents to convert from 320

The 340 stroker kit contents on the ECI website are as follows:

1 - Crankshaft Assy 4.125 Stroke 340 series

4 - Piston 5.125 diameter 7.2:1 Compression Ratio

4 - Connecting Rod Assy 340 stroker series

Henry - Are you sure the camshaft is different from the standard 320?

I believe the cylinders are for a narrow deck case.

You guys got me wondering if it would be worthwhile or possible to covert my 0320 D3G core over to a 340. My case is a wide deck. The piston diameter is the same though. Is it worth $4000 for 10 horsepower?

Thanks,
 
SB-505

Fearless said:
.....
You guys got me wondering if it would be worthwhile or possible to covert my 0320 D3G core over to a 340. My case is a wide deck. The piston diameter is the same though. Is it worth $4000 for 10 horsepower?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

It certainly would be if your O-320 crank fails the SB-505 corrosion inspection...:)

gil A
 
Good point Gil

If I have to replace the crank then it would be a wash but the IA who looked at the crank when I tore the engine down thought we are ok. I do intend to have it magnafluxed for piece of mind before the engine goes back together.
 
Fearless said:
The 340 stroker kit contents on the ECI website are as follows:

1 - Crankshaft Assy 4.125 Stroke 340 series

4 - Piston 5.125 diameter 7.2:1 Compression Ratio

4 - Connecting Rod Assy 340 stroker series

Henry - Are you sure the camshaft is different from the standard 320?

I believe the cylinders are for a narrow deck case.

You guys got me wondering if it would be worthwhile or possible to covert my 0320 D3G core over to a 340. My case is a wide deck. The piston diameter is the same though. Is it worth $4000 for 10 horsepower?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

I stand corrected...the camshaft in the Kit is ECi part number AEL100-1, which is the camshaft and lifters together as a kit. The applicability from the ECi website shows the kit effective for 320/360. The 340S isn't listed. Probably because the 340 does not need PMA parts, therefore why add the 340 on the PMA applicability list for the camshaft kit.
The cylinders in my kit are part number TISN04.0X18SA. The ECi site shows these are 320 cylinders.

As I mentioned earlier, only a small (but $$$) number of parts are unique. I could use almost all the parts on a 320. Actually, almost all the parts had lot #s and PMA #s on the boxes (except for the crank and maybe one or two other parts) The kit is very complete, and filled two shelves in my work area. I haven't started to build yet, as I am rounding up misc parts, oils tools and figuring out what kind of paint (and where to buy) for the case and cylinders, which are bare.

Henry
 
Smooth and no stress

Thanks for the input. So the IO-340 is smooth running. Lesson learned is any engine you can get to run as smooth as possible by balancing a prop or induction pays off in less stress to everything, especially accessories, baffles, air boxes.......airframe.

SO IF YOU FLY AN AIR RACE, and there is a 160HP/320 cu-in "red class" and a 180HP/360 cu-in "blue class", what class do you fly in, if you have 170HP/340 cu-in engine? Hummmm :D
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
SO IF YOU FLY AN AIR RACE, and there is a 160HP/320 cu-in "red class" and a 180HP/360 cu-in "blue class", what class do you fly in, if you have 170HP/340 cu-in engine? Hummmm :D
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the classes are "320/360 cu-in or less" . So I suppose that a 340 would have to run the the 360 "blue class".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top