WANT TO JOIN THE SHORT WING PIPER CLUB?


Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: 0-290 or 0-320?????

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Dalles
    Posts
    244

    Default 0-290 or 0-320?????

    I don't want to start a war or anything, but I have been told to stay away from the 290 engine because it is not supported by Lyc. and parts are very expensive. I am running around with cash in hand looking for a good Pacer without breaking the bank and am hearing two different stories. What is the opinion of all you VERY KNOWLEDGABLE short wingers?

  2. #2
    Student Pilot Guest

    Default

    Very interesting, read the post under this one. Any real disadvantages to the 290?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Spokane Wa.
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    When I went looking for the parts for the rebuild of my old 0290d, I found all the necessary parts to be available, but at a comparable price to the 0320.
    The cost of converting to the 0320 compaired to what I would gain in performance is what made my mind up in favor of staying with the 0290, 0290D2/135 hp.
    When I did my research, I found the 0290D2 to be about the best option as for the expense/performance ratio.
    I had a couple shortwinger I/A's tell me the 0290D2 was the highest horsepower per weight ratio that Lycoming ever built as well!
    Best wishes,
    Tom
    PS, you can still delete the first thread!!
    T
    Last edited by Tom T.; 03-01-2006 at 12:09 AM. Reason: added to

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds, AL.
    Posts
    711

    Default

    What a lot of people don't know is the O-290-D is rated 125 hp continuous 140 hp@ 2800 rpm 5 min takeoff. The higher compression O-290D2 is rated 135HP. I like both engines. The best running engine I have ever had was an experimental O-290D with D-2 pistons and a "hot" cam. (unfortunately with 7/16" valves one of wich broke off the head really unrelated to the hot rodding - all the valves were giving problems on 100ll instaes of 80 octane) This engine outperformed the O-320A I replaced it with. It was lighter, used less fuel, ran smoother, climbed better, and flew faster.
    That being said if I had two same priced aircraft, one with the O-290 and the othe with the O-320, I would go with the 150 HP, just because there are more out there now. If you are flying like most users a low time engine will out last your ownership of the plane. I have had my Pacer only 26 years so far and there is plenty of life left in the engine.

    J.D.

  5. #5
    joewcasey Guest

    Default

    I flew behind an O290D2 for quite a while that was hung on a C-140, and was always very pleased with how it performed, fuel burn and so on. The only thing that I didn't much care for was the oil consumption, which can be signifcantly higher due to the design. The technicalities of which I'm not too sure of. However, when I went looking for a shortwing, I liked the fact that the 135hp was a little less desireable, and therefore a bit less expensive, and I had such good luck with previous O290's that I was more than happy to lay down the money for my 1954 PA22-135. With the air/oil seperator, it's oil burn is much more reasonable (1 qt every 7-8 hours), but was surprised by the higher fuel burn. The first one O290 I flew would consistently rate about 6.5 gph, where this one burns a consistent 8 gph. I don't know if the fact that this one has a cruise prop on it has anything to do with that or not, considering I run it around 2300 rpm to keep it out of the yellow arc, where I used to run the other one at 2450 with a climb prop. However, what I've read in these pages suggests that the 8gph is reasonable. Long story short, I really like the O290 and would buy one all over again.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Spokane Wa.
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    The last couple of times this question was posed,the general consensus was that if you had the d2 pistons {by accident of course} the 0290d will outperform the 160 in every aspect. This is all just hersay and I personally have no basis for an opinion, but it was a very interesting topic about a year and a half ago. Some of the then contributers had actually made such mistakes and their claims were some what astonishing!! All of em' indicated having a valve problem with the 7/16 in. valves!
    I would like to see someone fess up and get the REAL STORY!
    Tom T.
    ps. There is also some sort of service bulletin regarding the valve adjustment at like, every 20-25 hrs, on the 125 hp 0290d engine. The 0290D2 had a different lifter set up. I am not a mechanic, so maybe one of you guys can jump in here about NOW!
    T.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    875

    Default

    The O-290D has solid lifters which should be adjusted periodically as does the O-235 C series..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Spokane Wa.
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce
    The O-290D has solid lifters which should be adjusted periodically as does the O-235 C series..
    Yea, I pretty much knew that, but I was afraid to step out on a limb! I gotta way of doing that dont cha know!
    Tom T.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds, AL.
    Posts
    711

    Default

    How about O-290D 125/140hp 230 lbs = .61HP/LB.
    Of course with all of the engines what counts is when you can get the power, at what RPM and airspeed. Where we really need it is usually take-off. A Pacer really doesn't need much help here except when heavy. The real problem with the 150 HP is the installed difference is about 20 lbs in the nose. This is not where the weight needs to be in a Pacer. The plane already has a tendency to be nose heavy, especially when you add vacuum pump, instruments, and radios up front. The trim losses with the nose heavy slow down the airplane. I would bet that there are a lot od planes that are out of CG forward when flown solo. I'll bet a lot of Pacers would benefit from the battery being moved back to the baggage or under rear seat area.
    I know my plane cruised faster with the O-290D. Similar cruise power % based on rpm from manual.

  10. #10
    Bev Jewett Guest

    Default

    I'm not an expert in aerodynamics but I think the HP of the o-290 better matches the airplane. Most people that fly Pacers with 150 HP complain that they almost run out of nose down trim at high speed cruise. This means that you are creating extra lift in the tail to keep the nose down. when you increase lift you must also increase overall drag so the airplane cruises less efficiently with the higher HP. IMHO

  11. #11
    pacer7497k Guest

    Default

    I havent seen anywhere in the owners manual where you can operate at 2800rpm in a Pacer. I dont think it matters what your engine data plate says...2600 is max when installed in a Pacer
    Last edited by pacer7497k; 03-05-2006 at 03:03 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds, AL.
    Posts
    711

    Default

    Since the operation of my O-320 is limited to max continuous 2550 rpm, 125 HP in the PA-20 (Crosswinds STC) then the power to weight would be 125/244=0.51 lb/hp.
    I don't know about other STC's out there. This does allow for more HP at takeoff and higher cruise power by flat rating the 150 hp. Quite often the FAA limits larger engines to rated power of the original engine. In this case the continuous limit is 125 HP. Also 75% power for the O-320 would be 112 HP. The max continuous rating of the O-320 engine (alone) is 150 hp @ 2700 RPM.
    J.D.

  13. #13
    pacer7497k Guest

    Default

    I think you guys are missing the point. I have a friend who has a 575hp engine installed in his Gullwing Stinson. He is allowed to use 450hp per this installation. You must follow the pilots operating handbook which spells out the operating limitations for your aircraft/ engine combination. I have not seen in my poh where you may run the engine at 2800 rpm. Yes, my data plate says the same thing yours does...but you cannot legally run there with this airframe and prop setup.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds, AL.
    Posts
    711

    Default

    You are correct in the POH stating maximum. That is why I said what I did about weight. The O-290D at 125 max continuous vs the heavier O-320 at 125Hp continuous.
    20 extra pounds in the nose just where you don't need it.
    Take off may be better, but for cruise? I don't know about that. I know it burns more fuel. I know my O-290 was faster. But then the restoration was also newer and the fairings were tighter.
    J.D.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    01TN Tennessee
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 13010
    Since the operation of my O-320 is limited to max continuous 2550 rpm, 125 HP in the PA-20 (Crosswinds STC) then the power to weight would be 125/244=0.51 lb/hp.
    I don't know about other STC's out there. This does allow for more HP at takeoff and higher cruise power by flat rating the 150 hp. Quite often the FAA limits larger engines to rated power of the original engine. In this case the continuous limit is 125 HP. Also 75% power for the O-320 would be 112 HP. The max continuous rating of the O-320 engine (alone) is 150 hp @ 2700 RPM.
    J.D.
    Why does the STC limit horsepower to 125?
    Is this normal for the STC's on the PA-20 and PA22's that were upgraded to O-320's?
    The field approval on my Clipper allows a full 2700 rpm/150 HP.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds, AL.
    Posts
    711

    Default

    I don't know why the Crosswind STC limits continuous power to 125 (2550). Takeoff is allowed to 150 (2700). My guess everybody just ignores the question. Also it is likely that as installed that is about what you can get out of it in real life and it makes little difference anyway. In my case I would rarely cruise over 2550 at low altitude and at 6-7000' you could not pull over 125 hp anyway.
    I don't know what other STC's allow as far as airframe HP. Many times the FAA will approve larger engines, but derate them to the TC'd horsepower knowing that nobody will really pay any attention, but it gets the FAA off the hook for approval. (assuming that there are any hooks that really apply to them).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Warwick ri
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I’m surprised that no one really picked up on prop efficiency, and max rpm for a prop, I’ve been told that a prop becomes very ineffective at the tips when they break the speed of sound, so effectively at a certain rpm your prop becomes smaller effectively the higher the rpm past its maximum rpm.. so hp being heavy, it becomes a burden or drag past a specific number, determined by your prop more so than your airframe

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

Home | Officers | Chapters | Members | Classifieds | Conventions