Aviation Forums Forum Index Aviation Forums
Aviation discussions newsgroups
 
Archives   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

LOM engines

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Aircraft Design & Building
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
buckey
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:35 am    Post subject: LOM engines Reply with quote



Anyone with any experience with LOM engines? I am considering the benefits
of a 170 HP LOM 332CE for use in a Mustang II which is rated for a
powerplant in the
O-320 to IO-360 range. LOM sounds like it might be "real airplane" without
the other-worldly prices commanded by Lycoming, Superior Millenium etc.

Any first hand experience here?




Back to top
Barnyard BOb --
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:34 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote




"buckey" wrote:

Quote:
Anyone with any experience with LOM engines? I am considering the benefits
of a 170 HP LOM 332CE for use in a Mustang II which is rated for a
powerplant in the
O-320 to IO-360 range. LOM sounds like it might be "real airplane" without
the other-worldly prices commanded by Lycoming, Superior Millenium etc.

Any first hand experience here?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Nope.
Just good used 2nd hand.


Banryard BOb --



Back to top
ChuckSlusarczyk
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:32 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

In article <em9upv4a67d77m9cr066pk54e7aqua62bt (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Barnyard BOb -- says...

Hey Unka Bob

Just curious,but what is a LOM 332 engine? I don't recall ever hearing of it.

Thanks
Chuck (I don't know everything) S




Quote:
"buckey" wrote:

Anyone with any experience with LOM engines? I am considering the benefits
of a 170 HP LOM 332CE for use in a Mustang II which is rated for a
powerplant in the
O-320 to IO-360 range. LOM sounds like it might be "real airplane" without
the other-worldly prices commanded by Lycoming, Superior Millenium etc.

Any first hand experience here?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nope.
Just good used 2nd hand.


Banryard BOb --




Back to top
guynoir
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:41 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

See Ayers RV-3:
http://www.aviator.cc/ayers.html


buckey wrote:
Quote:
Anyone with any experience with LOM engines? I am considering the benefits
of a 170 HP LOM 332CE for use in a Mustang II which is rated for a
powerplant in the
O-320 to IO-360 range. LOM sounds like it might be "real airplane" without
the other-worldly prices commanded by Lycoming, Superior Millenium etc.

Any first hand experience here?



--
John Kimmel
guyno**@teleport.com




















In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter -- bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."


Back to top
Kyle Boatright
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote


Try this link:

http://www.eaa.org/benefits/sportaviation/lomglastar0311.pdf

It is an article from the current Sport Aviation. The subject aircraft is a
LOM powered Glastar. According to the story, the owner is happy with the
installation.

KB


Back to top
Barnyard BOb --
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 8:50 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote



Quote:
Anyone with any experience with LOM engines? I am considering the benefits
of a 170 HP LOM 332CE for use in a Mustang II which is rated for a
powerplant in the
O-320 to IO-360 range. LOM sounds like it might be "real airplane" without
the other-worldly prices commanded by Lycoming, Superior Millenium etc.

Any first hand experience here?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nope.
Just good used 2nd hand.


Banryard BOb --


Quote:
Hey Unka Bob

Just curious,but what is a LOM 332 engine? I don't recall ever hearing of it.

Thanks
Chuck (I don't know everything) S
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This is 2nd hand, but it's a start.... <g>

http://www.weebeastie.com/hatzcb1/motorLOM.html
http://www.lompraha.cz/services.htm
http://mbarbee.home.mindspring.com/LOM%20history.htm
http://sbeaver.tzo.com/bucker/engines1.htm

Even in an RV-3.....
http://www.aviator.cc/ayers.html


Unka BOb -- RV3 driver

Back to top
ChuckSlusarczyk
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:31 pm    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

In article <amvupv8rd8ptfeoranh02kt6n5qri3h41a (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Barnyard BOb -- says...

Thanks Unka Bob I knew you'd know. It's a Walter engine I heard of Walter
engines but I never heard the term LOM for them. Mary Carlson of Carlson
Aviation has one in their Storch replica called a Cricket. I've seen it in their
plane. See I just learned something. Just like Sister Mary Pontius Pilot used to
say "keep your eyes open and your mouth shut and ya moght learn something" :-)

Thanks

Nefoo Chuck




Quote:
Hey Unka Bob

Just curious,but what is a LOM 332 engine? I don't recall ever hearing of it.

Thanks
Chuck (I don't know everything) S
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is 2nd hand, but it's a start....
Unka BOb -- RV3 driver


Back to top
Roger Halstead
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 7:35 pm    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

On 29 Oct 2003 05:31:19 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
<ChuckSlusarczyk_member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:
In article <amvupv8rd8ptfeoranh02kt6n5qri3h41a (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Barnyard BOb -- says...

Thanks Unka Bob I knew you'd know. It's a Walter engine I heard of Walter
engines but I never heard the term LOM for them. Mary Carlson of Carlson
Aviation has one in their Storch replica called a Cricket. I've seen it in their
plane. See I just learned something. Just like Sister Mary Pontius Pilot used to
say "keep your eyes open and your mouth shut and ya moght learn something" Smile

I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Quote:

Thanks

Nefoo Chuck




Hey Unka Bob

Just curious,but what is a LOM 332 engine? I don't recall ever hearing of it.

Thanks
Chuck (I don't know everything) S
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is 2nd hand, but it's a start....
Unka BOb -- RV3 driver


Back to top
Barnyard BOb --
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote



Quote:
Thanks Unka Bob I knew you'd know. It's a Walter engine I heard of Walter
engines but I never heard the term LOM for them. Mary Carlson of Carlson
Aviation has one in their Storch replica called a Cricket. I've seen it in their
plane. See I just learned something. Just like Sister Mary Pontius Pilot used to
say "keep your eyes open and your mouth shut and ya moght learn something" :-)

I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.

Roger Halstead
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


My normally aspirated 150 HP Lycoming is 7.0:1
for 80 octane while the 160 HP version is 8.5;1
requiring 100LL.

I suspect the 6.3:1 is to prevent detonation
when the turbo is at max boost at 100% power.
Effective compression with turbo boost likely
exceeds 7.3:1. Higher compression could
require water injection and/or higher octane
fuel to safely remain out of detonation range.

Air cooled engines require a lower compression
ratio than liquid cooled engines to insure detonation
is never achieved under any condition. That's what
I was told, anyway.

Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight


Back to top
ChuckSlusarczyk
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:26 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

In article <rg50qvg5jj1id9jeec2cnh3ncinm402q06 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Roger Halstead says...
Quote:
I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.

I guess they can also use lower octane fuel as well.

Chuck


Back to top
Larry Smith
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:50 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote


"ChuckSlusarczyk" <ChuckSlusarczyk_member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
In article <rg50qvg5jj1id9jeec2cnh3ncinm402q06 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Roger Halstead
says...
I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.

I guess they can also use lower octane fuel as well.

Chuck


6.3 to 1 is the compression ratio for the Continental A-65, which loves 80
octane avgas when it can find it.



Back to top
Orval Fairbairn
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:50 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

In article <rg50qvg5jj1id9jeec2cnh3ncinm402q06 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Roger Halstead <newsgroup (AT) rogerhalstead (DOT) com> wrote:



Quote:

I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.


They use such a low compression ratio so they can use Russian gasoline!

Back to top
clare @ snyder.on .ca
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:59 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:50:22 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
<orfairbairn_spam_sucks (AT) earthjunk (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:
In article <rg50qvg5jj1id9jeec2cnh3ncinm402q06 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Roger Halstead <newsgroup (AT) rogerhalstead (DOT) com> wrote:




I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.


They use such a low compression ratio so they can use Russian gasoline!
No. They use the low compression ratio because the Walther LOM engine

has a centrifugal engine driven supercharger. ANy higher CR would be
dangerous under boost.

Back to top
Capt. Doug
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 4:04 am    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

Quote:
Roger Halstead wrote in message > I wonder why they use such a low
compression >ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.

Durability is one reason. Additionally, the typical bore and stroke in
aircraft engines is much larger than automotive engines. I forget exactly
why the larger bore and stroke is more susceptable to detonation, but I seem
to recall it has something to do the ratio of quench area to fuel/air charge
decreasing as the cylinder size increases.

D.



Back to top
Roger Halstead
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:22 pm    Post subject: Re: LOM engines Reply with quote

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:59:54 GMT, clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:

Quote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:50:22 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
[email]orfairbairn_spam_sucks (AT) earthjunk (DOT) net[/email]> wrote:

In article <rg50qvg5jj1id9jeec2cnh3ncinm402q06 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Roger Halstead <newsgroup (AT) rogerhalstead (DOT) com> wrote:




I wonder why they use such a low compression ratio? Even car engines
running regular usually run 8:1. This one is 6.3:1.
It would reduce the stress on the parts, allowing less expensive
materials than a reliable high compression engine.


They use such a low compression ratio so they can use Russian gasoline!
No. They use the low compression ratio because the Walther LOM engine
has a centrifugal engine driven supercharger. ANy higher CR would be
dangerous under boost.

US turbo'd engines use either 8 or 8.5:1 and my 300 HP IO540 uses 10:1
I'd think it would have a lot to do with the gas they are designed to
use and well as durability and manufacturing cost.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2).

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Aircraft Design & Building All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB