Lycoming pursuing the IO-390 STC for M20 E-J

[LFOD]

Just saw this article...

 

Looks like we will have the option when it comes time to overhaul.

 

I would much prefer the Deltahawk... imagine an M20J with a diesel that can produce 100% power into the teens.... slap some TKS on it and that would be an outstanding aircraft. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: LFOD

I would much prefer the Deltahawk... imagine an M20J with a diesel that can produce 100% power into the teens.... slap some TKS on it and that would be an outstanding aircraft. 

[KSMooniac]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think us J-owners would need to add perhaps a backup alternator and/or second battery at a minimum to qualify for FIKI cert, in addition to the regular system that covers all of the surfaces, prop, windshield, etc.

[N207LS]

I would tend to agree with Scott in that attaining the FIKI cert would be very extensive (it would also be hard to add some of the componenets due to the limited space), although very cool.  The other issue here is weight and fuel.  Obviously the fuel burn would be greater and the Useful Load would be impacted negatively (similar to, but much greater than, the Powerflow Exhaust mod).  My powerflow exhaust uses about .5-.75 GPH at the same settings and also adds weight as compared to the stock exhaust.  It does generate more hp, but negatively impacts useful load and range.  I can only see pursuing an IO-390 as doing the same thing, but on a much greater scale.  Factor in long range tanks and the proposition may look even less exciting. 

Bottom line is that more hp costs $$$, fuel, and useful load.  It all depends on how you intend to use your Mooney.  Just my opinion though.

Aaron

[Parker_Woodruff]

From the specs it sounds like the IO-390 weighs about what our IO-360s weigh.

[fantom]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

From the specs it sounds like the IO-390 weighs about what our IO-360s weigh.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: fantom

From what Lycoming told me about the 390, that is correct. It will probably burn another half of gallon per hour, and yield no more than 5 knots per hour more. They also said they would have a favorable initial offering where a new 390 would be priced just a bit more than a factory reman 360. We'll see....

Seems the STC won't include McC  props which is almost as odd and hearing them call my J a "legacy" model.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I wonder if the IO-390 runs as well LOP as our current IO-360s do.  If they don't, that's a deal killer.  But if they are priced the same as a reman'd IO-360, it's tempting.  Especially as I sometimes do use all of that 2900 lb takeoff weight and a little more UMPH in the summer months would be nice.  However, I hopefully have 600+ more hours in my engine.

[fantom]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

From what Lycoming told me about the 390, that is correct. It will probably burn another half of gallon per hour, and yield no more than 5 knots per hour more. They also said they would have a favorable initial offering where a new 390 would be priced just a bit more than a factory reman 360. We'll see....

Seems the STC won't include McC  props which is almost as odd and hearing them call my J a "legacy" model.

[Cruiser]

I wonder why the focus of this new engine introduction is on the replacement market? I would think Lycoming would be much more interested in selling this engine on new planes? I have not heard anything about it except as a replacement. Or is it too early for the OEMs to market it?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: Cruiser

I wonder why the focus of this new engine introduction is on the replacement market? I would think Lycoming would be much more interested in selling this engine on new planes? I have not heard anything about it except as a replacement. Or is it too early for the OEMs to market it?

[KSMooniac]

I agree with Parker...I cannot think of a single plane currently in production with a Lycoming IO-360 200 hp variant.  The SR-20 does indeed use the TCM 6-banger, and not very many of those are sold compared to the SR-22.

[alun]

i would be tempted looking at this.  more power doesn't mean you have to use it but its there if needed.  i don't get how having more power would impact on useful load - surely if anything it would increase it?  aren't there other benefits too.. such as dual mags etc over the stock engine on my 78 J?

[N207LS]

Alun,

The best example (at least that I am most familiar with) of increased HP and useful load loss is with my Powerflow Exhaust.  Although it produces an additional 15-23 HP, it weighs 14 pounds more than the stock exhaust.  Clearly, with an additional 20 +/- HP, one should get some increase in useful load (at least the 14 lbs back).  However, like most STCs, there is no increase in carrying weight for the extra HP (actually a net loss of 14 lbs).  What I do notice is a shorter takeoff roll (nice to get in and out of smaller strips, especially a friend's airpark with 2000' grass on coral base in the Florida keys), and much better climb (about 100-200 fpm increase).  With that said, it costs about .5 - .75 GPH in cruise and about 1.0 GPH at takeoff power and initial climb out as compared with other Mooney's with the same engine and no Powerflow.    I really like having the Powerflow and find that the additional cost and loss of useful load are worth it for me, I only point out that additional HP is not free.  I feel much more comfortable about flying my plane at gross weight, even in the hot FL summer because of the extra power, but still choose not to fly over gross, unless I really know that I have lots of extra runway and no obstacles, even though there is extra HP working up front.  I think about the negative headlines that would read "Pilot Overloads Airplane and Takes Lives" or something to that effect and really don't want it said about me and my decision making.  Certainly, each individual can assess their situation and type of flying to determine if the cost/benefit of extra HP is worth it.  Personally, this one sounds like a lot of $$$ (new prop, etc) for 15 HP... 

All the best.

Aaron

[alun]

what do you recon the cost difference would be from a replacement IO360 then?

[fantom]

Lycoming was at MAPA and gave us an update on the IO-390 A3A6 STC for the J model. It should be ready next month and the E and F, I believe, will following shortly thereafter.

The conversion however, will require a Hartzell 2-blade or 3-blade propeller, work on the governor, new hoses, new motor mounts, and maybe some other re-configuration work. Cost of the engine alone will be around $36K, and given a new prop, the other work, and installation, it sounds like a $50K+ job. Ouch!!

For that you"ll get roller tappets, angled valves, Slick mags, tuned induction, 10 more HP, another 4 knots, about a .5 GPH increase, and a 2 year warranty on labor, parts, and accessories. Your exchange core must be in operable condition.

Email your questions and comments to wgierke@lycoming.textron.com

As reported by the Cezzzzna Pilot's Association (CAP), Lycoming's Mike Kraft was quoted as saying "You *can* run your Lycoming engine lean of peak.  And Lycoming wants to help teach you how!"  Lycoming plans both an updated Service Instruction 1094 on leaning, as well as an interactive online training course in the near future.  Until then, their "don't do it unless you know what you're doing!" admonition stands.  But their progress on this issue is heartening.  Incidentally, the new iE2 series of electronically controlled Lycoming engines will run lean of peak. 

Will wonders never cease?

 

[fantom]

Some of the "other work" includes re-calibrating the engine gauges, and modifying the oil cooler.

Just reporting what I was told.