Talk:Lycoming O-360/Archive 1

Archive 1

Split?

The way the variants are listed, it's so long that it fairly overwhelms the article...would anyone object to splitting those off into a List of Lycoming O-360 variants? AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan, when I finished adding all those variants yesterday I was thinking the same thing. The only concern I have is that the remaining article is not going to have much content left. It will end up being dominated by the "applications" list next. Is there any scope for it to grow without the variants as part of it? - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is probably going to be a factor: I have discovered that there are still dozens more variants to add in the TO-360, TIO-360 and TSIO-360 series! - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More precise research: There are still 38 variants to add:

• TO-360 - 4
• LTO-360 - 2
• TIO-360 - 4
• TSIO-360 - 24
• LTSO-360 - 4

Based on that I think I will just go ahead and split the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Valvetrain

Can somebody who has that information (and reliable sources) please add something about the valvetrain? Some rods in the images look like they might be pushrods, but when that is true, it could still be either a flathead engine or an overhead valve engine. What is it?--ospalh (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A technical description of the engine certainly needs adding. I can describe the valve system for you though, what you can see are the aluminium outer pushrod tubes. A central camshaft operates two steel pushrods per cylinder, one exhaust and one inlet. Between the pushrod and the camshaft is a follower and a hydraulic cylinder (fills with engine oil which also runs through the hollow pushrods out to the valve rockers (it's OHV). On initial set up different length pushrods can be selected to obtain a specified valve clearance, the hyd cylinder fills with oil and takes up this clearance and maintains it in service. Hope that helps a bit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical engine

An IP editor has twice changed:

LO-360 identical to the same model O-360, but with the crankshaft rotating in the opposite direction for use on twin-engined aircraft to eliminate the critical engine.

to

LO-360 identical to the same model O-360, but with the crankshaft rotating in the opposite direction for use on twin-engined aircraft to reduce the effect of critical engine failure.

The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook says "Many twins are designed with a counter-rotating right engine. With this design, the degree of asymmetrical thrust is the same with either engine inoperative. No engine is more critical than the other, and a VMC demonstration may be performed with either engine windmilling."

This shows that the original text is correct. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia "Critical engine": The critical engine of a multi-engine, fixed-wing aircraft is the one whose failure would result in the most adverse effects on the aircraft's handling and performance. (emphasis added) From your citation: "No engine is more critical than the other..." (emphasis added)

No engine is less critical either. V1 is based (among other things) on failure of the critical engine. In this case, either would have the most adverse effect, not neither. Think of it in terms of a four-engine counter-prop aircraft: failure of an outboard would have a more adverse effect than failure of an inboard, so you have two critical engines. It's possible to have more than one, but not zero. The original text is not as correct as it could be. 76.14.151.122 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You have proven the FAA text to be accurate - there is no critical engine. I have changed the article text to read "LO-360 identical to the same model O-360, but with the crankshaft rotating in the opposite direction for use on twin-engined aircraft to eliminate the problem of having one engine that is the critical engine." Is that clearer?- Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarity isn't the problem, I understand your position that no engine is critical. I disagree. Based on the intro line in Critical engine and equivalent definitions in jet aircraft, I maintain that every aircraft has one or more critical engines, but never zero. 76.14.151.122 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia article content is based on verifiable references and I have produced a reference that says "No engine is more critical than the other". You can note that Wikipedia articles themselves cannot be used as references for other Wikipedia articles, as per WP:CIRCULAR. If you want to change what we have you are going to need to a cite a reliable ref that contradicts the FAA on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're reading something extra into that text. It says "no engine is more critical than the other," not "no engine is critical." The critical engine intro would also indicate that you always have a critical engine. If the pilot said no engine was critical, he could set his go speeds (usually ground minimum control speed and engine failure speed, depending on POH) to zero knots--implying he could safely continue a takeoff if an engine failed at brake release. 76.14.151.122 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, every now and then I try to dip a toe back in to Wikipedia, and somehow this is about the third time you've stonewalled me. It looks like you feel some ownership of all the aviation articles. Maybe you aren't doing it on purpose, but you're really discouraging those of us that aren't just here to vandalize. 76.14.151.122 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No I don't "own" any aviation articles, I just watch a number of them to make sure that changes are in accordance with Wikipedia policies, like verifiability. Every day I see hundreds of changes by new editors go by that are just fine, but we still have far too many well-meaning people who treat Wikipedia as a platform for their own uncited opinions. Personally after a long career in aviation I know quite a bit about aircraft, but the only thing that counts is information that can be cited to verifiable sources.

As far as your statement "If the pilot said no engine was critical, he could set his go speeds (usually ground minimum control speed and engine failure speed, depending on POH) to zero knots--implying he could safely continue a takeoff if an engine failed at brake release" goes, no that is not correct for most aircraft (some designs are authorized for shutdown engine takeoffs). Any non-centreline thrust, multi-engined aircraft will still have a V_MCA speed and certain engine-out characteristics, just that it would not vary based on which engine failed. The use of the term "critical engine", as explained in the FAA text shows that one engine, if it fails, produces a greater effect than the other. Aviation Publishers Co. Limited, From the Ground Up, (27th revised edition), page 320, ISBN 09690054-9-0 explains it: ""Critical engine - The engine which, should it fail, will have the most adverse affect on the aircraft flight characteristics". This is in accordance with the FAA text. With two counter-rotating engines there is no engine that fits that definition, there is no critical engine, it is not that case that there are now two critical engines. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help explain this. The Beechcraft Duchess is one aircraft that uses the O-360 and LO-360 engines. Plane and Pilot: 1978 Aircraft Directory, page 84. Werner & Werner Corp, Santa Monica CA, 1977. ISBN 0-918312-00-0 says about the aircraft: "Outstanding design characteristics of the new Duchess include an aerodynamically advantageous T-tail, which places the horizontal surfaces above the propeller slipstream for better stability and handling, in addition to opposite-rotating propellers to eliminate the "critical engine" aspect of multi-engine flying." The same ref (page 108) also deals with the Piper PA-31 Navajo CR, which mounts Lycoming piston engines. It says "The Navajo CR, first introduced in 1975, offers stepped-up performance during takeoff, climb and cruise, due to the increase in power brought about by its 325-hp Lycomings. Counter-rotating, three-bladed props neutralize torque and eliminate the "critical engine". With either engine feathered, equal rate of climb and ceiling are assured." - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

IVO-360 vs HIO-360

I do not think the "H" versions (HIO-360, HO-360) are vertically mounted. The HIO-360 is used in the Enstrom helicopter, but is horizontally mounted with a belt driven transmission. There is another model IVO-360-A1A which is a vertical variant that is used in Brantly helicopters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadoid (talk • contribs)

The ref seems to support what you are saying here, "These engines are approved for horizontal helicopter applications and operation", so I will fix that! Thanks for pointing that out. - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the other "H" variants are also horizontal. The "IVO" model should also be added to the list. Information on this variant can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadoid (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

not a very good photo of that ubiquitous engine

Lycoming IO-360 aircraft engine

too much cowling show a photo of it stripped down Aspidistra9812 (talk)

There are some other choices on Commons that we could use if you would like to propose a better one. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The shabby photo is mine, looking at the other images on Commons there isn't much choice. I took another image that day (right) that I took from a higher angle, I've edited it just now as it was quite underexposed and uploaded it. Feel free to change it though I'm not convinced it is any better. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll put that one in for now! - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)