What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Engine Finally tested on the Dyno

jswareiv

Well Known Member
My engine finally got tested on the Dyno, a little over 250HP! Wow! Now if I can just get a motor mount to attach it to. :)

n4e90l.jpg
 
According to the blog, it seems it is an IO-390 customized by Ly-Con ...

250HP ... **** ... that's nice.
 
Looks like a new IO-390, but purchased from Ly-Con instead?

http://rvbuild214sw.com/lycoming-at-vans-booth/

I am curious what you paid for that vs getting it from Vans, and also some of your rationale. At Sun and Fun this year I saw the Aerosport 382 Wildcat, and also spoke with a number of other vendors (Barrett, etc) who mentioned various forms of IO-360 and/or 390 type engines built with Superior parts as competitors here for the io-390.

One interesting thing Rhonda Barrett mentioned to me was that the Lycoming io-390 parts are insanely expensive if you end up needing a new cylinder. Something like $4,000 each and that there was no way to overhaul them due to the honing that gets done.
 
Ly-Con Custom

Looks like a new IO-390, but purchased from Ly-Con instead?

http://rvbuild214sw.com/lycoming-at-vans-booth/

I am curious what you paid for that vs getting it from Vans, and also some of your rationale. At Sun and Fun this year I saw the Aerosport 382 Wildcat, and also spoke with a number of other vendors (Barrett, etc) who mentioned various forms of IO-360 and/or 390 type engines built with Superior parts as competitors here for the io-390.

At AirVenture, I went to all of the engine manufacturers I could find and got pricing and education. Van's had a great deal, but I wanted to put P-Mags on it and understandably, they didn't want to customize the engine. I finally got the best deal from Ly-Con. It was a brand new certified Lycoming IO-390 engine. I told them, if I am going to customize the engine, what can I do that will pay for itself (in fuel savings) or performance that is justified. I think they were honest and didn't lead me down the path of unnecessary add-ons. According to John at Ly-Con who witnessed the Dyno test, it really was running smooth at 2700 and developing 253HP. I actually ordered the engine right after AirVenture and they have been storing it for me until a couple of weeks ago, I gave them the go-ahead to put it back together and test it. Of course it's not on my plane yet, but so far, I can strongly recommend them if you haven't decided on an engine.
 
Changes

Was the only change to the IO-390 P Mags?

No, here is what Lycon did:

Add dual P-Mags
Port Flow and Balance Cylinders
Alodine heads and paint barrels black
Disassemble engine, exchange camshaft for performance grind, O-Ring case, precision re-balance.
Test cell run
 
No, here is what Lycon did:

Add dual P-Mags
Port Flow and Balance Cylinders
Alodine heads and paint barrels black
Disassemble engine, exchange camshaft for performance grind, O-Ring case, precision re-balance.
Test cell run

You mean anodize? :D

My 230 hp IO-360 was made by Lycon with same mods and a few more, you won't be disappointed.
 
Alodine/Anodize

You mean anodize? :D

My 230 hp IO-360 was made by Lycon with same mods and a few more, you won't be disappointed.

Had to look it up:

Alodine is an international brand name for Henkel Technologies' conversion, anodizing and functional coatings suitable for use on aluminum, magnesium and other non-ferrous alloys. These coatings provide improved corrosion protection and paint adhesion.

Alodine was what was on the sales order.
 
Amazing

I find this pretty amazing...I trust LyCon's dyno is properly calibrated and the tests were conducted around standard atmospheric conditions to get a fair apples-apples comparison with Lycoming's rating of 210 hp...? If they were boosting the compression ratio it would make more sense, but getting an extra 43 hp out of the IO390 without changing compression is really surprising. If you look at the list of mods, adding electronic ignition doesn't typically increase hp much...it improves efficiency, but most of the spark advance happens at lower manifold pressures (high altitude cruise). At least that's what Klaus Savier told me when I put Lightspeeds on my O-360, maybe the Pmags have a new trick that provides a measurable max hp increase.

The port flow surely helps, but Lycoming claims the 390 already has a tuned induction system and the angle valves breath better to begin with than the parallel valve engines, so I thought the port flow process didn't make a huge difference for angle valve engines.

Balancing will give you a very small gain by reducing vibration losses, and the only other significant thing on the list is the performance grind on the camshaft. Not sure how much that is worth, but it begs the question what does LyCon know the Lycoming doesn't know? What is the tradeoff? If they are opening valves more abruptly and keeping them open longer, does that put more stress on the valve train? Is this a brand new camshaft for the 390, or does it have a good service history with other engines like the IO-360? Is it getting better max hp at the expense of performance in some other part of the operating envelope?

Sure would be nice to understand the physics of how they are doing this, and why Lycoming doesn't do the same with the stock 390...
 
I find this pretty amazing...I trust LyCon's dyno is properly calibrated and the tests were conducted around standard atmospheric conditions to get a fair apples-apples comparison with Lycoming's rating of 210 hp...? If they were boosting the compression ratio it would make more sense, but getting an extra 43 hp out of the IO390 without changing compression is really surprising. If you look at the list of mods, adding electronic ignition doesn't typically increase hp much...it improves efficiency, but most of the spark advance happens at lower manifold pressures (high altitude cruise). At least that's what Klaus Savier told me when I put Lightspeeds on my O-360, maybe the Pmags have a new trick that provides a measurable max hp increase.

The port flow surely helps, but Lycoming claims the 390 already has a tuned induction system and the angle valves breath better to begin with than the parallel valve engines, so I thought the port flow process didn't make a huge difference for angle valve engines.

Balancing will give you a very small gain by reducing vibration losses, and the only other significant thing on the list is the performance grind on the camshaft. Not sure how much that is worth, but it begs the question what does LyCon know the Lycoming doesn't know? What is the tradeoff? If they are opening valves more abruptly and keeping them open longer, does that put more stress on the valve train? Is this a brand new camshaft for the 390, or does it have a good service history with other engines like the IO-360? Is it getting better max hp at the expense of performance in some other part of the operating envelope?

Sure would be nice to understand the physics of how they are doing this, and why Lycoming doesn't do the same with the stock 390...

Check many of the fastest opposed stuff at Reno is built by LyCon for many years. When it comes to hp and lasting, few engine builders have the track record and wins that they do. The camshaft change would make a world of difference. LyCon knows their stuff.
 
Lycon does know their stuff and build great engines, but their dyno is notoriously optimistic, borderline comical.
 
Lycon does know their stuff and build great engines, but their dyno is notoriously optimistic, borderline comical.

Ah, the old X dyno vs. Y dyno. The only way to know if your statement is true would be to do a calibration test. Who's to say that some other engine builder's dynos are correct? Everyone likes to think their dyno is dead on.

Like I said before, LyCon has the race wins to prove they build some of the most powerful opposed engines in the world. No matter what, I suspect this engine in the thread is putting out a lot more hp than the stock Lycoming IO-390.
 
I find this pretty amazing...I trust LyCon's dyno is properly calibrated and the tests were conducted around standard atmospheric conditions to get a fair apples-apples comparison with Lycoming's rating of 210 hp...? If they were boosting the compression ratio it would make more sense, but getting an extra 43 hp out of the IO390 without changing compression is really surprising. If you look at the list of mods, adding electronic ignition doesn't typically increase hp much...it improves efficiency, but most of the spark advance happens at lower manifold pressures (high altitude cruise). At least that's what Klaus Savier told me when I put Lightspeeds on my O-360, maybe the Pmags have a new trick that provides a measurable max hp increase.

The port flow surely helps, but Lycoming claims the 390 already has a tuned induction system and the angle valves breath better to begin with than the parallel valve engines, so I thought the port flow process didn't make a huge difference for angle valve engines.

Balancing will give you a very small gain by reducing vibration losses, and the only other significant thing on the list is the performance grind on the camshaft. Not sure how much that is worth, but it begs the question what does LyCon know the Lycoming doesn't know? What is the tradeoff? If they are opening valves more abruptly and keeping them open longer, does that put more stress on the valve train? Is this a brand new camshaft for the 390, or does it have a good service history with other engines like the IO-360? Is it getting better max hp at the expense of performance in some other part of the operating envelope?

Sure would be nice to understand the physics of how they are doing this, and why Lycoming doesn't do the same with the stock 390...

You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.

Better breathing, and higher hp, but at the expense of higher specific fuel consumption. Maybe Tom (gZero) can tell us about his new 8, and compare his fuel burn for cruise compared to others. That is the only way to know for sure.

This is going to be one nice performing 14!
 
Last edited:
GPH

You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.

Better breathing, and higher hp, but at the expense of higher specific fuel consumption. Maybe Tom (gZero) can tell us about his new 8, and compare his fuel burn for cruise compared to others. That is the only way to know for sure.

This is going to be one nice performing 14!

I promise to report back once I get it flying and can let you know the true GPH burn. At least I won't have to worry about short field takeoffs!
 
BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.

That's not out of line for a WOT power run. It will be interesting to see BSFC leaned for cruise with that modified cam, which I suspect moves the torque peak well up the RPM range.
 
Last edited:
You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.

Better breathing, and higher hp, but at the expense of higher specific fuel consumption. Maybe Tom (gZero) can tell us about his new 8, and compare his fuel burn for cruise compared to others. That is the only way to know for sure.

This is going to be one nice performing 14!

My lycon built IO-360 cruises at 170kts TAS on 8 gph with a three blade MT for comparison.

2z4n4as.jpg
 
Fuel Burn

You wanna know what the trade off is? Blow up that dyno picture and look at the lower left side of the screen. BSFC = .562 - that is likely what they trade off.

Of course that fuel burn is at full throttle. I should be able to pull it back a bunch so you can keep up with me and the fuel burn should be similar. However, if I want to get there faster than you... :D
 
My lycon built IO-360 cruises at 170kts TAS on 8 gph with a three blade MT for comparison.

230 HP. Gee, why so slow? ;)

Way back, when Monty asked what I wanted, I told him to build a tractor motor, no hot-rodding at all, just careful dimensioning and balancing. I wanted one that would last.

So, my poor 'ole wimpy IO-390 was only making 205 corrected-to-standard-day horsepower when it left the Barrett dyno. It probably picked up some power with additional break-in, so I figure it makes the rated 210 now. It's still running mags, and breathes full time through a filter.

Yet, strangely enough, it seems to run with mega-motors from the land of fruits and nuts.

Here's the same altitude, 25~30F lean of peak; 7.8 GPH, 178 ktas. The 58% power figure is based on MP and RPM alone, as GRT doesn't bother with corrections for mixture. Running LOP, it's it's probably not even doing 55%.



Here's flat out on a good day:



Sure, I've done some cooling drag work, and it has a one-piece bubble. There are no other drag reduction tricks...no faired hinges or drains, no funky wingtips, single-sided tailwheel links....nothing. But, it's OK if you figure this strange equality with the Big Dog motors is all due to the airframe. That view simply illustrates that any drag reduction is a lot cheaper than hot-rodding, with more reliability.
 
Ah, the old X dyno vs. Y dyno. The only way to know if your statement is true would be to do a calibration test. Who's to say that some other engine builder's dynos are correct? Everyone likes to think their dyno is dead on.

There are subtle differences, even when both dynos are perfectly accurate. For example, consider dynamic pressure. The prop reaction dyno in the first photo will show more peak HP than an identical engine will show on a water brake dyno. The prop dyno is pushing a strong stream of air at the horizontal intake, while the water brake dyno sits in a room full of still air. A nice little 145 knot breeze is good for an extra inch of manifold pressure at sea level.
 
Last edited:
dyno

Since there seems to be a fair amount of interest in this topic I thought I would share my data. I have a Ly-con .010 over IO-390 that we dyno'd (not at Ly-con) recently. It has forged pistons with ceramic coated tops , moly coated sides and circlip retained wrist pins. I had the compression set up at 8.7 to 1 so it can function on lower grade fuel. Air flow performance injection, flowed cylinders,Ly-con cam & lifters and (2) latest version P-mags.
The dyno was a water brake type that used the intake air flow to cool the water in the dyno. I also don,t know about any calibration of the unit. My goal was to see what timing was needed to get max power and what was the reduction in power at "conservative" timing.It also provided some run in time.
The hp. numbers were 227 with usable timing but advanced more than I will probably run on normal use. 217 hp. was achieved at a very conservative setting. I will be using a EI Commander in this plane.
Up the compression to 10.5 or more, positive pressure intake, cold air intake one could see another 10% which would be 250 hp. It will be about 6 mo. till I fly this engine, and it is going into a 165 mph plane with a 80 inch prop. It won't be a fast plane, but I think it will be fun. Ron
 
230 HP. Gee, why so slow? ;)

Way back, when Monty asked what I wanted, I told him to build a tractor motor, no hot-rodding at all, just careful dimensioning and balancing. I wanted one that would last.

So, my poor 'ole wimpy IO-390 was only making 205 corrected-to-standard-day horsepower when it left the Barrett dyno. It probably picked up some power with additional break-in, so I figure it makes the rated 210 now. It's still running mags, and breathes full time through a filter.

Yet, strangely enough, it seems to run with mega-motors from the land of fruits and nuts.

Here's the same altitude, 25~30F lean of peak; 7.8 GPH, 178 ktas. The 58% power figure is based on MP and RPM alone, as GRT doesn't bother with corrections for mixture. Running LOP, it's it's probably not even doing 55%.



Here's flat out on a good day:



Sure, I've done some cooling drag work, and it has a one-piece bubble. There are no other drag reduction tricks...no faired hinges or drains, no funky wingtips, single-sided tailwheel links....nothing. But, it's OK if you figure this strange equality with the Big Dog motors is all due to the airframe. That view simply illustrates that any drag reduction is a lot cheaper than hot-rodding, with more reliability.

Why's your manifold pressure so low at 11.5? :D. Your cylinders are kinda warm too, may want to work on that. LOL. Seriously though, youre light on fuel and I'll bet my planes empty weight is probably 200 lbs more. The paint alone was >60 lbs, ouch.

Admittedly, the three blade prop is not optimal for cruise performance, but it climbs like a cat on a screen door!
 
Last edited:
There are subtle differences, even when both dynos are perfectly accurate. For example, consider dynamic pressure. The prop reaction dyno in the first photo will show more peak HP than an identical engine will show on a water brake dyno. The prop dyno is pushing a strong stream of air at the horizontal intake, while the water brake dyno sits in a room full of still air. A nice little 145 knot breeze is good for an extra inch of manifold pressure at sea level.

Well if they use corrected or observed hp in these two cases, could be very different even if the dynos are calibrated accurately. In the auto world, we usually correct to 29.92, dry air and 59 or 60F.

Using uncorrected or observed hp to compare two different engines or two different dynos is apples to oranges and a waste of time.

I'd sure hope aircraft engine builders are using corrected hp for atmo engines.

Now turbos are a different matter. The savvy operators use observed hp and simply state rpm and MAP. Many people in the auto dyno world erroneously apply SAE atmo correction factors to turbo engines which ends up with inaccurate (but impressive) hp figures, especially if the dyno is well above SL.
 
Last edited:
Well if they use corrected or observed hp in these two cases, could be very different even if the dynos are calibrated accurately. In the auto world, we usually correct to 29.92, dry air and 59 or 60F.

Using uncorrected or observed hp to compare two different engines or two different dynos is apples to oranges and a waste of time.

In the example given (prop dyno with a horizontal intake vs a water brake dyno), corrected or observed would not change the comparison, assuming they both used one or the other. The engine on the prop dyno would still enjoy higher MP. Sure, a sharp observer would note the higher MP, but higher MP at the valve is the whole point of atmo engine intake tuning. It sure as heck isn't going to appear on most torque and HP graphs.

That said, yes, it's a safe bet that a lot of buyers, not understanding the difference, would talk about the best number they heard or saw, be it corrected or observed. To complicate the issue, some dyno software will make the correction, and some output observed only, thus requiring post-run correction by the operator.
 
Last edited:
In the example given (prop dyno with a horizontal intake vs a water brake dyno), corrected or observed would not change the comparison, assuming they both used one or the other. The engine on the prop dyno would still enjoy higher MP. Sure, a sharp observer would note the higher MP, but higher MP at the valve is the whole point of atmo engine intake tuning. It sure as heck isn't going to appear on most torque and HP graphs.

That said, yes, it's a safe bet that a lot of buyers, not understanding the difference, would talk about the best number they heard or saw, be it corrected or observed. To complicate the issue, some dyno software will make the correction, and some output observed only, thus requiring post-run correction by the operator.

Yes, most dyno's software packages are correcting for atmospheric differences so the experienced operator using a prop dyno should also be applying a correction for static MAP vs. actual MAP WOT. In this way, corrected hp should be the same on the 2 different dyno types on the same engine.

As a further thought, many dynos don't make correction for reduced exhaust back pressure at high altitude so if your one dyno was in Denver and the other near SL, corrected hp might not be quite the same on the same engine.

Absolutely, many engine builders and dyno operators love to show peak numbers and possibly even over corrected ones to impress the less well informed customer.

When I was building road race engines, we really used our dyno to compare one change to another and look for useful increases across the effective rpm band or widening that band. Peak numbers, while exciting maybe did not always mean faster lap times. In the end, performance on the track was the true measure of successful engine development. I really didn't care if a competitor claimed 315 hp (a peak value) on some dyno in California. If we spanked him down the straight, that was all that was required, regardless of dyno numbers.

In racing aircraft or something like Salt Flats cars, where the engine is near peak power all the time, peak values are somewhat more important.

For every day use however, dyno figures are more of something to confirm that the engine is healthy after the build. Your plane goes as fast as it goes. If your 360 is faster in all regards than the guy beside you. You'll have the bigger smile.
 
Yes, most dyno's software packages are correcting for atmospheric differences so the experienced operator using a prop dyno should also be applying a correction for static MAP vs. actual MAP WOT. In this way, corrected hp should be the same on the 2 different dyno types on the same engine.

Everybody reputable corrects for station pressure, temperature, and humidity differences with standard day, either using dyno software or with a calculator and correction factor table (note the altimeter on top of the dyno console, first photo). For example, if station pressure is 30.11 Hg, the operator should correct the HP (downward) for what it would be at 29.92 (J607) or 29.234 (J1349) or 29.33 (DIN, 101.3 kPa) or 29.23 (ECE, 99 kPa).

Although somebody's software may be capable of correcting for manifold pressure vs a standard pressure, it would be pointless. Think about it. I could mount a wheezy manifold, a little bitty throttle body, and a dirty air filter, measure 24" MP at WOT because they are very restrictive, but then correct the resulting crappy HP figure for 29.92 and claim some large number the engine cannot produce.

Heck, the whole point of good intake manifolds and large diameter throttle bodies is to increase MP (and HP) to some level close to station pressure. The engine that does it better really is the better engine, at least at WOT.

As a further thought, many dynos don't make correction for reduced exhaust back pressure at high altitude so if your one dyno was in Denver and the other near SL, corrected hp might not be quite the same on the same engine.

Wouldn't that be covered by the station pressure correction? Same atmosphere at the tailpipe as at the intake.

Absolutely, many engine builders and dyno operators love to show peak numbers and possibly even over corrected ones to impress the less well informed customer.

And then there are the dyno-only runs, setups that nobody is gonna run in the airplane. For example, dial in 30 degrees of advance at WOT. Detonation margin is tiny, but that's not a problem with a pro at a console.

I really didn't care if a competitor claimed 315 hp (a peak value) on some dyno in California. If we spanked him down the straight, that was all that was required, regardless of dyno numbers.

Yeah buddy!
 
Notoriously hard to accurately correct for exhaust back pressure with baro, depends somewhat on valve overlap.

We also must consider oil temperature and heat soak of the intake. While these have a small effect, it can be cumulative.

Even with the example prop dyno and air coming into the intake at say 150 knots, the MAP rise is minimal with typical ram recovery effciencies, say less than 1 inch Hg. which would equate to about 3% more power. This would take our 253hp engine down to a real 246hp. Then again, who is to say what is real under flight conditions. A good ram intake could see a few extra ponies over a poor one.

The point is really that dynos are best used for comparative development purposes- on the same dyno especially so and only one change at a time to quantify results properly.

Comparing shop X's dyno hp vs. shop Y's on a different engine has some room for error, especially when different correction factors or running procedures are used.

People love to have that number though and are willing to pay to get it. Just be aware it's not strictly comparable and perhaps not even especially accurate in some cases.

I was often asked at the track how much power we were making. My answer was usually "sufficient" (like Rolls Royce used to say) or "more than you". Neither response went over too well with my competitors... The real world told the story.
 
Last edited:
The proof is in the pudding

I too have a Barrett IO 390 with a measely 212 HP. However I fly with many guys with Lycon 230+ HP engines. My 8 weighs 1134 empty and I weigh 290 lbs. So there is no weight advantage over the others. But when we go flat out I always move to the front. I have no drag mods like some do other that the 10 knot fuel drain fairings. (If I put on all the 10 knot mods on would I really have the speed of a glassair?) Horsepower is fun to look at but torque moves things. Lycon builds a good engine but I think their DYNO is there best salesman.
 
I too have a Barrett IO 390 with a measely 212 HP. However I fly with many guys with Lycon 230+ HP engines. My 8 weighs 1134 empty and I weigh 290 lbs. So there is no weight advantage over the others. But when we go flat out I always move to the front. I have no drag mods like some do other that the 10 knot fuel drain fairings. (If I put on all the 10 knot mods on would I really have the speed of a glassair?) Horsepower is fun to look at but torque moves things. Lycon builds a good engine but I think their DYNO is there best salesman.

We know that HP is the measure of work actually. We can say that more torque at a given rpm = more hp.

I think many dozens of race wins at Reno is Lycon's best salesman-way more than any other engine builder.

I your case and Dan's and probably others, you got great engines built by Barrett and you are right, the proof is in the pudding always in a side by side. For relatively stock internals- ie no cam/ rocker changes, it's doubtful that brand X will make much more than brand Y with the same CR and similar head porting anyway. That's why we see similar speeds. The engine is just an air pump after all.
 
Agree this would be good to know. would be terrific to get a perspective from Lycoming especially since I have also committed myself to a $34.5k Vans special on Lycoming I0 -390.
 
Back
Top