LOM engines

[buckey]

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?

[Barnyard BOb --]

"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 --

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, 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




>"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 --
>
>

[guynoir]

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


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?
>
>

--
John Kimmel





















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."

[Kyle Boatright]

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

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>>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 --


>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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, 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




>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>
>
>Unka BOb -- RV3 driver

[Roger Halstead]

On 29 Oct 2003 05:31:19 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>In article >, 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" :-)

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)
>
>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.... <g>
>>
>>Unka BOb -- RV3 driver

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, 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

[Larry Smith]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, 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.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Roger Halstead > 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!

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:50:22 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Roger Halstead > 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.

[Capt. Doug]

>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.

[Roger Halstead]

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

>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:50:22 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Roger Halstead > 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).