Take a guess

Foxcow

Foxcow

Well-Known Member
Does anyone here know how much a fully dressed O-320-D3G weighs? I was at work and saw one crated up and ready to be installed. On the side was a weight. Take a guess
grin.gif
 
The prize is uh...hmmm....well you get to know how much an O-320 weighs
grin.gif



Keep guessing...
 
was the number written on the crate the weight of the part or did it include the box, skid, bands, etc?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Generally the weight on the side of a crate is the shipping weight, so it will be higher then the actual weight of the engine.

Dry weight

[/ QUOTE ]

that's what i figured
 
The side on the box said 428lbs. I dont see how a skid and some straps could equal all that left over weight. Am I missing something
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here's one: what's the L mean in

LIO-320-B

[/ QUOTE ]

Left side r....for counter-rotating prop engines.....much like a PA-44.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here's one: what's the L mean in

LIO-320-B

[/ QUOTE ]

Left-hand rotation, such as installed on the right wing of a twin with counter-rotating props.
 
I just took my commercial multi instrument checkride yesterday and this was asked on my oral.

If counter-rotating props are that much safer, why do companies such as Raytheon and Saab still have convential twins?

Funny thing is I got it right, and was just a trivial question he asked. Answer to come........
 
It's not necessarily expensive to make counter-rotating engines, but it's easier to only keep one type of engine in stock. The reason most "conventional" twins are conventional is just for that reason. It's easier to swap out the engines when they're the same engine.

That's my guess. Any A+P can put a crankshaft in backwards...
 
Tallboy is right. Has to do with cost of inventory. If they wanted to have only 2 engines on hand for a convential, they would need for for a counter rotating twin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top