H2AD Engine

July 13, 2015 By Cessna Owner Organization

Lycomings O-320-H2AD
The Edsel of Aviation Engines:
Not EVERY Idea can be a Winner
By Jim Cavanagh

Sitting around at AirVenture earlier this year, I spent some time

with Ed Kollin, the formulation chemist who developed CamGuard. We were talking about everything (but
CamGuard), when I asked him about the infamous Lycoming O-320-H2AD engine. What was the real
problem with this engine? I asked, Was it operator error or a design thing?

Kollins response was an interesting look into the industry at that level, and his story, combined with a
couple missteps at Cessna and accounts from the late Bill Thompson, dovetailed into the following tale.
Enjoy!

If you own, have ever owned, or think one day you may own an airplane with the Lycoming O-320-H2AD
engine, you might want to read this. Of course, nowadays most of these engines have been modiXed to
work well or have been Xxed chemically if you use the Lycoming additive or CamGuard. Still, you might
wonder: Why in the world does Lycoming need a Xx for one of their engines? The answer is a combination
of marketing, costs, and physics; and sadly, the only ones who really paid the price for it all were the owners.

In 1968, Cessna was purchased by Textron, and an engine change was in its future. The company began
using the Lycoming O-320-E2D, which was 5 hp more powerful than the Continental O-300 and it cruised 1
mph fastera marketing coup! The engine was used for nine years, but when Cessna introduced the
camber-lift wing in 1973, cruise speed went in the wrong directionnot a good thing for sales.

Well, about this time, we were also beginning to see the demise of 87 octane avgas, a.k.a. the red juice.
ReXneries were looking at bottom lines and were not making enough fuel for the proXts they wanted. An
economical out was to take a cheaper fuel and add Tetra Ethyl Lead to create 100LL. Heads soon got
together and Xgured that if the 100LL was going to be the fuel of the future, and that higher compression
engines not only could burn 100LL, but had to burn 100LL, that it might be time to develop an engine that
did not foul plugs like the older Lycomings did with the leaded fuel. Plus, if the engine could be higher
compression, then it could be more powerful and make up for the speed loss of the camber-lift wing, thus
killing two birds with one stone. So, if two birds, why not three? Why not design an engine that would be
cheaper to build and maintain too! And thats just what they didsort of.

In 1977, the Cessna 172/100 (for 100 octane fuel) was introduced with the O-320-H2AD engine, boasting
160 hp. Textron had bought Cessna and already owned Lycoming, so they wanted to maximize proXts by
building a cheaper engine to put on an airplane that already had a market and price point. The engine, if you
ever see one, looks totally different from the normal Lycoming O-320. Its tall and skinny, has very simple
sections with lots of nuts and bolts holding it together, and (most of the time) its painted a distinctive sky
blue. Why blue? Marketing? Distinction? Who knows? Regardless, the result is an engine that not only looks
sort of cheap, but is very, very different from what youre used to. Of course, the new design also boasted
those extra 10 ponies; and, if they had kept the weight the same, the performance would have been
impressive.

So, Lycoming successfully designed an engine that could be more easily maintained. Unfortunately, even
though the cam and lifters could be serviced easier, little did they know that they would have to be serviced
a lot more often!

Why? To reduce costs, Lycoming used different metals for the cam and lifters. The lifters were not only
made of polished cast iron, but they were changed to a barrel style, as opposed to the more traditional
mushroom style. They also reduced the width of the cam lobe. As the name implies, the mushroom design
meant that the lifter had a head/face that was considerably larger in diameter than the body, like a T. What
they knew, but maybe didnt realize, was that the dynamics of the cam lobe/lifter face are such that well
over 100,000 psi of pressure is placed on the lifter face when the apex of the cam lobe reaches the lifter
face. This kind of pressure creates heat.

Weve been told that theres always a barrier of oil between metal surfaces in our engines. Well, not between
the cam lobe and lifter. Sure, theres boundary oilthat is, until the apex of the lobe swipes the face, at which
point all oil is squeezed out and there is metal-to-metal contact. This contact is very, very ieeting, and as
soon as the lobe moves off, the pressure, ergo the temperature, begins to dissipate.

Engineers design an engine so that the high temperature is dealt with in two ways: by the surface area of
the contact and the hardness of the metals that make contact. They accomplish this by hardening the
surfaces (Rockwell Grading system). On all other aircraft engines, the surface area is designed to be rather
generous. On the -H2AD, for cost purposes, this surface is minimal. In fact, its so minimal that any
lessening of the surface or any defect in the interface, caused the area to be below the minimum threshold.
The result is that any deformation of the lifter face or the cam lobe, including a speck of corrosion as small
as a pin, causes an almost immediate process that rapidly destroys the part. This is called spalling. The
result of a bad lifter face or lobe is that a cylinder will not operate properly because the valves have gotten
out of time or tolerance. It creates a roughness that only replacement of the cam and lifters can Xx.

Note: The O-320-H2AD featured a less expensive, flat metal rocker. It wasnt talked about much at
the time, but mechanics have since come to realize that the rockers used in the Lycoming engine
are the exact same rockers used by Ford in their 351C engine! These have millions of hours on them
and have had no problems, so a lot of the Experimental guys use them at about $10 each, as
opposed to around $150 per for the Lycoming parts. There are also aftermarket Roller rockers
available (like those pictured here). The aviation versions are supposed to give the engine an extra 5
hp.

Soon after pilots began complaining of failing cams and lifters, Lycoming began using an additive. The
problem was approached similar to zinc in the old iat tappet cars. The Lycoming additive, LW-16702, uses
chemistry to create a barrier between the two parts, easing the metal-to-metal contact and reducing wear
(FAA AD 80-04-03). Comply with the AD and the engine is Xxed. Note, however, there is no anti-corrosion
chemistry in the Lycoming additive, unlike Shells 100 Plus oil, which has this additive pre-blended.
The next Xx was a little bit wider camshaft lobe. The T mod was then developed, modifying the case so
that larger diameter lifters (from .873 dia. to .950) could be installed. This did give them more surface area,
but required splitting the case and some extensive work by Divco or other crankcase companies, so it was
cost prohibitive for many private owners. Still, its a shame that after just three or four hundred hours the
owners had to have new parts installed.

Lycoming had 60 variations of the O-320 engine and nearly all of them were interchangeable
except the -H model engines. They used a totally different case, camshaft, lifters, rockers
and a few other parts. Cylinders were the same, but pistons were a 9.0:1 compression.

Ultimately, Cessna really took it on this chin with this engine. (And we didnt even get into the dual magneto
issue here. There are plenty of pro and con stories about this critter, but that wasnt the problem that got
all of the attention). Every aviation writer out there was slamming the engine, and Lycoming was losing the
bulletproof banner it had been carrying for years. Obviously, their Xrst slip-up was actually using the engine
and getting their customers in a tizzy. However, its interesting (and serendipitous) that it was another
Cessna failure that ultimately shelved the -H2AD, while it may have actually saved the venerable172!

When Cessna began developing a derivative of the 172 that was supposed to be roomier and faster, they
had high hopes for a great bottom line. The 172J was to have been strutless, light, and very fast for the 150-
hp engine they were planning to use. Cessna ordered 2,000 Lycoming O-320-D2J engines, with an option to
buy 2,000 more. The 172J was never built; rather, it became the C-177 Cardinal.

The problem with the initial Cardinals was that they werent as fast as they should have been. Flight
Engineer, Bill Thompson, in his wonderful book Cessna: Wings for the World, wrote that the leading edges of
the wings were made of aluminum skins that were too thin, and under iight loads deformed, ruining the
laminar iow. Engineers did this because the airplane was getting far too heavy. The result was a gorgeous
design that iew like ten pounds of broccoli! It had visual appeal, but no numbers. Ultimately, big doors and
easy entry dont sell airplanes, but speed does.

The Xx for the Cardinal was a 180-hp engine, and suddenly Cessna had 3000, 150-hp engines, but only one
model to put them inthe 172. They immediately pulled the notorious -H2ADs and began installing the
unexpectedly abundant -D2Js instead. Suddenly, everyone was happy!

Lycomings O-320-H2AD engines were only used on 172 N Models produced from 1977-1980,
of which 8,331 were built.
There are still a lot of -H2AD engines left out there, many of which have moved to the Experimental side. If I
had one of these engines, I would probably opt for using CamGuard rather than the Lycoming additive
(regardless of the AD); simply because of the hours we are NOT iying these days and the anti-
corrosion/anti-wear chemistry of the product.

So, between the T mod, the Lycoming additive, and CamGuard, these engines should be dependable these
days. To check this, I called Bobby Merrell of Aircraft Specialties Services, an aviation machine shop that
overhauls engine parts. Of this particular engine, he told me, youll either see a pristine, nearly perfect
engine, or one that is all ate up and needs everything replaced.

Backing Merrells comments, chatroom after chatroom has pilots saying that if you run the engine to temp a
couple of times a week it will last forever. In fact, Ed Kollin told me that if you would start an -H2AD engine
and never shut it down, while somehow keeping fresh oil in the case, it could go for 4,000 hours! Conversely,
if you let this particular engine sit for extended periods it seems doomed to develop a failed cam or lifter.

What I get from these comments is that things probably havent changed all that much. Regardless, I think
an owner can be conscientious and do everything he or she can to keep the engine healthy. If you iy a lot
and follow all of the instructions, you might get years of operation out of the engine. After all, the
Experimental guys dont complain about themthen again, they do a lot of their own work and dont have to
be as legal as we do.

This piece wasnt about how to treat an engine, or how to iy it, so much as its a discussion of a particular
engine and its place in aviation history. In short, the -H2AD is notorious: you will NOT Xnd Superior or ECI
replicating this particular design! Ford had the Edsel. Frances Ford Coppola had Heavens Gate, Coke had
New Coke, and Lycoming, builder of some of the worlds best aircraft engines, had the -H2AD. Not
everything can be a winner. But, hey, you could have a Mooney with a Porsche engine in it!

Filed Under: Features

Tagged With: Features

Search the site ...