Continental IO-360

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
ak2711c
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 6:29 am

Post by ak2711c »

The IO-360 is a very expensive and time consuming conversion but you will never regret the performance. I like the Lycoming 0-360 too but I feel the Continental IO-360 is a better match for this plane. I have flown both and while there is a big performance gain going to the O-360, there is that much more going to the IO-360. It feels almost like going back to a stock airplane now when I fly one with an O-360 in it. It is true that you will have about as much in it as a bone stock C-180. The difference is it will out perform a C-180 hands down and do it using less fuel. Granted the C-180 has more usefull load but not much. Having said all that. I would recomend that you try the 80" seaplane prop before you give up on your motor. I flew mine for many years with it. I could climb to 8000 feet at gross with out too much trouble. At that altitude it would still climb at about 200-300 FPM. It does cost you some cruise though. It will knock you down to about 100 mph. If you could live with that it would sure save you a lot of money.
Shawn
User avatar
wa4jr
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:44 am

Post by wa4jr »

I happen to see in Light Plane MX an article about worn engine mounts throwing off the thrust line and affecting climb and speed. I might look into this. Since my O-300 is coming off this winter, this will be a good time to start looking up the holder of the IO-360 STC, finding a source for the engine mount, and cruising Trade-a-Plane for a good engine with time still left on it. If the summer flying season and Airventure were over now, I'd pull my 300 now, as I'm fed up with trying to get my new generator to seal up to the accessory case. I'd love to take the whole mess down to the dump :twisted:
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Post by GAHorn »

John, there are several ways a generator can leak oil that have nothing to do with that gasket. There's an oil seal at the shaft of that gen. It must be mounted correctly... many are installed backwards. Remember the oil seal is supposed to keep oil in the engine...not the generator.

The shaft of the gen has a key in it (woodruff some folks call it...others call it square-key). Installing the seal over that key can damage the seal if not done carefully. (But AeroTech of Louisville is pretty good about that.)

Lastly, if you really think it's the gasket... you can cut your own gasket out of 1/16" thick rubberized cork gasket-sheet (NAPA autoparts handles this), which is better about sealing up imperfect surfaces. Just make certain to make the gasket complete , including the tach-drive portion. DO NOT CUT IT! UNNERSTAN?
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
170C
Posts: 3182
Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 11:59 am

Oil Leak

Post by 170C »

I guess I need to give my testamonial here :roll: I am one of George's "belivers". I had about run out of options on my tach drive/alternator oil leak. Clean, clean, clean and still the sob kept leaking. Change tach drive housings. Still leaked :!: Bought a new tach drive housing with new Garlock seal (had already put in new one in old housing), the damn thing still leaked. Checked for cracks, all to no avail (thank goodness for no accessory case crack). Happened to call Dr. Horn one Sat to ask a question about that opening (back of the oil pump gear shaft) and George asked about the oil leak. Well he almost heard a grown man cry :( I had used Tite Seal, Aviation Permatex -still leaked. George mentioned it wasn't an approved fix, but might be worth a try with the NAPA rubber impregnated cork material. Gave it a try and by gosh it worked. So far I haven't had futher leaks at that location. All the airport experts said you weren't supposed to use anything but the factory gasket with nothing on it but this was one situation where that didn't work and George's suggestion did :D On some occasions you just can't go by the book.
OLE POKEY
170C
Director:
2012-2018
User avatar
wa4jr
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:44 am

Post by wa4jr »

Sat down with my IA today and tossed out the question of an IO-360 conversion. He has a couple of old Israeli T-41 type aircraft with the IO-360 engines out and for sale. But although he was willing to part with one of the engines, the rebuild cost is $22,000 and I found that Continental had a big problem with soft cranks just like Lycoming. Reliability of the IO-360 was a big issue with him as well. Looking at the O-300 overhaul, it would be $15,000 or maybe a little less. Now add to the quandry the fact that he can build me a new Superior/ECI O-360 with the data plate from a blown up Lycoming....for no more than $16,000...and the money vs. reliability vs. HP vs. overhaul cost issue is starting to point very hard to the Superior/ECI engine. Brand spanking new engine, no oil leaks, more HP, a warranty, for just a few dollars more than overhauling my O-300. I think I might commit the ultimate sin and install four cylinders instead of six :o
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
User avatar
Bruce Fenstermacher
Posts: 10313
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am

Post by Bruce Fenstermacher »

John I wouldn't worry about just 4 cylinders. Had you bought a Cherokee or a Pacer rather than a 170 that is what you'd have and not know any different.

But I have a question because I don't know the answer not because I'm being smart. But I do want to send up a red flag if it is warranted.

I assume buy the way your wrote it that the IA would be using Superiors experimental engine parts to build this 0-360. If so he can't legally just swap on a data plate from a blown up Lycoming example.

Now if the Superior parts are all PMA'd replacement parts for the Lycoming then I suppose the data plate would be swapped to the replacement case halves which just happen to contain all Superior PMA'd replacement Lycoming parts.

So my question is are ALL the Superior parts required to build an entire engine minus the data plate PMA'd?
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!

Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
User avatar
c170b53
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:01 pm

Post by c170b53 »

A rebuilt io-360 at 22K ???. I think that the end use of the aircraft is the question. A IO-360 on floats makes sense, an 0-360 for short strips or high density altitudes or when on floats where access to av gas is limited, the 0-300 for all around use, smoothness and economical operation. I have an 0-320 in my B and it falls into the 0-300 group minus the smoothness but has a better climb. Don't know about the Franklin powered machines, probably good float performers as well but again thristy. If an engine falls into your lap thats another matter but I would consider what you want to use your airplane for as the deciding factor.
User avatar
wa4jr
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:44 am

Post by wa4jr »

I think the only way I could justify an IO-360 is if one with usable time became available for a reasonable price. As for the Superior engines, when I asked about the legality of installing them in a certificated aircraft, I was told that all the components of the engine carry FAA/PMA numbers and the only thing missing is a data tag. Seems a bit on the "grey market" side, but my IA says everything is legal and he does a good business with them. I'd love to stay with the O-300, but when I come out of a 2000' paved strip at 2000' density altitude with three adults, full fuel, minimum baggage and have to ride the stall horn over the trees, it is time for an engine upgrade. With the O-300, everything must go perfectly on the departure, as there just isn't any margine for error. She gives everything shes got just to keep the rubber out of the trees...any burp at all and I'm knocking squirrels out of their nests 8O
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
User avatar
ak2711c
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 6:29 am

Post by ak2711c »

Keep in mind that the engine overhaul for the 0-360 of $16,000 is really the cheapest part of the whole conversion. You still have to buy the core engine to get the data tag from, the STC from Del Air, Prop, Governor instruments, and other misc parts. All of that is going to run you over $20,000. Now you still have the labor for the conversion. If I remember right they say about 80-100 hours of labor but I could be mistaken. I 'm not trying to talk you out of it, just trying make sure you are aware of all of the gotchas of engine conversions. When it is all said and done between the two conversions there will be very little difference in cost between them. I don't think it is possible to do ether one with a fresh motor for less than $40,000 unless you can do all of the work yourself. If you use a used engine and prop you can save some too, but good ones are hard to come by. It is almost always cheaper to buy a plane already converted than to convert your own. Good luck.
Shawn
User avatar
Joe Moilanen
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:45 am

Post by Joe Moilanen »

wa4jr wrote:I think the only way I could justify an IO-360 is if one with usable time became available for a reasonable price. As for the Superior engines, when I asked about the legality of installing them in a certificated aircraft, I was told that all the components of the engine carry FAA/PMA numbers and the only thing missing is a data tag. Seems a bit on the "grey market" side, but my IA says everything is legal and he does a good business with them. I'd love to stay with the O-300, but when I come out of a 2000' paved strip at 2000' density altitude with three adults, full fuel, minimum baggage and have to ride the stall horn over the trees, it is time for an engine upgrade. With the O-300, everything must go perfectly on the departure, as there just isn't any margine for error. She gives everything shes got just to keep the rubber out of the trees...any burp at all and I'm knocking squirrels out of their nests 8O
Give the 8043 or 8042 prop a try if you stick with the 0-300. I fly out of a 650' strip with mine, no passengers and light on fuel, but it would do it at gross weight if it had to. I'm only at 700' msl but still, the prop makes ALL the difference in the world. You lose 10-15 miles an hour but whats that worth???
Just looked at my log books, flown 49.9 hrs. so far this month, 54.9 in the last 30 days. Life is good. And made enough doing it to cover half of what I paid for the plane 18 years ago. AND it is now worth 3 times as much. Did I mention that life is good?!

Joe
User avatar
wa4jr
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:44 am

Post by wa4jr »

I did find one reason for my ratty climb rate today...I looked at the prop hub while the spinner was off during annual, and lo and behold I have a DM7655 while the logbook is listing a DM7651 :? I tracked the serial number down to an entry in 1960 mentioning a prop change, but nobody bothered to specify what prop was installed to replace the DM7651. So now the question shift to...why am I not getting the cruise speed that cruise props are supposed to deliver? I'm doing darn good to see 115 mph. Give up another 10 to 15 mph for a better climb is something I just can't do. I saw a post regarding DelAir STC at $9500, and at that price I do hope it comes with a mount and all the installation parts. Then I wandered over to XPMods and saw the entire kit listed there for around $14000 with me supplying the engine and prop. So I have to decide whether I want to put another $40K or so into the plane. Having paid $34K for it five years ago, I'm looking at a $74K airplane. I've looked up at the 180 market, and or that $74K, I can get an old run out bush-banger and have to start over again with the refurbishing, painting, upgrades. For $74K, I'll have my beautiful 170 just the way I like it, with a 1500 fpm climb rate at max gross weight and a 140 mph cruise making it a truly useful classic airplane. I just need to hear from more people who have real world experience running the Continental IO-360K. My IA doesn't like them, but a lot of planes used them for a long time, so there must be something good about them :?
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
User avatar
ak2711c
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 6:29 am

Post by ak2711c »

I think in some cases the IO-360 has gotten a bad rap because the TIO-360 had some reliability issues. Some people are of the opinion those reliability issues must apply to the IO-360 as well. While I only have about 40 hours on mine, so far so good. I have talked to many people who have lots of hours behind the IO-360 and love them. One guy has over 4000 hours skymaster time and is an A&P as well, he can't say enough good about it. As far as the conversion kits. From what I hear Del Air's kit is pretty complete but there are always some misc parts needed. XP's kit is not very complete and requires a far amount of misc parts. If you dicide to do it though I can give you a bunch of tips to save you time and $$$$$ on the XP conversion.
Shawn
Jr.CubBuilder
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:33 pm

Post by Jr.CubBuilder »

Here's a couple of my thoughts on a motor conversion. I did the DelAir STC, it did in fact come out to $40K and change for me, that was with a brand new O360, brand new Hartzel CS prop, brand new Woodward govenor, and that $40K is after I sold my old motor prop etc.

I agonized over the IO360, Franklin 350, Lyc. O360, and a used C180. I eventually tossed out the C180 idea because I just didn't want to go through the risk of buying another half century old plane and fixing all the problems with it, and all I could really afford was another $40K after that I was tapped out financially. If I bought a used C180 and it had any serious airframe or motor problems it would be sitting indefinately or I'd have to sell a kidney to get it fixed.

Of the three motor conversions available I settled on the Lyc. O360 for several reasons, it's widely used, still manufactured, and about 20lbs lighter than the O300/C145 motor which helps make up for the additional weight of the CS prop. The other two have their own merits, but the Franklin isn't currently produced, and I wasn't able to find an available Cont. IO360 for a price I could afford.

I sure wouldn't mind having the power of the IO360 or the Franklin 350, but the 180hp I've got is a nice bump and the CS prop really helps with takeoff and climb out. One point I would bring up is that no matter how big of a motor you put in the C170 it's not a fast airplane. When it was designed the horizontal stab. was given a downward cord angle in relation to the wing in an effort to keep the usable CG range as far forward as possible. The engineers found this was needed to to help the landing flare with a forward CG, it was a compromise for simplicity but creates a lot of drag. Cessna engineers fixed this when they built the C180 with the trimable stabilator and also beefed up the fuselage to handle the extra loads and increased speed.

I've found that my plane with the new motor and prop can cruise an indicated 130-135mph at it's upper limit, I've also found that I really don't like cruising that fast because it's inevitable that I'll hit turbulence at some point around the north west. I really don't like seeing that ASI needle banging well into the yellow arc when my 55 year old airframe starts flopping around. Just a couple of thoughts anyway.
User avatar
blueldr
Posts: 4442
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:16 am

Post by blueldr »

When thinking about converting to a continental IO-360 engine, a few of the things to keep in mind are;
1. Expect to spend about $40,000 using a fairly fresh engine.
2. There is only one (1) active and legal STC for the job.
3. Not all models of the IO-360 are compatible or legal with the STC.
4. Same as above with propellers.
5. If you fly the airplane at the same airspeed as you did with the C-145, your fuel consumption will be the same.
6. You will be able to about tripple, or more, your climb rate.
7. One consideration that should surely be given serious thought is your personal "Jollies" scale. Do you really, in your heart. want to swap your flying and "poontang" positions on the scale?
BL
Post Reply