300/310 hp ...........Continentals v's Lycomings
Thread Starter
300/310 hp ...........Continentals v's Lycomings
Discussion over a few beers about the relative merits of Lycommings and Continentals in the 300/310 hp range. Split being roughly 50/50 either way, some swear one is good and the other brand rubish and vica versa.
Some say Lycomming is more reliable, continentals are more fuel efficient. Truth or urban myth.
Is there a difference between the two types in the way the fuel system is set up, return lines to fuel tanks etc is one that comes to mind. Engine mounts, exhaust, electricals etc.
Is the newest generation of Continental (ie IO-550N as fitted to the Cirrus) with the crossflow heads and tuned induction system any better than the old style as far as fuel efficiency and reliability and vibration?? Now available as an IOF-550N FADEC version complete with computer controlled sequential port fuel injection. ....Oh and computer controlled ignition with nary a magneto to be found.
Are there many diffenences between the engine layout,position of mags, fuel pumps, I understand there is a difference in the fuel injection system settup, paperwork asside in getting an STC, what engineering changes would be involved in changing over a Lycoming powerd aircraft to a continental version if say the Lycomming engine were no longer supported by the factory. same hp, just different brand.
Reason I ask is, sitting in a box, they both look the same, 6 cylinders and a crankcase etc etc, not being an engineer, i dont know enough about the small details.
Some say Lycomming is more reliable, continentals are more fuel efficient. Truth or urban myth.
Is there a difference between the two types in the way the fuel system is set up, return lines to fuel tanks etc is one that comes to mind. Engine mounts, exhaust, electricals etc.
Is the newest generation of Continental (ie IO-550N as fitted to the Cirrus) with the crossflow heads and tuned induction system any better than the old style as far as fuel efficiency and reliability and vibration?? Now available as an IOF-550N FADEC version complete with computer controlled sequential port fuel injection. ....Oh and computer controlled ignition with nary a magneto to be found.
Are there many diffenences between the engine layout,position of mags, fuel pumps, I understand there is a difference in the fuel injection system settup, paperwork asside in getting an STC, what engineering changes would be involved in changing over a Lycoming powerd aircraft to a continental version if say the Lycomming engine were no longer supported by the factory. same hp, just different brand.
Reason I ask is, sitting in a box, they both look the same, 6 cylinders and a crankcase etc etc, not being an engineer, i dont know enough about the small details.
Last edited by Guptar; 19th Apr 2007 at 13:25.
what engineering changes would be involved in changing over a Lycoming powerd aircraft to a continental version
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Night Sky
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience having operated both Lycoming 540 and Continetal 520 engines, here are some of my observations. The continental is smoother and in my opinion easier to start. The continental fuel injection system is slightly different to Lycoming as is the starting technique. You can use the boost pump in a continental with the mixture at idle cut off to circulate cold fuel right up to the fuel control unit without getting any fuel in the cylinders. This makes heat soaked engines a doddle to start by getting rid of vapour lock problems. Continental seems to be able to run smoothly with lower fuel flows too. Could have something to do with a better induction system? Some engineers I have spoken to also say the other major difference is that in a lycoming, the camshaft is in the top of the crankcase and continental has it in the bottom. This can lead to the cam in under utilised lycomings wearing prematurely as the oil runs off into the sump after shut down and takes a relatively long time to get good oil flow way up there after start.
Reliability wise, nothing in it in my opinion. Both suffer from poor factory parts quality every now and then (check out quality control related ADs probably more so lycoming) and both suffer from operation by muppets!
My personal preference is for continental for a couple of reasons: Smoother, it's a better looking engine! and they sound better
Reliability wise, nothing in it in my opinion. Both suffer from poor factory parts quality every now and then (check out quality control related ADs probably more so lycoming) and both suffer from operation by muppets!
My personal preference is for continental for a couple of reasons: Smoother, it's a better looking engine! and they sound better
I think its like Ford and Holden. You're either a Ford man, or in my case a Holden man (Commodore SV8).
I'm a Continental man. Probably cause I have spent most time behind them and they have yet to let me down.
A couple of engineers I know and trust seem to hold the view that "the Continental is a "real" engine!".
Dr
PS: Its a pity Cessna went with Lycomings for their "new" range of singles!
I'm a Continental man. Probably cause I have spent most time behind them and they have yet to let me down.
A couple of engineers I know and trust seem to hold the view that "the Continental is a "real" engine!".
Dr
PS: Its a pity Cessna went with Lycomings for their "new" range of singles!
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 20th Apr 2007 at 00:29.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: All over
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can already see the trend, done more than a thousand or so hours each behind both C's & L's,
Both 1950's-ish technology that is still functioning - they even used the 520's in tanks in nam.
There isnt a hell of alot in it both $, performance & reliabilty providing there built and operated correctly.
I am partial and if had a choice would go the mighty Continential, smooth and sound awsome - oh how I miss em
anyone need a continential driver?
Both 1950's-ish technology that is still functioning - they even used the 520's in tanks in nam.
There isnt a hell of alot in it both $, performance & reliabilty providing there built and operated correctly.
I am partial and if had a choice would go the mighty Continential, smooth and sound awsome - oh how I miss em
anyone need a continential driver?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A hot start in a Continental will drain your life away (re: B58/55) 
Predominantly, because the fuel injector lines run over the top of the engine, where the heat naturally rises up to... so you get all sorts of dramas.
Lycomings are not too bad to start, though on the navajo's I've flown, they tend to have a dummy spits at idle rpm on hot days, the engines tend to surge. 1200rpm for idle seems to fix this, plus boost pumps on, make a difference too.
Predominantly, because the fuel injector lines run over the top of the engine, where the heat naturally rises up to... so you get all sorts of dramas.
Lycomings are not too bad to start, though on the navajo's I've flown, they tend to have a dummy spits at idle rpm on hot days, the engines tend to surge. 1200rpm for idle seems to fix this, plus boost pumps on, make a difference too.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lycs are more reliable...end of story. Continental suffer from chronic crankcase and cylinder cracking. Hence the introduction of Phase crankcases etc. etc. The "older" Conts were very heat sensitive and the slightest hint of engine mismanagement resulted in a very much lighter bank account. Compare the number of Lyc engines to Conts that reach TBO and for that matter check the TBO life of both. Believe me the "earlier Conts R a pain in the asre!! I have owned and operated both in Aztecs, 402A,B,C, Chieftain, B58, Comanche, 414A, Navajo, Seneca II 111, Aerostar, AC500 and a lone 231 Mooney. The Continentals very nearly broke me. i note with interest, a few Cirrus of late suffering engine failure!
Cessna learnt by their mistakes !
Lycs are more reliable...end of story
Out of 16 Continentals and 5 Lycomings and two PT-6's in the operation I am responsible for the vast majority of the engine issues have always been the Lycomings (valve stems, oil leaks, pots-off) etc etc and their associated engine components: turbo chargers, FCUs etc. I can back that up with 18 months data and that the company has utilised TBO extension on each Continental engine (including geared engines, normally aspirated and forced inducted) coming-up to TBO. If you are having failures in conties that often then you are not operating them as per the book, end story.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ops - Aren't there about 8 of those contis and one lyco semi-permanent residents of the maintenance shed
I owned an Aztec with Lyco IO-540s and had no probs with them over 4 years and two rebuilds at TBO, but before I took delivery I had a JPI multipoint engine monitor fitted as well as Gamijectors. Never ran the CHTs higher than 400 and never an issue. (then a complete turkey 'bought' the operation and started running them at 50lt/side up to 500CHT and burned one out within 3 months.)
The engine builder was unsympathetic when he heard of their operation technique.
With all the various aeroplanes I've spent useful time in, all have been run by the book and none have demonstrated any particular design flaws.
(Oh, and 'Cyclone Bob', you can most certainly fuel-cool a hot Lyco FCU and spider exactly the same as a Conti; in fact it is technique I use daily with Chieftains, as well as with Barons and C400s.)
I owned an Aztec with Lyco IO-540s and had no probs with them over 4 years and two rebuilds at TBO, but before I took delivery I had a JPI multipoint engine monitor fitted as well as Gamijectors. Never ran the CHTs higher than 400 and never an issue. (then a complete turkey 'bought' the operation and started running them at 50lt/side up to 500CHT and burned one out within 3 months.)
The engine builder was unsympathetic when he heard of their operation technique. With all the various aeroplanes I've spent useful time in, all have been run by the book and none have demonstrated any particular design flaws.
(Oh, and 'Cyclone Bob', you can most certainly fuel-cool a hot Lyco FCU and spider exactly the same as a Conti; in fact it is technique I use daily with Chieftains, as well as with Barons and C400s.)
Tiger77 it must be your technique. I've flown between continentals in 310's and 402's for around 4500 hrs with never a hint of the problem you suggest.
However if it will make you happy I did see an ad recently for a 310 in the states with two 350hp chieftain engines in it. Supposedly good for around 240 knots.
Not sure if you'll be able to see this without a password, but here it is.
http://tappix.com/716718
However if it will make you happy I did see an ad recently for a 310 in the states with two 350hp chieftain engines in it. Supposedly good for around 240 knots.
Not sure if you'll be able to see this without a password, but here it is.
http://tappix.com/716718
Last edited by Peter Fanelli; 22nd Apr 2007 at 23:23.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
statistics!!
Statistics: 35 years and 12500 hrs operating both, with invoices to prove it. Lycomings are internationally renowned to be more reliable. It is true what you say that Continentals are more prone to suffer from engine mismanagement, but thats the way it goes. Sorry.....I and the rest of the industry stand firm.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy:
However, the TCM IO-550 - as installed in new aircraft has a TBO of 2000.
Lycoming has the TBO edge in the small engine range; The O-235 has 2400 TBO while the TCM IO-240 is still 2000 TBO.
The dark horse is the relatively cheap 100hp Rotax with 1500 TBO.
I've not yet done the sums but I'd be interested in comments LYC O-235 $ per engine hour vs. ROTAX 912 $ per engine hour.
However, the TCM IO-550 - as installed in new aircraft has a TBO of 2000.
Lycoming has the TBO edge in the small engine range; The O-235 has 2400 TBO while the TCM IO-240 is still 2000 TBO.
The dark horse is the relatively cheap 100hp Rotax with 1500 TBO.
I've not yet done the sums but I'd be interested in comments LYC O-235 $ per engine hour vs. ROTAX 912 $ per engine hour.
Last edited by Rich-Fine-Green; 23rd Apr 2007 at 04:22.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guptar:
The new TCM IOF-550N FADEC looks great and on paper shows promise...
That is until the extra engine weight is noted, then the ruputed extra huge price increase..........
Now if TCM had the balls to increase their TBO on the FADEC to match their machismo about the new engine then it would be worth while.
I'd consider a new aircraft or a retrofit aircraft with a 3000+ TBO FADEC - even for another US$10-15K.
I've operated heaps of Lycoming and TCM engines, all were about the same when operated by a good Pilot. (slight agreement with OpsNormal that a few more $$ went into the Lycomings).
However, TCM get the biggest black cross when it comes to support. Their published warranty may as well be 20 years but it means little when it comes to a claim......
The new TCM IOF-550N FADEC looks great and on paper shows promise...
That is until the extra engine weight is noted, then the ruputed extra huge price increase..........
Now if TCM had the balls to increase their TBO on the FADEC to match their machismo about the new engine then it would be worth while.
I'd consider a new aircraft or a retrofit aircraft with a 3000+ TBO FADEC - even for another US$10-15K.
I've operated heaps of Lycoming and TCM engines, all were about the same when operated by a good Pilot. (slight agreement with OpsNormal that a few more $$ went into the Lycomings).
However, TCM get the biggest black cross when it comes to support. Their published warranty may as well be 20 years but it means little when it comes to a claim......
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wellington
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2400 only recommended for 0-235
0-235 TBO is only recomended at 2400 hours - my last one was removed at 3800 and still going strong, just a couple of top overhauls.
I've heard of 4000 hours+ if rebuild properly and not abused too much.
Just how may hours do Rotax and Jabairu really do? (As opposed to recomened TBO) I'm not knocking them, I've flown behind a Jabby, nice little aircraft and sweet engine, but they are a lot higher stressed than small Lycoming engines. And the Jabbys have had a few engineering issues.
I've heard of 4000 hours+ if rebuild properly and not abused too much.
Just how may hours do Rotax and Jabairu really do? (As opposed to recomened TBO) I'm not knocking them, I've flown behind a Jabby, nice little aircraft and sweet engine, but they are a lot higher stressed than small Lycoming engines. And the Jabbys have had a few engineering issues.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW
From my experience they do have some issues in both the Jab and Rotax camps, just like the old Lycs and Conts. But most problems are related to how well they are treated, and when many are RAA or Experimental some issues are due to owners more than they admit.
I have known some Jabs to go thru 4 or 5000 hours, and usual 1000 top end and 2000 complete overhaul, but they are flown often and treated well, so thats what you expect. Rotax often go to 1500, but you might as well buy a new one after that. They are cheap enough to do that.
The weekend warriors who only do 30 hours a year might find condensation and other issues giving more problems.
I have 450 hours in 2.75 years on one and going well.
J
From my experience they do have some issues in both the Jab and Rotax camps, just like the old Lycs and Conts. But most problems are related to how well they are treated, and when many are RAA or Experimental some issues are due to owners more than they admit.
I have known some Jabs to go thru 4 or 5000 hours, and usual 1000 top end and 2000 complete overhaul, but they are flown often and treated well, so thats what you expect. Rotax often go to 1500, but you might as well buy a new one after that. They are cheap enough to do that.
The weekend warriors who only do 30 hours a year might find condensation and other issues giving more problems.
I have 450 hours in 2.75 years on one and going well.
J