Continental engine

I am building an RV 8 Fastback, and have been thinking I would love to install a Continental IO 360. This engine is the 6 cyl. turbocharged Seneca 2 and up engine.

My question, has anyone already done this in an 8???? If so I would love to talk to them, could save alot of time for me.

Thanks,

Calvin

Why would you do this? What's the advantage?

6 cylinders mean 12 spark plugs, not 8, 6 cylinders to potentially develop problems as opposed to 4, giving a 50% greater probability. Fewer parts mean lower probability of failure, which is why Lindberg flew the Atlantic in a single engine plane.

The best way to save a lot of time is to forget the Continental and go with what Van's has designed it for.

I'm pretty sure there is one located in Winder, GA with this setup. I have never spoken to him and I'm not sure if he frequents this forum or not.

Good luck.

Resale value = ****.... don't do it.

Continental IO360

I was thinking the same thing! In a 4 sort of an Rocket lite!

No love for experimenting

CE196, don't look for much love here in the VAF forums with regards to major modifications. The majority of folks around here like to follow the plans and build the same old unmodified RV-whatever. Not much love for EXPERIMENTAL tinkering or changing things around.
Shoot, if you want to put a Cont. IO-360 in YOUR OWN airplane go right ahead. It's a free country. It may just be the beginning of a new fad. Those Cont. 6 cylinders are smoother than the Lyc. 4 bangers and give you a true 210 hp with out a lot of stress on the engine like these guys who go with the Lyc. high compression pistons. Take a chance, this guy a few hundred years ago named Columbus did...

Continental

Get in touch with "Kahuna" (Mike Stewart) and do a search on the forums for his RV-8. He has a Lycoming 6 cylinder in his 8 and can give you some good advice. He is one of the moderators on the forums and probably will see your post before you get in touch with him.

....Well maybe not, as I suspect he was at Brownwood TX for the formation clinic and may be suffering "jet lag"!!!!.............

Calvin,

Good luck with putting the conti 6 cyl in your RV. That will be a good mod and make for a great sounding RV.

I have read of others putting this engine in an RV but for the life of me can't recall who it was.

Obviously you will have to change the engine mount, the rest is just a matter of W&B. Fitting a cowling, baffles, etc. should be straight forward.

Regarding the engine mount, check with Van's and find out who makes them. That company might be able to custom weld one for you and save you the pain of modifying a Lycoming mount.

Keep us up todate on your progress.

Oh, and build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!

A six cylinder 360 continental would be a real smooth and economical powerplant. I had to spend some bucks on my lycoming to balance the crank, rods, pistons etc... for a smooth powerplant. The engine mount should be a piece of cake as there have been many modified. There was a builder on VAF that had his engine mount modified for a hybrid tail tragger/noise wheel configuration up front so he could have a fairly easy transition if he elected to. Make it happen and send pics!!

CONT 6 CYL

CALL GEORIGA AVIONICS THEY HAVE A WEB SITE
the guy that owns the shop has a 4 with cont from a beech bonanza he also said he used the cowling from the bonanza

I seem to remember Vans put a fair bit of work into trying to fit a continental (4 cyl not 6) into a -7? a few years ago. Their objectives were different of course to making a custom, 1-off installation but it might be worth asking them about their experiences.

-g

Thanks for the info on who might have done it.

As for those asking why, well a 6 is smoother running, and produces, depending on model, up to 225 hp. I really don't care if it has more spark plugs. I have 18 in my 9 cyl. R985 powered Cessna 195. If you can't afford the bullets, don't buy the gun!
What i'm really interested in is the thought of a turbo charger. I guess I'm spoiled by the supercharged R985 on my 195.

Just like some one said, my airplane, my choice. I really wanted an F-1 evo, but Mark pulled the production out of Easter Europe, and said something about mom and pop shops and composite wings, no thanks, again my choice.

Sorry, but I don't drink the cool aid.

Ok, you want more reasons not to?

The Continental IO-360 (also known as the "rod chucker") has a HORRIBLE reputation for relaibility, Seneca installations aside. It also weighs a LOT more, makes only marginally more power on the same CI displacement, the turbo installation would only ADD to the weight. The TBO is lower, and they rarely make it all the way there, unlike the lycoming. Add the turbo at the 210 HP point, and you get an OK engine, try to bump it up to 225 (Which is only a takeoff rating BTW, 5 mins) and you end up needing to replace cylinders before the rest of the engine takes a dump. The engines retain moisture very well, which leads to rust problems (Ask Mooney 231 drivers). You also need to go with a Variable wastegate (more weight) and intercooler for 225HP. The engine mount is a cradle type, so it will weigh more still.

Overall, I think most engine shops would agree that it is probably the worst modern aircraft engine in wider circulation.

By the time you use a TSIO-360 with all the **** you need for a turbo and stuff for 225 unreliable HP, you could simple bolt on a parallel valve IO-540 rated at 235-260HP (STOCK!) and most likely have a lighter, more powerful, and CERTAINLY more reliable setup. Again, talk to Kahuna! I was planning on that route for my -7 for a long time, and still might do it.

Stephen,

Thanks for the input, but I would like to correct your statment about weight.
The Continental engine is actually lighter than its 200 hp Lycoming 4 cyl. counterpart. I got these numbers from both Lycoming and Continental's web sites.

Lycoming IO-360-A 200 hp,324 to 335 lbs with a tbo of 2000 hours.

Continental IO-360-ES 210 hp, 305 lbs with a tbo of 2000 hours.

Continental TSIO-360-D,DB 225 hp, 283 lbs with a lower tbo of 1400 hours.

I'm not sure why you don't like this engine, but I have lots of time between them and they NEVER gave me a lick of trouble. Also flew a 172XP with the 195 hp version and it worked well.

As for size, it is very close to the lycoming:

Lycoming
19.35 inches height, 34.25 in wide, 29.81 to 31.33 long

Continental
26.22 in height, 33.05 in wide, 36.32 in long for the IO-360

the TSIO-360
22.76 in height, 31.46 in wide and 35.34 long.

This makes all other info in the post suspect.

As far as resale, I would not even consider this option due to our current legal system.

Of the 7 aircraft I have owned, 2 were/are radials, 3 had 4 cyls and 2 had 6 cyls. Hands down, the Cessna 170 with the O-300 was the smoothest. I had the Twin Comanche with its IO-320 balanced, but still not as smooth. The Aerostar was pretty smooth with the angle valve IO-540's. The P&W R985 is way smoother than the Jacobs R755.

Please, I'm listening, WHY is the Continental IO-360 a bad choice, and please, no I thinks, just facts.

Stephen,

Thanks for the input, but I would like to correct your statment about weight.
The Continental engine is actually lighter than its 200 hp Lycoming 4 cyl. counterpart. I got these numbers from both Lycoming and Continental's web sites.

Lycoming IO-360-A 200 hp,324 to 335 lbs with a tbo of 2000 hours.

Continental IO-360-ES 210 hp, 305 lbs with a tbo of 2000 hours.

Continental TSIO-360-D,DB 225 hp, 283 lbs with a lower tbo of 1400 hours.

I'm not sure why you don't like this engine, but I have lots of time between them and they NEVER gave me a lick of trouble. Also flew a 172XP with the 195 hp version and it worked well.

As for size, it is very close to the lycoming:

Lycoming
19.35 inches height, 34.25 in wide, 29.81 to 31.33 long

Continental
26.22 in height, 33.05 in wide, 36.32 in long for the IO-360

the TSIO-360
22.76 in height, 31.46 in wide and 35.34 long.

This makes all other info in the post suspect.

As far as resale, I would not even consider this option due to our current legal system.

Of the 7 aircraft I have owned, 2 were/are radials, 3 had 4 cyls and 2 had 6 cyls. Hands down, the Cessna 170 with the O-300 was the smoothest. I had the Twin Comanche with its IO-320 balanced, but still not as smooth. The Aerostar was pretty smooth with the angle valve IO-540's. The P&W R985 is way smoother than the Jacobs R755.

Please, I'm listening, WHY is the Continental IO-360 a bad choice, and please, no I thinks, just facts.

Anyone have the actual weight difference? Another half-engine has to be substantial on such a light airplane, I would think

CE196 said:

Stephen,

Thanks for the input, but I would like to correct your statment about weight.
The Continental engine is actually lighter than its 200 hp Lycoming 4 cyl. counterpart. I got these numbers from both Lycoming and Continental's web sites.
...

Please, I'm listening, WHY is the Continental IO-360 a bad choice, and please, no I thinks, just facts.

Click to expand...

Not be be testy, but those weren't 'I thinks...' I don't know how Continental figures weight, but I guarantee that the installed weight of the Continental TSIO-360 is comparable to that of the Parallel Valve O-540, not the Angle Valve IO-360. Of course the difference of those two are only around 30-40LBs from my understanding.

Talk to a few reputable engine shops about the Continental. They will tell you the same thing I did, it's just a bad design. And it WON'T make 2000hrs with a turbo...

For reference, Van's did do a Install of the IO-360, in the RV-10! It is lighter than the O-540 install they did, but that is WITHOUT the turbo.

Greazed Litenin...

There was an RV8 featured in Sport Aviation several years ago with (I believe)a Cont TIO-360 and McCauley prop called Grezdlitenin. The article covered the conversion. Check the Sport Aviation archives...

Smokey
HR2

BTW, flew a Swift for many years with a Continental IO-360, great engine, light, smooth and cheaper than it's Lycoming counterpart. If you plan on keeping the -8, do what you want. If selling is your plan, be like everybody else and bolt on a Lycoming. The Wright Brothers had alot of inputs too, most said DONT...

I love my IO-540...6 are smoother than 4...
Rockets Rule!

I had a Seneca 2 with the TSIO 360 E's. 1400 TBO. Both were running strong at 1800 hrs when I sold it, with great compression and little oil use. I had a friend who was inside at Continental who told me the TBO was 1400 only because it was a new installation and they didn't know what to expect. They bumped the TBO up after it became clear it was a good reliable engine.
It replaced the 4 cyl Lycoming in the Seneca 1 because it had the Turbo for better single engine performance and was so much smoother.
The fixed wastegate Turbo is no problem to operate, just have to be light on the throttle.
I have a 10 with the 540 now and looked hard into this engine for it. I guess Van's did not think there was a market demand. I run low power in the 540 for fuel economy now and so would likely have been happy with the reduced HP, and still have the Turbo for altitude. Good luck it you do it.

smokyray said:

There was an RV8 featured in Sport Aviation several years ago with (I believe)a Cont TIO-360 and McCauley prop called Grezdlitenin. The article covered the conversion. Check the Sport Aviation archives...

Smokey
HR2

BTW, flew a Swift for many years with a Continental IO-360, great engine, light, smooth and cheaper than it's Lycoming counterpart. If you plan on keeping the -8, do what you want. If selling is your plan, be like everybody else and bolt on a Lycoming. The Wright Brothers had alot of inputs too, most said DONT...

I love my IO-540...6 are smoother than 4...
Rockets Rule!

Click to expand...

Grezdlitenin has a Lycoming IO-360 with the McCauley prop, out of a Mooney 201. There was a -6 for sale that has the Continental though. It was advertised at $40k for a LONG time without selling.