Doper pilots: Lycoming O-320 vs. Continental O-300

[Richard_Pearse]

@Johnny_L.A

I saw an original Sopwith Camel flying with an original rotary engine once. It was incredibly

I was going to say that I’d seen a rotary engined aeroplane flying but after doing some research it looks like I was mistaken.

What I saw was a Bleriot XI which has a 3 cylinder “W” engine. Still cool though.

As far as Continentals go, I’ve flown behind just one as far as I can tell, a 100hp Rolls-Royce built 0-200-A fitted to a PA-18 Cub. It didn’t stop on me in 50 hours so I guess that’s good!

[Richard_Pearse]

I tell a lie, I’ve flown behind a couple of Continental IO-520s in a Beech Baron. They didn’t stop on me either, and there’s double the chance of a failure in a twin!

On the subject of vibration, this can be influenced by things other than the engine. I’ve flown a Britten-Norman Islander and a Shrike Commander, both were fitted with Lycoming IO-540 engines but the Shrike was a lot smoother than the Islander.

[_Undecided_Adrian]

@Anne_Elk

Broomstick said;(at least one rotary? Odd number of cylinders in a circle)

I think you mean radial. Flying behind a rotary motor would mean either a Mazda auto-to-aviation conversion, or a Sopwith.

Or some gliders capable of self-launch, which use a Wankel engine.

[Richard_Pearse]

@'[Undecided

Adrian;12264362’]Or some gliders capable of self-launch, which use a Wankel engine.

That’d be what some models of Mazda have as well, but it appears that some Wankels are purpose built for aircraft rather than being a Mazda conversion.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Johnny_L.A

Except for dad’s Skylane, I’ve only flown behind Lycoming engines. Dad’s Skyhawk was a 172L that was built two years after Cessna switched from the Continental. AIUI, the Continental O-300 has a TBO of 1,800 hours, vs. the 2,000-hour TBO of the Lycoming O-320 – and there are two fewer cylinders to overhaul. The O-320 has five horses over the O-300 (comparing the 145 and 150 hp ones), and is more fuel-efficient to boot. It seems to me that the Lycoming wins.

Which do you think is the better engine?

What an awesome thread. In the SDMB, no less. I’m getting an erection. Makes a man want to come back to the message board again, and post from time-to-time.

Not much to add to the discussion above, other than I’ve flown behind both and owned a number of planes. If your primary concern is cost of ownership and not hair-splitting about performance or vibration, then the biggest variables will be in your control and I would worry less about the actual engine type. Unless of course you are getting something that is truly going out of style, like a Franklin.

Fly the plane regularly (1 hour or more at least once/week) change the oil and filter as soon as it starts to darken, preheat under 40F, do the analysis every 3rd or 4th change, keep the prop balanced and in good condition, and keep the major engine components on a PM schedule. If you do all that, my experience is that the TBO will become (almost) meaningless.

Drop back in and give us a Pirep the next time you take it up.

[_Undecided_Adrian]

@Richard_Pearse

That’d be what some models of Mazda have as well, but it appears that some Wankels are purpose built for aircraft rather than being a Mazda conversion.

Yes, I know. The ones in the gliders have 37kW and weren’t intended for cars, but for motorcycles.

By the way, in Europe there is quite a lot of interest in Diesel engines for aircraft, which can fly on kerosene as well.

[Johnny_L.A]

@IdahoMauleMan

Drop back in and give us a Pirep the next time you take it up.

I would if I had one!

I don’t have an aircraft, and won’t be getting one in any sort of foreseeable future. I was just curious about the engines.

Errata: Dad’s Skyhawk was a 172K, not an -L.