In my quest for knowledge, I ask for the pro/cons of the IO-520 vs the IO-540. I am aware of the cylinder cracks vs cam issues, but, in reality how does it all shake out? Some claim the ease of maintenance of the 540, the higher TBO, and so on.... how to make real sense (practicality) of it all? I have noticed that few 540 airplane have engine monitors/gami. Are the 520 more "needy", or are their owners wiser? I know all here will be the wiser ones. Serriously, just trying to learn - I have no preconcieved opinions. I have only owned io-360's used on aerobatic planes, and a Rotax 2-stroke. Hoping to learn.......
Thanks!

larry

Is this about the Continental (520) vs. Lycoming (540) or did you mean to compare the big bore Continentals to each other, 520 vs. 550?

They both turn 100LL into noise,

They both cost too much,

They both will run to TBO if you take good care of them,

And they both occasionally quit....

Don't ever forget that last one......

Ford vs Chevy,

Packers vs Bears,

pick your poison...

Pick the team closest to you,

The car dealer you like best,

and

The airframe that best suits your mission and take which ever engine it has in it.

If a Bellanca Viking was the airplane that fit my mission, (they come with either,) I would probably opt for the -540 because in my heart I believe they are cheaper to operate, but I could never prove it....

May or not be relevant or even accurate, but it does seem that I see more 540's being "supped up and raced" than the big bore Continentals.

That being said, I think the Continentals look better under the cowl and since they're the ones powering most Bo's and Barons, they're my favorite.

But what Doug said seems to fit with logic and common sense regarding pick your airframe and fly whatever comes in it . . . and he left out Kate Upton vs. Twiggy

Thanks.

Yes it was the Cont. vs Lyc question.

and yes, I am looking at a Viking, and was gathering info to see if I should limit the airframe to which engine, or just take the best frame regardless of engine.

I am curious about the fact Cont didn't make an aerobatic nor a helicopter engine..... too small of market, or lawyer, or engine related?

I know that these questions can be debatable, but I ask in terms of experience/fact not from preference.

Thanks again,

Factory rebuilds are cheaper for an IO 520 vs IO 540.

$35-37k for Continental vs $39-50k for Lycoming

And this includes Continental's 3.6% price increase from a few weeks ago.

http://blog.overhaulbids.com/lycoming-5 ... haul-cost/
http://blog.overhaulbids.com/continenta ... haul-cost/

lol love it

That's the right answer. Worry about how the engine has been taken care of, how many hours are on it, etc. instead of which manufacturer built it. I assume you've checked out VikingPilots.com? You'll find some speculation on there that the 540s shake more on startup and shut down and led to tail issue/AD.

Agree that the airframe is most important variable, however I thought the Continental burned a little less gas, the lycoming was a little more robust, i.e. More likely to make TBO, and not need top end repair.