11 Jun 2025, 10:25 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 9 posts ] |
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 12:27 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/27/15 Posts: 1348 Post Likes: +563 Location: C77
Aircraft: PA30
|
|
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
_________________ larry
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 13:43 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 03/17/08 Posts: 6496 Post Likes: +14302 Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
|
|
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....
_________________ Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal MCW Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 13:56 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 07/27/10 Posts: 2155 Post Likes: +533
|
|
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
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 14:00 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/27/15 Posts: 1348 Post Likes: +563 Location: C77
Aircraft: PA30
|
|
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,
_________________ larry
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 14:52 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/19/14 Posts: 163 Post Likes: +41 Company: Turbine Options Location: Indianpolis, IN
Aircraft: Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: They both turn 100LL into noise, lol love it
_________________ Alan Depauw CFI CFII MEI Founder Turbine Options
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 15:37 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 04/28/12 Posts: 4936 Post Likes: +3559 Location: Kansas City, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: 1972 Duke A60
|
|
Username Protected wrote: just take the best frame regardless of engine.
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.
_________________ CFII/MEI
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Innoncent engine questions 520vs540 Posted: 28 Dec 2015, 17:57 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/18/10 Posts: 334 Post Likes: +272
Aircraft: bonanza 35j
|
|
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.
|
|
Top |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 9 posts ] |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|