inigo88
Composite-lover
You beat me to it! I love SLO, and have been dying to fly into SBP. (@Autothrust Blue hook a brother up with a TwinBo ride?
)
A Cirrus
- Thread starter mshunter
- Start date
You beat me to it! I love SLO, and have been dying to fly into SBP. (@Autothrust Blue hook a brother up with a TwinBo ride?
)
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
As previously mentioned, WAY worse places to be stuck. And by the way, I've had a Lycoming starter crap the bed on me. In Chico. On a Friday night. In the middle of summer. There was no one there and it was hot as sin. I'd take SBP in the fall ANY day.
I've got over 700 hours on both brands' respective 6 cylinder engines and I say it's a wash (having never been the one to pay the MX bills). I'd give the Contis an edge in smoothness and general pleasantness to sit behind (or next to). But the Lycos seem to take all of their cylinders to TBO, so I can appreciate that angle.
I've got over 700 hours on both brands' respective 6 cylinder engines and I say it's a wash (having never been the one to pay the MX bills). I'd give the Contis an edge in smoothness and general pleasantness to sit behind (or next to). But the Lycos seem to take all of their cylinders to TBO, so I can appreciate that angle.
🦈💜
All dragon~
Or if you're need to go to points north, I can bring a SingleBo down to pick you up... ;>
I imagine you're stayin' with the plane, though. ;>
It is a reasonably decent place to be stuck, though.
~Fox
Yup. Hands down has Lycoming beat for NVH (Noise Vibration and Harshness). More The Lycomings in the Cheiftain I used to fly were powerhouses, and never once had an issue. But, they were rough. The Cirrus is the first Continental I have had any kind of hours with, and it's a completely different machine. Like a sewing maching when it's running. Lycoming = 1956 F-100 Pickup, Continental = WacoFan's Grand Marquis.
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Yea, starter adapters are a weak spot on the big bore CMIs. The trick is to pull it out of service the moment it starts slipping. If you do that, they can usually machine/tweak it back into spec without a huge amount of coin.
But people don't do that. They grind on them, or try to "bump" the starter into swining the prop until they finally come apart. When they do come apart, it's big coin, especially the versions that drive an A/C compressor.
The problem can also be masked by a crappy battery or weak electrical system (corrosion at the terminals).
Richman
But people don't do that. They grind on them, or try to "bump" the starter into swining the prop until they finally come apart. When they do come apart, it's big coin, especially the versions that drive an A/C compressor.
The problem can also be masked by a crappy battery or weak electrical system (corrosion at the terminals).
Richman
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
I don't know, my GO-480s have yet to fail me even in minor ways.
And they sound great.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Roger Roger
I've got about 1100hrs behind IO520s, and now somewhere around 1400hrs in IO and TIO 540s. Frankly, I like the IO520 better. It runs smoother, it's easier to start, and I never had so much as a hiccup flying the things around. The lycomings hiccup, and shake, and rattle, and I've had mag problems most frequently with the Lycomings. They do produce more power for longer in the big bore motors, and seem to require less finesse with throttle than do the Continentals, so it's kind of a wash. The IO520s do not - I mean really, really, really, do not - like heavy handed power reductions. They will crack and spit oil and even audibly moan at you if you fly them like how you can fly the IO540 - especially when it's cold. The IO540s seem to be fine with a little more abuse without wearing out as hard. My first high performance airplane was being pulled around by an IO520 though, so I might be biased, but I really love the smoothness of the continental. I mean, yeah, there is a plethora of reasons why the Lycoming is better for somethings, but man, I like the sound the Continental makes on the ground, I like sitting behind it in the air, and I like the smooth ride. Sometimes, sitting behind or beside an IO540, I'll just start to noticeably feel the vibration of the engine, and it spoils some of the magic for me. When I fly, I want an engine that humms like a kitten at cruise, and roars like a lion for everybody within a substantial radius on takeoff. I want an engine with a dipstick sticking out of a convenient side hatch, where I don't have to unscrew a cap that has practically welded itself to the case on the 20 minute flight. I want an engine whose manufacturer tells you to fly it at 10 quarts and it actually seeks 10 quarts as level. I want an engine where the flight manual doesn't have to advice pilots to reduce electrical loads when flying through rain because of the location of the alternator. There are a whole host of reasons why I like the Continental better, but probably, it's because the continental was my first high performance engine, and so she'll be my preference because of timing rather than any particular superior qualities.
I've got about 1100hrs behind IO520s, and now somewhere around 1400hrs in IO and TIO 540s. Frankly, I like the IO520 better. It runs smoother, it's easier to start, and I never had so much as a hiccup flying the things around. The lycomings hiccup, and shake, and rattle, and I've had mag problems most frequently with the Lycomings. They do produce more power for longer in the big bore motors, and seem to require less finesse with throttle than do the Continentals, so it's kind of a wash. The IO520s do not - I mean really, really, really, do not - like heavy handed power reductions. They will crack and spit oil and even audibly moan at you if you fly them like how you can fly the IO540 - especially when it's cold. The IO540s seem to be fine with a little more abuse without wearing out as hard. My first high performance airplane was being pulled around by an IO520 though, so I might be biased, but I really love the smoothness of the continental. I mean, yeah, there is a plethora of reasons why the Lycoming is better for somethings, but man, I like the sound the Continental makes on the ground, I like sitting behind it in the air, and I like the smooth ride. Sometimes, sitting behind or beside an IO540, I'll just start to noticeably feel the vibration of the engine, and it spoils some of the magic for me. When I fly, I want an engine that humms like a kitten at cruise, and roars like a lion for everybody within a substantial radius on takeoff. I want an engine with a dipstick sticking out of a convenient side hatch, where I don't have to unscrew a cap that has practically welded itself to the case on the 20 minute flight. I want an engine whose manufacturer tells you to fly it at 10 quarts and it actually seeks 10 quarts as level. I want an engine where the flight manual doesn't have to advice pilots to reduce electrical loads when flying through rain because of the location of the alternator. There are a whole host of reasons why I like the Continental better, but probably, it's because the continental was my first high performance engine, and so she'll be my preference because of timing rather than any particular superior qualities.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Had the same problem at Furnace Creek. Dan Torey said let it cool and try again tomorrow when one blade is enough. Sure enough it started. When Kelly (junk) rebuilt the fairly new started they didn't replace the bearings and that was the problem. No more Kelly (junk) starters for me. That was the third one in 6 years and the plane only flies 100 hours a year.
My friend took his bad starter to an auto starter/alternator place and they rebuild it for $130. He told them remove no stickers, add no stickers. My friend says it's the best aircraft starter he's ever had. When he picked it up they tried to bill the starter to, Flight School #1. Then Flight School #2 and #3. Each flight school had accounts there. Hmmm?
swisspilot
Well-Known Member
On the C206 I neded up liking the Conti better then the Lycoming installed in new H models.
Funny you mentioned the dip stick, had the same feeling on that!
Nice picture you posted, I`m flying a PA31 too this days..
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
The Lycoming doesn't crack cylinders, but the variants that the Company flies have been around the block a few times and so they are starting to have problems with crankcase cracking. I guess divco can only weld em up so many times before the aluminum is just plain worn out.
CirrusMonkey
No Real Usefulness
The only Cirrus I ever flew was the SR-20 back in school when they first came out. The only things I didnt really like were the lean assist function and the fact that it can't climb for beans. But man how I'd love to see that girl again.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
What did you not like about it?
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
CirrusMonkey said:
2 blade or 3? I've only flown an SR20 with a 3 blade. Good climb.
CirrusMonkey
No Real Usefulness
Three blade.
Don't know what one you were flying, but the two that I fly on a regular basis, with two, fuel to the tabs, they both get a best of about 600-700fpm down low. Once you get to altitude, it goes down real fast. They are dogs. But, look at the mission of it. For what you pay, and what you get, I'd much rather fly a -20 than a 172.
skydisaster
Well-Known Member
I have about 1600 hours in Continental IO520s and 550s, mostly in Barons. I also gave a little over 1,000 hours in IO540-720 Lycomings. You know what I have learned in that time? I really like my PT6!
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
mshunter said:
It's a G1 SR20. 2168 empty. I'm a heavy guy, and at tabs no problem 750-800fpm at 105kts. Above 8000 it does drop quicklyo. In cruise I usually did 400fpm climb at 110-115kts
Also, in most numbers the 20 compares to a 182, not 172.
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
Isnt this the truth!
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
A Captain I flew with the other day has had three failures (in umpteen thousands of hours, mind) of the PW118A/B with Hamilton Sundstrand 14RF9 Commuter powerplant on the Bro: turboprops do fail, too. Two PT-6s = even better.
(Even if the second reciprocating engine on my light twin is there to get me to the scene of the accident, I still feel better having that second engine than without it.)
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Just out of curiosity, are we talking bonafide parts ejected from the cowling and/or tailpipe failures, or are we talking in-flight shutdown due to loss of oil pressure, control/indication anomalies, or other precautionary shutdowns?A Captain I flew with the other day has had three failures (in umpteen thousands of hours, mind) of the PW118A/B with Hamilton Sundstrand 14RF9 Commuter powerplant on the Bro: turboprops do fail, too. Two PT-6s = even better.
(Even if the second reciprocating engine on my light twin is there to get me to the scene of the accident, I still feel better having that second engine than without it.)
