Continental TSIO 360
 

I'm in the planning stages for an RV 7A, has anyone ever mounted a Continental TSIO360 in any RV?

I have flown behind them
 

I flew charters and freight in a twin Seneca-II with the Cont TSIO-360. First it is a six banger and second it is turbo and 210hp. I think Van's has designated it as a potential engine for the RV-10.

The engine is fine and never let me down

Here are the problems. You will need a special engine mount. It's dimensions may cause a need for extensive cowl modification. There are no off the shelf RV exhaust systems or engine bay parts that will work. I am not sure a Seneca II firewall forward parts would fit, even if you could buy one. The turbo set up will be more extensive and you will have a challenge fitting it. I don't think the stock Seneca II set-up had an intercooler, which would be real hard to fit in a RV cowl. An intercooler however would improve performance and be less strain on the engine.

Bottom line it will be a custom installation and you will end up paying a premium. What is wrong with an IO-360 (180 or 200HP)?


Here is an article on turbos and problems with the TSIO-360:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182808-1.html

excerpt below:
Problem engines

Some engines use turbocharging to gain additional sea-level horsepower, rather than simply to maintain sea-level performance at altitude. Highly ground-boosted engines like the 325 hp TSIO-520 found in late-model T210s and P210s and many RAM-converted twins have a dismal record of making published TBO, much less going beyond it. The same is true of the 225 hp TSIO-360 in the P337.

All other things being equal, the higher the MP redline, the poorer the longevity of a turbocharged engine. The best candidates for good engine longevity are "turbo-normalized" engines like the 285 hp engines in my T310 (red-lined at a very conservative 32" of MP).

[SNIP]

Some lower-cost turbocharged airplanes like the Piper Turbo Arrow, Mooney 231 and Piper Seneca II use the problem-prone Continental IO-360-series engine coupled with a fixed-wastegate system that makes the turbocharger work hard even when you don't need it. These installations rarely make TBO and usually require a mid-term turbo overhaul. Fixed-wastegate engines also demand high pilot workload because the manifold pressure tends to be quite unstable.

You can change the fixed waste gate to an auto system with a STC product.

I will repeat Van's golden rule: Build it per plans and as light and simple as you can. You can't go wrong with the golden rule.

Good Luck G

The Continental TSIO-360 series is the abosolute worst modern piston engine i've ever seen. People I know with mooney 231's leave the caps off the oil filler so that the mosture that normally condenses in the crankcase will evaporate out instead. But these engines will rust themselves to pieces if not flown regularly.

Thanks for the advice, I've flown Seneca's in the past and like how the engine feels and sounds. The enginges were always reliable and never left us standing in snow on a cold winter's day. Has any one "turbonormalized" an IO 360, I like to fly in the lower teens and would like to maintain close to sea level power.

Yes there is a couple of guys that have normalized Lyc IO-360's. I was/am planning that for my 7. Here are my 3 possible configurations:

Parrallel Valve IO-360 180HP w/car turbo and automatic wastegate, engineering & maintanence nightmare

Angle Valve IO-360, tune, port & polish, valve job, possibly with crossflow cylinders, still working on this one idea.

IO-390 <--- Higher initial cost, but standard engine & stuff.

The IO-390, should give decent performance in the mid-teens.

Lycoming have recently announced a TIO-360 (according to Sport Aviation), that is a turbo normalised parallel valve engine, with intercooler I think. Might be worth a look.

Pete

The same engine is in the 251 but with a better wastegate system. There is an after-market upgrade for Mooney's called "Black Magic" which purports to correct the underlying problems, but cowling / plenums are probably more critical to the solution than a particular variety of variable wastegate (which is common now).

You may be better served by getting a high-compression IO-400 from Superior than messing with a turbo. Weight and engine mount remain the same, and with a good plenum you shouldn't need to worry about cooling. Search the forums on "plenum" for good examples - a really good one not only improves cooling but actually REDUCES drag.

>edit< If you just HAVE to have a turbo, I would also look into the new Lycoming TEO-360 or TEO-390 which should be appearing in short order. They have "officially" announced the TEO-540, but also implied that they are adding the new iE2 engine technologies on other stock blocks. However, the whole reason for going turbo is to go high and fast - and you are going to be pushing hard against the Vne of the VANS airframe with any of those engines if you produce full power at 25,000'.

If your real need is speed, look at the Lancairs.

I looked at the new turbo normalized 360 Lycoming at Reno and was impressed with what I saw. They really did everything right from a turbo system perspective with nice piping, casting and proper mounts. This would be much easier and lighter to fit into an RV than the Conti.

There is no big concern with staying within the envelope as you are aware. You use to power to get up high fast, then pull back to 55-60% power and enjoy the TAS up there and catch the good winds when available.

I've probably got more turbo RV time than most and I never regret having the turbo, especially in HHH conditions. That's why I'm doing it again on the RV10.

I had a Turbo Arrow, with the TSIO360 engine, and it was a maintainance nightmare. If you must, be sure to get the FB version, and verify that it has the VAR crank. Then sock away lots of money for uncoming repairs.

Perhaps you should read that article a bit more closely. Van (actually, Ken Krueger) is talking about the RV10 when he explains why maintaining 260hp into the flight levels via turbocharging could get you in trouble.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

In a follow on article, he explains why 180hp is too much for an RV9.

Assuming that Van's doesn't know what they are talking about in regards to Vne on the aircraft they designed is not how the smart money would bet!

Best Luck.