What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

Continental titan X340

Clayvt

Clayvt

Well Known Member
Patron
For those of you who saw my verner thread, I would still love to have a radial in my life, but heeding words of wisdom for a first time,e builder I’ve decided to go with Continental.

What I’m asking for is more unadulterated criticism. Yes I know it’s not Lycoming, but derned close. I “think” I’m going to go with their high compression Xio340 high compression 180hp horizontal induction (I already have cowlings for this) variant. I know there are plenty of 6’s and 7’s with 320’s which the X340 is dimensionally and weighted similarly.

Feel free to tell me why this is a bad idea or rather, an ok idea and I should call right away and put my deposit down.

Deposit is 5K and quoted total with dual Pmags (backup will come from monk works) is $48,692. Lead time is 12-14 months right now. And I get to pick the color.
 
IMHO the Continental is the preferred choice over the Lyc. Both are good engines albiet terribly antiquated designs.

I also would consider the low compression option. Smoother running, more propeller selections, and you can burn auto gas.
 
500 Hours on my 340 so far. I do have fuel injection and a Catto prop. My only problem has been getting it to idle below 900 and be smooth. The light prop isn't helping that, but I still love the Catto. The engine has been trouble free so far.
 
IF you desire to run a constant speed prop, be aware that the none of the "original" Hartzell props are approved for this engine. The Whirlwind (now owned by Hartzell) is though.

I went from a Catto (nice but not enough bite and then a long turnaround time for a more tuned one, to a ground adjustable Whirlwind, to later discover from Jim (previous Whirlwind designer/owner?) that their constant speed prop (200RV) had been tested and approved.

I wish that I had a little MORE weight on the nose.

With the higher compression and longer stroke, it will feel as smooth as the standard O-320 variant. It will pull (climb) like a 360. It will not be as fast as a 360..

My comments are based on having flown next to a 360 with a 320 for a period over 2000 hours and then flying next to the same plane with a 340.

Your Mileafe May Vary.
 
jclark said:
IF you desire to run a constant speed prop, be aware that the none of the "original" Hartzell props are approved for this engine. The Whirlwind (now owned by Hartzell) is though.
Click to expand...
True with the high compression pistons. There are some which are approved using the low compression option.
 
950 hours and 15 years on my IO340. It is a great engine. I have 9.1:1 pistons, forward facing cold air induction. I have a three blade Catto prop. I often fly with friends who own 7s with IO360 and constant speed props. I cannot compete with their constant speed prop climb performance but that is a factor of the props not the engines. Regardless, I can still see 1200+ climb rates regularly. Cruise speed becomes a matter of how much fuel I want to burn as to whether I keep up with them.

To be clear, this is NOT a Continental engine. It is a Lycoming clone developed by ECI. Continental bought ECI many years ago and branded the 340 and 370 strokers as Continentals. Pretty much everything design wise is a Lycoming engine with several ECI design changes thrown in.
 
I'm not flying yet, but I went with the IO-340 for my 9A (received it a few months - beautiful engine!). I've never heard anything negative about Titan relative to a "real" Lycoming. I went with the low compression since I didn't need the high compression horsepower for the 9, and with all of the uncertainty of avgas replacements down the road, I like the option of using mogas. If I were building a 7, I'd definitely go with the X370 instead though.
 
Not in an RV, but I have 300+ hours on my IO-340 and love it. It's been a terrific engine so far. Consistent compressions, good oil analyses, runs well. I was replacing an O-320 and wanted to keep the same footprint. The performance difference from the tired 150-hp mill and the 180-hp version of the 340 was tremendous. With the 9:1 compression, it's also fairly fuel efficient. I routinely run LOP (made two small tweaks to injector sizes to get there happily) and see fuel flows under 8 gph at around 65% power. (This is based on the Dynon algorithm, which I don't think is accurate to the single percentage point by any means.) I've been running dual P Mags for some time and love them, too. My main concern would be for future-proofing on fuels, but the lower-compression pistons are available.
 
Approvals: (370 is approved as long as it's counterweighted crank and mags with no restrictions)

( )HC-( )2YR-1BFP( )X/F7497( )X Continental/Titan 340 Series 74 to 72 inches 8.0:1 or less
(180 HP at 2700 RPM) Dual Magneto only Do not operate above 24 inches manifold pressure below 2500 RPM.
Parallel Valve Lycoming/Superior 360 Series
Crankshaft Counterweights: NO 74 to 72 inches 8.5:1 or less
(180 HP at 2700 RPM)
Dual Magneto, One Lightspeed
Plasma II/One Magneto None
Angle Valve Lycoming/Superior 360 Series
Crankshaft Counterweights: NO 74 to 72 inches 8.7:1 or less
(200 HP at 2700 RPM) Dual Magneto only Continuous operation is prohibited above 24 inches manifold pressure
between 2350 and 2550 RPM
Lycoming/Superior 360 Series
Crankshaft Counterweights: YES 74 to 72 inches 9.0:1 or less Dual Magneto only None
Continental/Titan 370 Series
Crankshaft Counterweights: YES 74 to 72 inches 9.6:1 or less
(195 HP at 2700 RPM) Dual Magneto only None
Aerosport Power 375 Series
Crankshaft Counterweights: YES 74 to 72 inches 9.6:1 or less
(195 HP at 2700 RPM) Dual Magneto only None
 
Walt said:
Approvals: (370 is approved as long as it's counterweighted crank and mags with no restrictions)

( )HC-( )2YR-1BFP( )X/F7497( )X Continental/Titan 340 Series 74 to 72 inches 8.0:1 or less
(180 HP at 2700 RPM) Dual Magneto only Do not operate above 24 inches manifold pressure below 2500 RPM.


<<SNIP>>
Click to expand...
Thanks Walt.

For those following this, I am running:

Dual P-Mags (Electronic ignition vs mags)
I am 9:1 compression (Above the 8:1)

So, for my situation ... I am still OUT.
 
jclark said:
Thanks Walt.

For those following this, I am running:

Dual P-Mags (Electronic ignition vs mags)
I am 9:1 compression (Above the 8:1)

So, for my situation ... I am still OUT.
Click to expand...
My uneducated guess is that the lower compression may help, but won't make up for the advanced timing on the Pmags unless you dial them back to something more reasonable than the stock timing curve.
 
I asked Hartzel about electronic ignitions at Oshkosh last year and the answer was that they can’t test every setup out there. At some point you basically have to decide how much experimenting you are willing to do with your experimental.
 
ty1295 said:
500 Hours on my 340 so far. I do have fuel injection and a Catto prop. My only problem has been getting it to idle below 900 and be smooth. The light prop isn't helping that, but I still love the Catto. The engine has been trouble free so far.
Click to expand...
2 or 3 blade?
What are you seeing for climb and cruise numbers?
 
Clayvt said:
2 or 3 blade?
What are you seeing for climb and cruise numbers?
Click to expand...
3 blade with nickel. I typically cruise @ 140 kts indicated but have the power pulled back to 2250 rpm for that speed. I can go faster probably top around 170 or so, but the fuel burn climbs much faster than speed.

I use my plane for mostly formation flights with a few cross countries a year thrown in also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top