deleted

I didn't know a thing about the 360 till I started this thread so I've had a lot of questions and learned much. Just because it isn't FAA approved doesn't mean it's a bad idea or unsafe.

Edit: Sorry Hotrod.

I should have learned by now that most guys here don't have an interest in experimental aviation. I'll take my banter about this kind of stuff somewhere else.

Zzz wrote:

Lol

whee wrote:I didn't know a thing about the 360 till I started this thread so I've had a lot of questions and learned much. Just because it isn't FAA approved doesn't mean it's a bad idea or unsafe.

Edit: Sorry Hotrod.

I should have learned by now that most guys here don't have an interest in experimental aviation. I'll take my banter about this kind of stuff somewhere else.

Whee, I'm learning off this thread too. So please don't stop posting. I'll be looking for engine options on my home build in a couple years, and threads like this help!

hotrod180 wrote:Maybe Frankenstein isnt the right word, but just in this one thread:
You've mentioned several times over time about using mogas-- even though the IO360 isn't approved by anyone to do so. If it was OK I'm sure that Petersen would have done an STC.
You've mentioned maybe buying a TSIO-360 and removing the turbo.
You've mentioned putting a big bearing crank in a small bearing case.
You've mentioned using a non-VAR crank and ignoring the AD on them.
Now this business with the alternator.

No offense, but you seem to be trying to make the IO360 engine into something that it's not.
I think they're a good engine, lots of power for the weight and displacement,
so maybe you should just take yours as it is and run with it.
No offense....

If you think any of this ^ is unusual behaviour - then you have not spent much time around homebuilders. It's the rule, not the exception.

Freedom of choice leads to considerations of all the possible choices / options. It's human nature, or so it would seem.

Choice is a good thing.

Whee, I worked on Merrill Field in Anchorage and some at Lake Hood for 13 years as an A&P for most of the 80s to mid 90s. It was a bee hive of activity in Alaska aviation back then and todays aviation pales in comparison IMO. I learned a heck of a lot in those years but one of the most important things I learned was that certain pilots/airplane owners knew more detailed information about their model of airplane/engine than most seasoned mechanics.
I worked on my share of IO 360s, although not in an overhaul shop, but I have learned a heck of a lot about them here in your thread. The internet provides me with so much knowledge that would be otherwise very difficult to obtain because of people like you seeking the information, finding those with experience and knowledge, and then you sharing it with the rest of us. This thread is one of a few I click on every time it pops up because you keep digging deeper and I keep learning more. I agree with your process of asking "what if" and then drawing a educated decision based on what you discover.
I'm a project guy and find the journey is more satisfying than the destination so please keep on posted as you go along.

deleted

whee wrote:I should have learned by now that most guys here don't have an interest in experimental aviation. I'll take my banter about this kind of stuff somewhere else.

Whee, please don't let one or two who dont get it turn you off. I have also learned from this thread, so thanks for bringing it up. I'd love to see more experimental talk here. We need more tube fabric and experimental buzz going on... Keep it up!

bigrenna wrote:

whee wrote:I should have learned by now that most guys here don't have an interest in experimental aviation. I'll take my banter about this kind of stuff somewhere else.

Whee, please don't let one or two who dont get it turn you off. I have also learned from this thread, so thanks for bringing it up. I'd love to see more experimental talk here. We need more tube fabric and experimental buzz going on... Keep it up!

+2 Well said.

I am building experimental myself and have run into the same thing on other forums. My methods is similar to yours: investigate every angle, of every major assembly on the plane, first by reading, then asking for help on forums. That gives the opportunity to eliminate bad parts/designs/combinations. The certified folks need to understand most harebrained ideas are eliminated in this process, and usually lots good stuff floats to the top.

In fairness to the certified folks they signed up for letting others do that for them, which historically has provided safe, durable machines, with the tradeoff being limited innovation. Experimental folks take on a huge responsibility since we alone are responsible for the outcome, and in exchange innovation and risk have no limit.

Certified or Experimental is a nuanced personal decision worthy of respect.

-M3X

I have an IO-360-CB disassembled for overhaul I'd like to sell if anyone is interested. I originally got this motor for a Swift project I was working on 20 years ago, and began the process of getting the parts overhauled. The case is a light case, but has the casting number of 640433 which is an acceptable version per Continental Service Bulletin M90-17. The case has been zyglo inspected by an engine shop and has a green tag for that. The crankshaft is a non-VAR crank that I had overhauled in 1995 by the engine shop before they were deemed unusable. It is the big journaled crank with the 6th and 4 1/2 order dampers. It has been magna fluxed, dimensionally checked, new damper bushings, etc. and yellow-tagged by the engine shop. Still useable for an experimental. I have everything else except the cylinder assemblies- I junked those 20 years ago planning on going with new.

I just learned why people say a IO360 is expensive to overhaul. I have my case and crank ready to go. My steel parts are done at Aircraft Specialties and are on their way back. I'm looking over my cylinders and deciding what to have done to them. So I'm getting close to putting the engine together. Started shopping for all the miscellaneous stuff and just about died when I learned that a set of M010 main and rod bearings were going to cost me $2k Out of curiosity I priced them for a few other engines and they were just less than $1k. $2k for a set of bearings is ridiculous. Otherwise everything has been as expected.

OIl Pump: Learned there is an old style oil pump where the gears are driven with a woodruff key. If you have that style you have to replace it at overhaul.

Well, did Santa bring you a set of bearings?

He tried but you know how Continental is...

Bearings and other items were ordered on Monday. As soon as it all arrives we can begin engine assembly.

whee wrote:OIl Pump: Learned there is an old style oil pump where the gears are driven with a woodruff key. If you have that style you have to replace it at overhaul.

SB96-4 is the service bulletin related to the oil pump gears.

This past week we took the pump apart and discovered that our pump is not the new style nor does it have provisions for a woodruff key. The oil pump gear is simply driven by friction caused by being squeezed between the drive gear and the tach drive nut. I found that very interesting for such a critical component and I haven't been able to find any information about this style of pump in Continental literature. Our other core engine has the woodruff key style oil pump.

It is my understanding the woodruff failed. It's failure lead to f.o.d.. Debris lead to a seized oil pump. The solution was removal of woodfruff and a specified torque --slippage was not as bad as f.o.d.. This led to a shaft that did not have provisions for a woodruff. The final solution was a pump gear mechanically indexed to the drive gear.

I do not know rates of failure for the various iterations, but, at least anecdotedly, the woodruff was a problem. Engine failure of an io-360 with that system, and mechanics would say, without hesitation, "Your oil pump failed."

My opinion, torque is ok --it's what I have now. Indexed makes the most sense.

Chet

Thanks for the explanation Chet!

Anyone know how to cover the generator hole when swapping to a vaccum pad mounted alternator? I found one on ebay but it's for a continental c85 and o200. I'm not sure it will fit, but it sure looks the same as far as the generator.

Also I've heard the o300d is the same lower end as the io360. Just punched out for the larger cylinders. I am looking for a b&c alternator to bolt onto the io360, but it doesn't look like they make one except for the o300. Should be the same right?

The C85 generator cover should fit the 360.

Are you looking at the B&C permanent magnet alternators? Those should fit the 360 even though they are not on the compatibility list. You’ll need to verify the depth of the gear using putty before you permanently install it. I wanted to use a B&C but I need more than 30A so I endured up using a PlanePower which also doesn’t have the 360 on its compatibility list.

All off their vacuum pad alternators would fit the 360 pad if you have the firewall clearance.

The 360 crankshaft is used as the replacement crankshaft for the 300 but not much else is the same as far as the bottom end.