Can a Conti IO-360 be converted to a carburator setup

God I hope you aren't serious.. why would you do that?

Right; opinion noted, thanks

I don't think it would be easy. Approval basis aside, the IO-360 cylinders have the intake ports on the top instead coming out the bottom of the cylinder (like the carbureted O-300) which complicates things a lot, packaging wise.

Basically you'd have to figure out how to scale up an O-300 cylinder to the size of the IO-360, which would take a while lotta cash.

Why? Because good 360 Continentals are cheaper and more abundant than O-360 Lycomings to replace the old O-300. They also run much smoother than any 4-cyl. ever could. They have a bad reputation, but run well with the transparency of an engine monitor. They’re a great engine. Crossflow heads, and fuel injection. Nice.

I’m not certain you’d be satisfied with an IO-360 and a fixed pitch prop, one of the owner maintenance restrictions you face.

If you really want to do this, you’d be further ahead modifying the airframe fuel system to accommodate the fuel injection.

Given Aryanna's input I can see why it would be a monstrous effort so nix that. I'm very happy with a fixed pitch prop not solely due to OM restrictions but a seaplane prop works well for all my applications, any gains in cruise speed just isn't a concern at all.

As Pinecone points out with the right care and feeding the Conti's are a sweet engine so the IO-360 is my upgrade of choice but thats very much a Chevy/Ford/GM sort of discussion and lets face it opinions are never wrong.

Personally I don’t think it would be hard at all. Unbolt the fuel servo, weld up a new flange that will fit a carb off a horizontal induction Lyc O360 and bolt it back together. Space will be a little tight and routing carb heat will be creative but not hard.

However, if your plane is in OM category then it would be easy to make your plane work with injection which is really nice.

Mapleflt wrote:Given Aryanna's input I can see why it would be a monstrous effort so nix that. I'm very happy with a fixed pitch prop not solely due to OM restrictions but a seaplane prop works well for all my applications, any gains in cruise speed just isn't a concern at all.

As Pinecone points out with the right care and feeding the Conti's are a sweet engine so the IO-360 is my upgrade of choice but thats very much a Chevy/Ford/GM sort of discussion and lets face it opinions are never wrong.

One thing to consider: Even a fixed pitch "seaplane prop" will never reach maximum engine rpm on takeoff. A constant speed prop allows your engine to make full rated power on every takeoff.....which is truly wonderful on floats.

MTV

Your comments re: prop are very true MTV however under the rules governing the OM category C of A in Canada a CS prop isn't permitted.

Please explain why you crossed converting the airframe to accommodate fuel injection off your list of options. Is it just too big a job or you don’t want fuel injection? I believe converting a 182 to fuel injection is about 280 hours, so I understand it wouldn’t be easy.

I thoroughly love the continental IO360 after flying it in a maule, 170, and stinson. I think they are an excellent engine. Hope you figure out a way to make it work for your plane, I think you'll enjoy it.

The Conti is my engine of choice so the question(s) are in an effort to determine the how not why. As I work to asertain the how I'm trying to sort out a few questions.

The first big one was which would be eaiser; retain the fuel injection system or convert to a carburator, I'd be content either one. As I currently understand the undertaking fuel injection could/would require a header tank. The carburator would not but sounds like major induction plumbing could/would be required. The Conti fits under the hood as is but would required engine mount work, thats manageable no worries there. As for the CS prop, while its a desirable feature no arguement it isn't permitted within the guidelines of a Canadian Owner Maintence (OM) Certificate of Airworthiness. In addition I'll need to source the correct model of IO-360 so as to remain below the further OM limitation of 200 HP. This limitation then raises the question of effort over gain and would I simply be better of "finessing" a bit more HP out of the currently installed 0-300 engine. I haven't felt "limited" as such by the original 0-300 the flying I do doesn't require big HP however at some point an engine overhaul will be required so what becomes the better investment at that point in time.

A big thanks to the BCP community for the collective insight of the all, its what make site so valuable and enjoyable to be part of.

IDK anything about OM so don’t know what kind of approvals/data you need to make modifications. If you can do what you want then IMO it would be easier to keep the fuel injection. Adding a header tank is an option but not the only one. You could install a duplex fuel valve and return the fuel to the wing tank. That is what I did on my BH. It would be even easier on your 170 since it only has one fuel port on each tank...I think. Another option is to install Bendix injection which would eliminate the return line.

You’ll be looking for an IO360-KB. 195hp (2600rpm) is a bunch more power vs 145. Plus you can choose a prop that will let it spin up higher. A KB is no different internally than the 2800rpm versions.

FWIW Tom Anderson of The Landing Gear Works also developed & owns the XP Mods IO360 STC for the 170.
It is applicablt to both c/s & fixed props.
Might be worth talking to him or even buying some paperwork.

https://tlgw.aero/xpmods

Converting to Bendix FI from Continental FI would be easier than modifying the airframe, but approval might be difficult. The bendix is a dead-head system, so no return line required.

The Raffle 180 I just flew from AK to ND had an IO-520 that was converted to an O-520. I don't recall if it was converted by Lycon Engines, or Texas Airways. Might be worth calling them.