I'm just about 6 months into the building of a experimental F22 Taylorcraft. I originally had planned on a 0-290 or 320 but a still in the crate, factory new IO-240 just fell in my lap. My current flying machine still has the A65/75 with no electric and is about as simple and fool-proof as you can get. I know nothing about these fuel injected motors. Hot starts and a dead battery in the "sticks" much ado about nothing, or something to really consider? Is my own lack of knowledge creating an irrational fear?
Anyone ever fly behind one? I know that it"s basically a 0-200 with IO-360 cylinders. From what little I've been able to find on the net so far, they seem to be rather rough running with a definite "lope."

Don't all 4 cylinder motors run rough?

With 30% more power than an O-200 at only 12% more weight, I'd give this a serious look.
It could make a Cessna 140 a real hoot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_O-240

It's a sawed off IO-360!

I’ve never flown behind one but I say do it! I think it would be awesome, which I probably why I plan to use an IO240 on my next project.

I’ve flown a couple of Diamond Aircraft with those engines. Never felt they were any rougher than an O-200. Good power, good response, and great fuel efficiency. What’s not to like?

As to worrying about fuel injection and hot starts, these stories come from two groups in my experience: First are those who never learned how to start the engine.....often because “someone told them a better start procedure”, instead of reading the manufacturers procedure.

The second group are generally folks who heard horror stories from the first group, or often heard horror stories from someone who heard horror stories, ad nauseum.

I spent thousands of hours flying fuel injected engines into very remote places, often in really warm weather, and with multiple stops along the way. I can honestly say i never had a FI engine fail to start on the first try. And that’s both Continental and Lycoming.

MTV

mtv wrote:....As to worrying about fuel injection and hot starts, these stories come from two groups in my experience: First are those who never learned how to start the engine.....often because “someone told them a better start procedure”, instead of reading the manufacturers procedure.

The second group are generally folks who heard horror stories from the first group, or often heard horror stories from someone who heard horror stories, ad nauseum.

I spent thousands of hours flying fuel injected engines into very remote places, often in really warm weather, and with multiple stops along the way. I can honestly say i never had a FI engine fail to start on the first try. And that’s both Continental and Lycoming.

MTV

First off, let me say that if I had an IO-240 available, and it was well-suited to my airplane, I would not hesitate to use it!

The Continental FI system is MUCH better with regard to "hot-start" issues than the Lycoming-supplied FI system. By recirculating the fuel to the tank(s), the Continental system significantly reduces (and likely eliminates) the issues with vapor-lock.

As for the "stranded by a dead battery" problem – that can be solved these days for $129 with one of these: https://earthxbatteries.com/shop/earthx-jump-pack.

But if MTV would like to experience the infamous Lycoming "hot-start" challenge, I would invite him to bring a "stock" fuel injected Lycoming IO-540 to Texas in the middle of August (105ºF in the shade) and stop for a quick "fuel-and-go". In those conditions, I can pretty well promise you would have the opportunity to demonstrate your hot-start technique... The way the fuel lines are designed and run through the engine compartment practically guarantees they will vapor-lock in extremely hot conditions.

But even with the Lycoming FI systems, there are things you can do to alleviate the problem (like wrapping the fuel lines with insulating fire-sleeve material, and opening the cowling while you refuel to allow the heat to escape the engine compartment). And there are some hot-start techniques that work better than the book procedure. I got pretty good at using them during the 3 years I owned a Commander 114 with the IO-540 – in Texas. Those techniques would generally (eventually) result in successful starts.

Of course, there was one very hot day when I was returning from a cross-country, and managed to run the battery down trying to restart after a quick-turn refueling operation. I wound up having to spend the night in a local motel because the maintenance shop was closed for the night. Next morning, even without a jump start, the battery had recovered enough (and the fuel lines had cooled off enough to alleviate the vapor-lock) that it started right up.

JP256 wrote:

mtv wrote:....As to worrying about fuel injection and hot starts, these stories come from two groups in my experience: First are those who never learned how to start the engine.....often because “someone told them a better start procedure”, instead of reading the manufacturers procedure.

The second group are generally folks who heard horror stories from the first group, or often heard horror stories from someone who heard horror stories, ad nauseum.

I spent thousands of hours flying fuel injected engines into very remote places, often in really warm weather, and with multiple stops along the way. I can honestly say i never had a FI engine fail to start on the first try. And that’s both Continental and Lycoming.

MTV

First off, let me say that if I had an IO-240 available, and it was well-suited to my airplane, I would not hesitate to use it!

The Continental FI system is MUCH better with regard to "hot-start" issues than the Lycoming-supplied FI system. By recirculating the fuel to the tank(s), the Continental system significantly reduces (and likely eliminates) the issues with vapor-lock.

As for the "stranded by a dead battery" problem – that can be solved these days for $129 with one of these: https://earthxbatteries.com/shop/earthx-jump-pack.

But if MTV would like to experience the infamous Lycoming "hot-start" challenge, I would invite him to bring a "stock" fuel injected Lycoming IO-540 to Texas in the middle of August (105ºF in the shade) and stop for a quick "fuel-and-go". In those conditions, I can pretty well promise you would have the opportunity to demonstrate your hot-start technique... The way the fuel lines are designed and run through the engine compartment practically guarantees they will vapor-lock in extremely hot conditions.

But even with the Lycoming FI systems, there are things you can do to alleviate the problem (like wrapping the fuel lines with insulating fire-sleeve material, and opening the cowling while you refuel to allow the heat to escape the engine compartment). And there are some hot-start techniques that work better than the book procedure. I got pretty good at using them during the 3 years I owned a Commander 114 with the IO-540 – in Texas. Those techniques would generally (eventually) result in successful starts.

Of course, there was one very hot day when I was returning from a cross-country, and managed to run the battery down trying to restart after a quick-turn refueling operation. I wound up having to spend the night in a local motel because the maintenance shop was closed for the night. Next morning, even without a jump start, the battery had recovered enough (and the fuel lines had cooled off enough to alleviate the vapor-lock) that it started right up.

I put 200 hours on a Maule M-7 on floats mostly in the Upper Yukon Valley. Highs there during June often run into the high 90s, and 100 F is not that uncommon there. Never had a problem starting that fuel injected Lyc. 540. And engines on float planes always run hot. And, yes, lots of stops and starts.

No doubt Tejas is hotter, but trust me, the Upper Yukon is plenty hot for float ops.

And, lots of Navajos flying village to village in that country as well, with ten minutes or so between villages often. Fuel injected AND turbo Charged. They seem to start regularly.

MTV

The hot start concerns and stories are something I have never understood.
I would recommend fuel injection to anyone who'll listen. Flying both carb and FI regularly, I know which one I prefer! Mine is a Lycoming, it starts every single time. Hot is every bit as easy as cold starting.

Never had a flat battery yet either, just change them proactively and have a big light which says on when the master is on.

Thanks for all the replies. I've heard the horror stories that MTV eludes to, and I just wanted a little truth vs. rumor.

I have no doubt that there are some airplane/engine combinations that don't experience "hot-start" problems, or at least not as much as other airplane/engine combinations do... Perhaps that's why those who haven't experienced FI hot-starting issues believe that it's an "Old Wive's Tale," while those who've had to deal with it have a very different perspective.

In my case, I owned a turbo-normalized IO-540 in a Rockwell Commander 114 for a little over 3 years, and it could be a bear to start when hot. And I mean HOT, not "warm". Maybe that was due to the turbo system providing an additional heat source under the cowling. Waiting 30-40 minutes with the cowling standing open would result in "warm" (meaning you could touch the cylinders and/or block without burning your finger) and the start would be pretty normal (following book "hot start" procedure).

I always wanted to try wrapping all of the fuel lines in the engine compartment with fireproof sleeving to provide some insulation for those lines, and see if that would help. My IA, however, would not sign off on it, because there was no "approved basis" for making that change.

But as I said, the fuel injection system on Continentals is VERY different, allowing the fuel pump to recirculate fuel through the lines and back to the tank, thus preventing vapor-lock (or at least greatly reducing the odds of it) and the resultant hot-start issues.

If you're adapting a carbureted, gravity-fed airframe to use an IO-240, you may have some fuel system re-work to do (routing return lines for the fuel, adding fuel pumps, etc.), but I agree with the others that the ability to operate LOP (or even ROP with greater accuracy) will reduce your fuel burn and help extend range, etc. And F-I engines typically run a good bit more smoothly as well. Given that you already have the IO-240, I'd say "Go for it!"

I have many many hours flying and teaching behind these little engines. I also have countless hours working on them too. Only on Diamond aircraft.

They are great for things already said, and I found them very smooth, but we were running wood/composite props, and still balanced them.

Students find ways to flood and drown carb'd lycomings, so this engine was a special treat.

Some of the issues are:
the fuel system runs rich, and students never lean enough, if at all. So we had constant wet, and lead fouling issues.
The diamond uses a weaker style of shower of sparks (not bendix), so it doesn't have any energy once flooded.
The fuel system uses much the same parts as the big bore engines. When setting the fuel system on a big bore, you have a couple PSI to work with each setting. This little guy uses tenths of a psi. Takes longer to get dialed in, and as the season changes you can come out of spec, and begin having starting/running issues.

All that said, I would not hesitate one bit to hang that on a tcart.

I would run car gas, or mixed..... get that lead content down.
lean,
impulse couplings if you can, or at least bendix shower of sparks,
lean,
This engine starts easily using the same techniques as the big bores,
did I mention lean.

Be nice if you could just bolt an O200 induction system on an IO-240--
more displacement and but still the simplicity of a carburetor.

As an owner and flyer of C-series Continental 4-bangers, the idea of an IO-240 on the likes of a C120, TCart, etc. is very appealing! Keep us posted on how it goes while I go dream about running a C120 LOP.

Fiddler wrote:As an owner and flyer of C-series Continental 4-bangers, the idea of an IO-240 on the likes of a C120, TCart, etc. is very appealing!

I second this, the 140 could use a little more pep in her step!

Tangogawd wrote:I have many many hours flying and teaching behind these little engines. I also have countless hours working on them too. Only on Diamond aircraft.

They are great for things already said, and I found them very smooth, but we were running wood/composite props, and still balanced them.

Students find ways to flood and drown carb'd lycomings, so this engine was a special treat.

Some of the issues are:
the fuel system runs rich, and students never lean enough, if at all. So we had constant wet, and lead fouling issues.
The diamond uses a weaker style of shower of sparks (not bendix), so it doesn't have any energy once flooded.
The fuel system uses much the same parts as the big bore engines. When setting the fuel system on a big bore, you have a couple PSI to work with each setting. This little guy uses tenths of a psi. Takes longer to get dialed in, and as the season changes you can come out of spec, and begin having starting/running issues.

All that said, I would not hesitate one bit to hang that on a tcart.

I would run car gas, or mixed..... get that lead content down.
lean,
impulse couplings if you can, or at least bendix shower of sparks,
lean,
This engine starts easily using the same techniques as the big bores,
did I mention lean.

I meant to ask about auto fuel in the original post but it had slipped my mind. It may be coincidence but my A75 has stuck an exhaust valve on three different cylinders on three different occasions after extend runs on straight 100LL. Even though I've gotten rather good at fixing stuck valves through practice, I was kind of hoping to run premium car gas to help avoid that if I did go with this IO-240. It's safe to run on fuel injected engines then? I was planning on a header tank anyway and it sounds like there will need to be a return and electric fuel pump needed for priming.

I failed to do any research before making the auto fuel statement earlier. Turns out the io-240 is of higher compression (8.5:1) and rated for 100/100LL only.

Yes you will need to install an electric fuel pump, not only for priming, but as a backup for the engine driven pump. This fuel system does have fuel return.

Tangogawd wrote:I failed to do any research before making the auto fuel statement earlier. Turns out the io-240 is of higher compression (8.5:1) and rated for 100/100LL only.

Yes you will need to install an electric fuel pump, not only for priming, but as a backup for the engine driven pump. This fuel system does have fuel return.

8.5:1 compression is within the range for 91octane mogas though you should use caution. The mogas STC for the io520/550 (8.6:1) employs a water/methanol injection system. Water/methanol is injected into the intake when the manifold pressure exceeds 25” or the cylinder head temperatures exceeds 400F. This is done to increase the detonation margin at critical times.

I didn’t install water/methanol injection on my IO360. During the testing stage at I’ll be watching the engine monitor closely for signs of detonation.

whee wrote:

Tangogawd wrote:I failed to do any research before making the auto fuel statement earlier. Turns out the io-240 is of higher compression (8.5:1) and rated for 100/100LL only.

Yes you will need to install an electric fuel pump, not only for priming, but as a backup for the engine driven pump. This fuel system does have fuel return.

8.5:1 compression is within the range for 91octane mogas though you should use caution. The mogas STC for the io520/550 (8.6:1) employs a water/methanol injection system. Water/methanol is injected into the intake when the manifold pressure exceeds 24” or the cylinder head temperatures exceed 400F. This is done to increase the detonation margin at critical times.

I didn’t install water/methanol injection on my IO360. During the testing stage at I’ll be watching the engine monitor closely for signs of detonation.

You are correct, Lycoming O-320 160hp and O-360 180hp are 8.5:1. However lycoming has a bulletin showing their engines are approved for unleaded av gas and auto fuel. There has also been plenty of testing by companies that offer STCs for them.

Continental offers no such info as far as I have been able to find out, and their 8.5:1 engines are only approved to 100/100LL. Nor have I been able to find an STC for them, telling me that there may have been detention margin issues during testing. Simply my opinion, but I feel that continental does squeeze out more power for weight than lycoming. In my mission, I would like auto fuel for the big red easy button, plus saving costs. I have never looked into it but water/methanol injection system doesn't seem to fit my definition of easy, or cheap.

Couple years back Todd Peterson, of Peterson Aviation, talked to me at length about his development of the mogas STC for fuel injected big block Continentals. I then called Inpulse who now holds the STC and discussed it with them. It was very kind of both these outfits to share their knowledge with me.

Water/methanol injection certainly adds another system to the aircraft, though it is a very simple system. After talking to these guys I determined that I probably don't need it but now that I'm fully aware of the reduced detonation margin I'll know to watch carefully for signs of detonation and respond accordingly.

Hey whee, I kind of remembered you going with the IO-360. I know Todd personally and actually just drove by his house an hr. ago. I think I'll go pick his brain. From everything that's been posted so far, I'm leaning towards going with this Cont. If it starts looking like I'll have to run straight 100LL or starts to look a little too complex for me to install I may just fall back on my original Lycoming plans.

nefj40 wrote:Hey whee, I kind of remembered you going with the IO-360. I know Todd personally and actually just drove by his house an hr. ago. I think I'll go pick his brain. From everything that's been posted so far, I'm leaning towards going with this Cont. If it starts looking like I'll have to run straight 100LL or starts to look a little too complex for me to install I may just fall back on my original Lycoming plans.

Cool that you know Mr. Peterson. Really a nice guy.

I hope to install a IO-240 in a Luscombe at some future date. Hopefully it works out and you go down this road first[emoji16]