o and io engines

[Lets Fly]

whats the difference from IO and O engines?

[mikem]

O is for "opposed", like flat VW and aircraft engines.
I is for "Injected"

so, an O470 is an Opposed, 470 cu. in. engine, by default, its
carburetted

an IO470 is an Fuel Injected, Opposed, 470 cu.in. engine.

[Dave Butler]

Lets Fly wrote:
> whats the difference from IO and O engines?

As someone else has already explained, fuel-injection vs. carburetion.

You might be interested in the information at http://www.prime-mover.org/
There's a lot of basic engine information there. Under the Lycoming section,
look for the "key reprints" in particular. I think the answer to your question
is in there somewhere, among many other things.

Dave

[Robert M. Gary]

For the Lyc 360, the difference is 20 horsepower.

-Robert

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> For the Lyc 360, the difference is 20 horsepower.

....or, you could say the difference is 'I'.

[Robert M. Gary]

> ...or, you could say the difference is 'I'.

Yes, I be the difference.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lets Fly" > wrote in message
...
>
> whats the difference from IO and O engines?
>

The I.

[Doug]

Fuel injected engines usually burn less fuel for the same horsepower
due to more even fuel flow.

[Robert M. Gary]

For the Lycoming series its horsepower, not fuel flow. In fact, every
plane I've ever flown from Bonanzas to J-3's have burned 1/2 of 10% of
its horsepower (200hp burns 10gal/hr 65 hp burns 3.5 gal/hr, 250 hp
burns 12.5 gal/hr). All this same for carb and fuel injected.
The difference between an IO-360 and O-360 is 200 hp for the IO and 180
hp for the O. The 200hp burns about 10 gal/hr in cruise and the 180hp
burns about 9 gal/hr.
Otherwise the IO-360 and O-360 are 100% the same engine. Stick a FI
system on the 360 and you get an extra 20 hp.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor, just as Doug said!

I'm not following. You're saying 10 gal/hr is less than 9 gal/hr?

-Robert

[karl gruber]

I went through my post. No, I didn't say that.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor, just as Doug
>> said!
>
> I'm not following. You're saying 10 gal/hr is less than 9 gal/hr?
>
> -Robert
>

[Robert M. Gary]

> I went through my post. No, I didn't say that.

Ok, I'm still confused. The O-360 engine puts out 180hp on 9gal hr. The
IO-360 puts out 200 hp on 10 gal/hr. The difference between the two is
just that that IO-360 is fuel injected. So how is it that you can say
"And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor". That
certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.

-Robert

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>I went through my post. No, I didn't say that.
>
>
> Ok, I'm still confused. The O-360 engine puts out 180hp on 9gal hr. The
> IO-360 puts out 200 hp on 10 gal/hr. The difference between the two is
> just that that IO-360 is fuel injected. So how is it that you can say
> "And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor". That
> certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.

I gave up trying to get Karl to clarify anything long back with "Vx is a clean
wing". Don't try to be literal with him. He speaks in loose metaphors and allegory.

[karl gruber]

Robert,

There are many, many, (over 100) variants of the Lycoming 360 engine. Your
confusion stems from your belief that you just strap FI on an O-360 and it
makes it a IO-360.

In fact ALL the 200 HP IO-360 engines have a higher compression ratio,
unless they are turbo-charged. That is the primary reason for the extra 20
HP.

Fuel injection, (even lowly port injection like on our engines) is more
efficient than a carburetor. Thus for the same power output they do so at a
lower fuel burn. That is one of the primary reasons to FI an engine.

For your amusement, surf this:
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/productSales/engineSpecifications/SSP204.pdf

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I went through my post. No, I didn't say that.
>
> Ok, I'm still confused. The O-360 engine puts out 180hp on 9gal hr. The
> IO-360 puts out 200 hp on 10 gal/hr. The difference between the two is
> just that that IO-360 is fuel injected. So how is it that you can say
> "And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor". That
> certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> -Robert
>

[karl gruber]

Dave,

I understand you "gave up" on understanding Vx. That's unfortunate, and
could cause you grief if you ever need to climb at that speed. Vx, for all
common light aircraft, is a clean wing speed. (NO FLAPS) What is difficult
to understand about that?

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1146834825.510189@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>I went through my post. No, I didn't say that.
>>
>>
>> Ok, I'm still confused. The O-360 engine puts out 180hp on 9gal hr. The
>> IO-360 puts out 200 hp on 10 gal/hr. The difference between the two is
>> just that that IO-360 is fuel injected. So how is it that you can say
>> "And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor". That
>> certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I gave up trying to get Karl to clarify anything long back with "Vx is a
> clean wing". Don't try to be literal with him. He speaks in loose
> metaphors and allegory.

[Dave Butler]

karl gruber wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I understand you "gave up" on understanding Vx. That's unfortunate, and
> could cause you grief if you ever need to climb at that speed. Vx, for all
> common light aircraft, is a clean wing speed. (NO FLAPS) What is difficult
> to understand about that?

Nothing. Why didn't you say so?

I didn't give up on understanding Vx, I gave up trying to get you to explain
what you were talking about.

I'm happy to learn that you are capable of writing clear, plain, complete,
expository sentences.

Dave

[Robert M. Gary]

> Fuel injection, (even lowly port injection like on our engines) is more
> efficient than a carburetor. Thus for the same power output they do so at a
> lower fuel burn. That is one of the primary reasons to FI an engine

Interesting. Whatever the difference it must be pretty small. In the
end the plane will have a cruise fuel burn darn near 5% of its
horsepower, carb or FI.

-Robert

[nrp]

It appears the 200 HP injected engines all have tuned induction systems
for a little more power, too. And isn't here some point where they use
the angle valve cylinders to get a better combustion chamber shape? I
couldn't spot it though.

An interesting list. Think of the documentation there must be at
Lycoming to support this many certified engines!

[[email protected]]

On 6 May 2006 11:35:19 -0700, "nrp" > wrote:

>It appears the 200 HP injected engines all have tuned induction systems
>for a little more power, too. And isn't here some point where they use
>the angle valve cylinders to get a better combustion chamber shape? I
>couldn't spot it though.

A 180 hp O-360 Lycoming has parallel valves, the 200 hp IO-360 has
angle valves. With the 540's the typical cut-off for parallel valve
heads is 250 hp.

>An interesting list. Think of the documentation there must be at
>Lycoming to support this many certified engines!

Indeed.

TC

[[email protected]]

wrote:
: A 180 hp O-360 Lycoming has parallel valves, the 200 hp IO-360 has
: angle valves. With the 540's the typical cut-off for parallel valve
: heads is 250 hp.

I believe that the angle-valves have *larger* valves too. IIRC, there does exist an IO-360 model that is only
180hp though... parallel-valve fuel-injected?

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ray Andraka]

wrote:

> A 180 hp O-360 Lycoming has parallel valves, the 200 hp IO-360 has
> angle valves. With the 540's the typical cut-off for parallel valve
> heads is 250 hp.
>
O540-E4B5, which is 260 HP has parallel valves. I think 300 HP is
where the angled valves start in the 540.

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> For the Lyc 360, the difference is 20 horsepower.
>
> -Robert
>
But that's not a universal truth. In fact, there are sometimes
different HP ratings for the same major engine major series...
IO-470's for example come in different HP ratings based on the
suffix (an IO-470-C is like 240HP, where an -H gets 260).

[[email protected]]

On 4-May-2006, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Ok, I'm still confused. The O-360 engine puts out 180hp on 9gal hr. The
> IO-360 puts out 200 hp on 10 gal/hr. The difference between the two is
> just that that IO-360 is fuel injected. So how is it that you can say
> "And slightly less fuel burn than if it had a carburetor". That
> certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.


In my limited experience with an O-360 in an Archer I generally planned on
burning very close to 10 GPH at 75% (of 180 hp), running as lean as possible
for smooth engine operation. In our Arrow with an IO-360, I burn about the
same, or maybe just a tiny bit more, at 75% (of 200 hp). The IO-360 thus
has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel flow required per
hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that the better fuel
distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a leaner mixture.

-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

wrote:
: In my limited experience with an O-360 in an Archer I generally planned on
: burning very close to 10 GPH at 75% (of 180 hp), running as lean as possible
: for smooth engine operation. In our Arrow with an IO-360, I burn about the
: same, or maybe just a tiny bit more, at 75% (of 200 hp). The IO-360 thus
: has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel flow required per
: hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that the better fuel
: distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a leaner mixture.

That must be it. Although the book calls for 10 gallons/hour for an O-360, if leaned to "best economy," it's
more like 9-9.5 at 75%. I know I get between 8-8.5 at 65% on my O-360.... not comfortable leaning all the way when
running at 75%, so 65-70 is as high as I'll go.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Montblack]

wrote)
> The IO-360 thus has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel
> flow required per hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that the
> better fuel distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a leaner
> mixture.


Curious - If approval from the FAA was NOT a factor:

How difficult, practical, expensive, etc, would it be to convert an O to an
IO?

What all would be involved? What would go, what would stay, etc?

Thanks.


Montblack

[karl gruber]

The main reason the IO engine is more efficient is the compression ratio is
higher. The compression ratio is in the numerator of the efficiency formula,
so there is a direct relationship.

Karl
ATP CFI ETC
"Curator" N185KG


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> wrote)
>> The IO-360 thus has a lower specific fuel consumption (the per-hour fuel
>> flow required per hp produced). Reason: I think the main one is that
>> the better fuel distribution on the FI engine allows operation with a
>> leaner mixture.
>
>
> Curious - If approval from the FAA was NOT a factor:
>
> How difficult, practical, expensive, etc, would it be to convert an O to
> an IO?
>
> What all would be involved? What would go, what would stay, etc?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Montblack