Tell me about IO-540s

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,569
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Just exploring some ideas, but looking for the good, bad and the ugly lie-down on owning/maintaining IO-540s.

I've got time flying them in PA32s, but never had to maintain them.

Any detailed insight?
 
Angle valve or straight valve? They both have the typical cam spalling issues and warnings that come with Lycomings. Some don't have aftermarket support on cylinders so are more expensive to maintain. What application? The 'reverse flow' Saratoga had some cooling issues, the Aerostar has some access issues which raise costs, all in all though, not bad engines even up to the 350hp TIO 540s.
 
Last edited:
I've put 750 hours on mine in my -10. No issues at all, just purrs like a kitty. LOP I burn 10.5 GPH. Smooth, 260 HP, balanced a d flow matched injectors.

Never heard of any galling problems with engines you fly. Let them sit for 10 years, yea, you are gonna have issues.
 
not much to tell. It's about as straightforward as an engine can get.
 
Henning said:
Angle valve or straight valve?
Click to expand...

Don't know. Thinking about the -540s on the Shrike Commanders, although I believe some 340s have them as well.

I'm just thinking ahead....I figure I'll be approaching a crossroads in the next year or two and need to decide whether to stay with the Baron for the long haul or move up to a cabin class.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Meh.....but, I'd rather have an TSIO-540 in my Bonanza....vs what I gots. CMI cylinders suck. :nonod:
Click to expand...

So YOU were the guy who called me asking about the TSIO-540. And I said "We don't make those."
 
Parallel valve 540s are bulletproof. Put 1,000 hours on a pair of them in my Aztec, basically no problems. In many ways I'd rather own Lycomings than Continentals.

But if you move up to a cabin class, there aren't any I'd buy with Lycomings besides a Navajo, and for the cost of a Navajo you can easily get into a 340, which would be better overall.

Keep in mind the jump to a cabin class typically involves a lot of more expensive items. Heated windshields (5 figures), etc. I'm figuring on sticking with the 310.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Meh.....but, I'd rather have an TSIO-540 in my Bonanza....vs what I gots. CMI cylinders suck. :nonod:
Click to expand...

No you don't, I don't know anyone with the Machen conversion that has been happy with it. Maybe a 260 hp straight valve. How much problem with cylinders are you having running LOP? That is where I have always seen the big maint difference in CMI engine owners. The guys running LOP, few problems, jugs make TBO.:dunno:
 
260-300hp straight valves are extremely reliable.

The angle valves less so. Overall reliablity is good in both motors. I've got a couple thousand hours now behind 3 or 4 different type motors - happy with dispatch reliability.
 
Henning said:
Which 300hp straight valve engines are out there?
Click to expand...

None that I know of certified. 280 HP turbo is the most I'm aware of.
 
If you are looking for a Shrike there will be several up for sale in the next year. The company here operates over thirty Aero Commanders and are phasing out their Shrikes for Turbines because the Forest Service wants Turbines. They regularly get TBO out of their engines. My Dad has gotten TBO or more on his Aztec TIO-540s with very little cylinder problems. Seems like Lycomings have cam problems when run on multi vis oil. I always run Aeroshell Plus straight grade. Don
 
Take this for what it's worth, but the old IO-540 on my Aerostar ran until 2200hrs (400hrs more than TBO) without any trouble. Only reason I overhauled them in the end was because I was getting nervous - they were fine and god knows how much longer they would have run if I hadn't gone all chicken on them. Pretty bulletproof engines.

Only thing is the cylinders are expensive. Last I checked it was $2300/pop, which is a lot more than for Conti's.
 
yakdriver said:
If you are looking for a Shrike there will be several up for sale in the next year. The company here operates over thirty Aero Commanders and are phasing out their Shrikes for Turbines because the Forest Service wants Turbines. They regularly get TBO out of their engines. My Dad has gotten TBO or more on his Aztec TIO-540s with very little cylinder problems. Seems like Lycomings have cam problems when run on multi vis oil. I always run Aeroshell Plus straight grade. Don
Click to expand...

Central Air? They run those Shrikes up to well over 20000hrs, which shows how well built they are. They also have their own TKS STC'd wing, which makes it a solid all weather performer.
 
yakdriver said:
If you are looking for a Shrike there will be several up for sale in the next year. The company here operates over thirty Aero Commanders and are phasing out their Shrikes for Turbines because the Forest Service wants Turbines. They regularly get TBO out of their engines. My Dad has gotten TBO or more on his Aztec TIO-540s with very little cylinder problems. Seems like Lycomings have cam problems when run on multi vis oil. I always run Aeroshell Plus straight grade. Don
Click to expand...

It's not 'multi vis', it's Aeroshell Semisynthetic Multi vis. Phillips 20-50 is fine. It's the synthetic base stock that doesn't play well with AvGas.
 
stratobee said:
Central Air? They run those Shrikes up to well over 20000hrs, which shows how well built they are. They also have their own TKS STC'd wing, which makes it a solid all weather performer.
Click to expand...

Spur Aviation in TWF and their parent company in Arizona. They have very well maintained aircraft.
 
stratobee said:
Take this for what it's worth, but the old IO-540 on my Aerostar ran until 2200hrs (400hrs more than TBO) without any trouble. Only reason I overhauled them in the end was because I was getting nervous - they were fine and god knows how much longer they would have run if I hadn't gone all chicken on them. Pretty bulletproof engines.

Only thing is the cylinders are expensive. Last I checked it was $2300/pop, which is a lot more than for Conti's.
Click to expand...

The last I checked new cylinders for an IO 360 / IO 540 were $955. :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
The last I checked new cylinders for an IO 360 / IO 540 were $955. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Parallel valve and angle valve have very different costs.
 
Geico266 said:
Of course, but to make a blanket stament that they cost $2,300 each is a little disingenuous. ;)
Click to expand...

So is a blanket statement of $955.
 
How many Continentals do you see on the front of unlimited aerobatic airplanes? Answer "0". Even in that environment the 540 angle or parallel will go to TBO or better. Don
 
yakdriver said:
How many Continentals do you see on the front of unlimited aerobatic airplanes? Answer "0". Even in that environment the 540 angle or parallel will go to TBO or better. Don
Click to expand...

Exactly. Without paying $2,300 per cylinder. :rolleyes:
 
Geico266 said:
I agree, but paying the highest price you can find is no virtue. Im just suggesting that $2,300 for an IO360 / IO540 cylinder is high. You can spend you money anyway you want. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Are you aware of the difference between an angle valve and parallel valve cylinder? It sounds like not. I can't find an aftermarket angle valve head, and that's why they're so much more expensive. 390/580 cylinders are also high priced.
 
yakdriver said:
How many Continentals do you see on the front of unlimited aerobatic airplanes? Answer "0". Even in that environment the 540 angle or parallel will go to TBO or better. Don
Click to expand...

I think that is as due to marketing as anything else, Continental doesn't market an AEIO-550.

The T-34s had Continentals and they aren't breaking cranks. The reality is the market for specialized high performance aerobatic application engines isn't large enough to support more than a couple of HP models.

If I was looking at an experimental aerobatic plane with a Continental, it wouldn't cause me an issue. They're both pretty good engines all in all.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
But if you move up to a cabin class, there aren't any I'd buy with Lycomings besides a Navajo, and for the cost of a Navajo you can easily get into a 340, which would be better overall.

Keep in mind the jump to a cabin class typically involves a lot of more expensive items. Heated windshields (5 figures), etc. I'm figuring on sticking with the 310.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I may end up sticking with the Baron. It is a great plane - easy to fly and I don't see us outgrowing it from a useful load standpoint.

My only complaint about the Baron is the cabin entry/exit. My wife has been battling chronic back/hip pain and getting in/out of the Baron and long extended trips are problematic. We make it work, but I think she would be more willing to make trips with a bigger cabin and easier entry.

At my age (over 40) I'm in a high risk/big payoff investment strategy, so looking at projected financials I don't see us ever getting into a jet. Might be able to get into an older C90, but I'm not sure that going turbo prop really gets us much. Norfolk to Phoenix would still be a two day trip with my family even in a King Air.

So, that is the thought process at the moment. Currently researching AC 500s, 340s and I haven't given up on Beech 18s (although the Twin Beech is an entirely different kind of flying).

How much more expensive do you think it is to maintain a decent 340 compared to your 310?
 
I definitely understand the cabin and easy of entry/egress aspects that go with wanting a cabin class. You generally won't get much (if any) real useful load increase with a cabin class. They burn enough extra fuel and don't have enough extra power that the math doesn't work out favorably. The benefits are pressurization (if you get it) and cabin comfort.

I agree that a turboprop doesn't buy you much. Only way it would make sense for me would be one of the faster Garret models. MU2, 441 (both with -10s), etc. Don't like AC690s, have 25 hours in them and just didn't like the way they flew.

When you get into things like a C340, the extra cost is typically in big ticket items. Inconel exhaust? $11k. Windshield? $25k. If they don't break under you ownership, no problem. If they do, you need to be ready to write a big check immediately. For all that, you get a plane that realistically is no faster than my 310, but with a higher fuel burn.

You could also consider some of the other less conventional options. A Cessna 401 comes to mind. Cabin class, no pressurization to worry about, could get an equivalent one for the same (or less) value as your Baron. You do get the Inconel exhaust since it's turbo'd, but any cabin class is going to have turbos other than something like a Queen Air with 720s.

If you want to chat Twin Cessnas you can also give me a call whenever you'd like.
 
That's why my dad sold his Aztec. He's 87 and it was getting tough for him and his wife to get in and out. If he was younger I think he would buy a Shrike but I think he'll end up with a Cardinal to cruise around in. Don
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I definitely understand the cabin and easy of entry/egress aspects that go with wanting a cabin class. You generally won't get much (if any) real useful load increase with a cabin class. They burn enough extra fuel and don't have enough extra power that the math doesn't work out favorably. The benefits are pressurization (if you get it) and cabin comfort.

I agree that a turboprop doesn't buy you much. Only way it would make sense for me would be one of the faster Garret models. MU2, 441 (both with -10s), etc. Don't like AC690s, have 25 hours in them and just didn't like the way they flew.

When you get into things like a C340, the extra cost is typically in big ticket items. Inconel exhaust? $11k. Windshield? $25k. If they don't break under you ownership, no problem. If they do, you need to be ready to write a big check immediately. For all that, you get a plane that realistically is no faster than my 310, but with a higher fuel burn.

You could also consider some of the other less conventional options. A Cessna 401 comes to mind. Cabin class, no pressurization to worry about, could get an equivalent one for the same (or less) value as your Baron. You do get the Inconel exhaust since it's turbo'd, but any cabin class is going to have turbos other than something like a Queen Air with 720s.

If you want to chat Twin Cessnas you can also give me a call whenever you'd like.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ted. I think my strategy right now is going to be to have my wife take a look (get in and out of a couple models) and see what she prefers and then narrow it down from there. Jerry Temple has a 340 listed at Newport News about 20 min away, so I may call and see if we can take a look.

Queen Airs are another interesting one. I've always like the look and it seems like you can get a lot of airplane for the money, but I know nothing abouth the engines.
 
Only issued I ever had in flying the TIO-540's in the PA31 I was flying were maintenance induced, not native to the engine itself. Never really any issues starting them in normal environments (getting them started on a hot day at 7000ft MSL, is a different story).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I definitely understand the cabin and easy of entry/egress aspects that go with wanting a cabin class. You generally won't get much (if any) real useful load increase with a cabin class. They burn enough extra fuel and don't have enough extra power that the math doesn't work out favorably. The benefits are pressurization (if you get it) and cabin comfort.

I agree that a turboprop doesn't buy you much. Only way it would make sense for me would be one of the faster Garret models. MU2, 441 (both with -10s), etc. Don't like AC690s, have 25 hours in them and just didn't like the way they flew.

When you get into things like a C340, the extra cost is typically in big ticket items. Inconel exhaust? $11k. Windshield? $25k. If they don't break under you ownership, no problem. If they do, you need to be ready to write a big check immediately. For all that, you get a plane that realistically is no faster than my 310, but with a higher fuel burn.

You could also consider some of the other less conventional options. A Cessna 401 comes to mind. Cabin class, no pressurization to worry about, could get an equivalent one for the same (or less) value as your Baron. You do get the Inconel exhaust since it's turbo'd, but any cabin class is going to have turbos other than something like a Queen Air with 720s.

If you want to chat Twin Cessnas you can also give me a call whenever you'd like.
Click to expand...

You could also throw the very early PA31's into the cabin class without turbo mix.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That's an option, but it seems like there are only one or two for sale at any given time and the ones I've seen are pretty tired.
Click to expand...

The good ones never get listed, you have to start looking for one then make an offer. There must be a T-Bone board...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top