Scrubbing through my AirVenture photos I found the lead image above that I snapped at the Continental exhibit and, shame on us, realized we never got to the story in our dense show coverage. That’s not a Lycoming 360 on the later model Piper Archer, but instead a Continental IO-370. An explanation is in order.
STC for Field Installs
In an engine market hungry for more replacement options, Continental hinted that its in-progress IO-370 STC for the PA-28-181 will be appealing to flight schools (and private owners, too) racking up hours on these workhorses. However, it won’t be for legacy PA-28s initially. The STC is limited to 2018 and newer Archer LX, TX, and Pilot 100i models with stock Lycoming IO-360 engines.
The fuel-injected, updraft-design parallel valve four-cylinder IO-370 series was initially aimed at Cessna applications and is available in several output configurations—from 180 to 195 horsepower. Like Continental’s PRIME conversion for Cessna applications, dropping an IO-370 in an IO-360 equipped Piper should require minimal if any modifications to the airframe. In the Archer conversion, the IO-370 has 180 horsepower rated at 2,700 RPM. TBO is 2,200 hours or 12 years.
Continental hasn’t announced pricing for the conversion, but typical retail pricing for the IO-370 (certified in 2019) for the Cessna 172R/S might be around $50,000 after a $28,000 core credit. Continental said it plans to apply for FAA certification by the end of 2026.
I presume that $78k conversion also includes extra work for a fuel return line, so subsequent overhauls would hopefully be much less than that? Or do those newer Archers already have such a provision (I don’t recall), so if this were to be offered for legacy PA-28s, the STC would be even more expensive?
Forget the IO-370. Implore DeltaHawk to do an Archer STC with their 4-cylinder diesel.
So, it says, for the Archer conversion, limited to newer models, the new engine is 180hp. Don’t those newer Archers have a Lycoming IO-360 at 180hp already? I don’t get it, what’s the point?
Why would Continental design an engine with the camshaft on top instead of their usual camshaft on the bottom of crankcase? This question assumes the picture in this article is correct. Why would the FAA approve any new engine design to run on 100LL? Is Continental going to get engine approved for unleaded fuels? If not this would be a wasted effort!
It’s not really a new engine it just a copy of the regular old O360 Lycoming with a stroker crank bringing displacement up to 372CI , Lycoming is marketed it as an O375 and both engines are exactly the same according to AeroSport Power who built the Lycoming labeled one I bought a few years ago. Unless it has the additional $10,000 counterweighted crankshaft (who knows how much $? Now) it has a MP &RPM restriction “Do not operate above 24”MP below 2450 RPM.
I didn’t know that it had a certified option.
Newer PA-28-181 Archer III airplanes are fitted with Lycoming O-360-A4M or IO-360-B4A. I suspect the Titan engine STC is considering an alternative to the Archer IIIs fitted with the injected version for simplicity and lower cost.
Continental Motors purchased the entire ECI Titan engine line in 2015 as a way of chipping into Lycoming’s hold on the training market with a lower priced alternative. It also included the line of 470 and 520 aftermarket cylinder PMA approvals and associated technologies.
Given the complexities around training aircraft engine delivery times, any manufacturer option is better than no option.
I guess I missed the point. What does the new engine gain for the owner? An extra 15 horsepower for $78,000? Fuel injection?
Put a fuel efficient turbine engine on there and add 100 horsepower and then we’ve got something worth considering.
It sounds like for the Archer STC, 0 additional horsepower, and fuel injection. But as others commented, if I recall, some of the newer Archers already have a fuel-injection option, so I’m not really sure of what the point of this engine STC is.
A conversion to fit a different AvGas engine is silly.
A conversion to fit a diesel makes sense!
I’m pretty sure that is being considered as well. The trouble is existing aircraft fuel systems are setup for avgas/ethanol-free mogas, and switching them to diesel will take an act of god, or at least god like money. These aren’t experimental with easier options, and adding a second equivalent engine installation choice brings competition to Lycoming, which is desperately needed to force lower lead times.
Avgas is becoming difficult to find in other countries and truckers are beginning to fail right here in the USA because of the diesel crisis. And I haven’t seen diesel offered at any of the airports I visit. So are you talking about a diesel engine that also burns Kerosene?
The Deltahwak diesel can burn Jet-A (Kerosene) or slightly “dirtier” fuel, i.e diesel. They are the same basic product but with different QC standard and additives. Shortages of diesel = shortages of Jet-A.
Where does K-1 kerosene fit in there? Is it just a cleaner grade of jet A, or are there some specific additives that change its characteristics and uses?
We asked Continental how it sees the IO-370 conversion concept in the current market. For the Piper Archer, it said the engine has the same fit, form, and function as the original OEM IO-360 and that the advantage to student pilots and instructors is not having to deal with a different set of operating numbers. Continental also said it can do well with delivery lead times, stating that the lead time for the IO-370 used in the Cessna 172R/S is 75 days, often shipping within a day. The IO-370 is part of Continental’s in-demand, in-stock engine program. Last, Continental told us that while pricing is “dynamic” and subject to change, a factory new IO-370 is competitively priced around the cost of an overhauled OEM engine and it has a 3-year or TBO warranty.