difference between lycoming and continental powered vikings

P

pilot8

New member
I am an old bellanca driver from way back, had a 74 and loved it.
am looking at purchasing a 1977 lycoming powered viking.
I have mixed emotions and am getting a lot of different stories
about the lycoming being a bad choice. can some one out there explain the differences between the two planes. in the spec sheet
the lyc powered plane is slower by 9 knots from the cont powered one. I am not familar with the IO 540.
Help
pete
If you would like to give me a ring , toll free 800-668-4875
Thanks
 
I own a 1976 17 31A lyc powered. I have viewed many arguements on this subject. I am sure each owner will defend their choice. I had an experienced CFI prior owner of both and former mechanic that assisted in my purchase that insisted on lyc.
Bottom line the power is the same except the turbo version must be lyc and ofcourse will give more power at altitude. The lyc design gives more lubrication to the jugs or cyclinders. Hence a 2000 TBO versus the conti 1800. There are more contis available in the Viking. The contis are less expensive to overhaul.
 
Difference is about 15 max HP!

Actually, the 2 engines are built by respectable manufacturers - the injection system on the Lyc is a little 'better' in the sense that the charge is better balanced getting to all cylinders wheras the Cont. generally runs hotter on 1&2 given the set up - hence the GAMI injectors being invented.

OTT - well, the Lyc usually makes it to TBO and generally runs a little cooler than the IO-520. I own a turbo'd Lyc 76 SV - I LOVE her. FLY her ever chance I get.
 
Pete:

I owned a Continental powered Viking and loved it. I also flew a few Lyc powered Vikings, and loved them too. My perception was that the Continental powered airplanes were a tad ( really a lot) smoother running airplanes. Both engines are very dependable, so the choice may just boil down to which color you like best :lol: .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top