Continental O-200 ?

On 18 Sep 2006 15:49:59 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Vaughn Simon wrote:

Anyhow, they will sell you a brand new O-200 for a mere $17,100. They seem
to be made of all new factory parts, but are not "certified" engines. Are these
the engines that they are putting in the new LSAs?


Seventeen grand for a 60 year old museum piece engine THAT IS NOT EVEN
TYPE CERTIFICATED. They know a market is made of stupid people when
they see it.

you are definately in need of a laxative.

If you'd ever flown an O-200 you would realise that you are wrong.
did you know that at 4,000rpm they deliver 150hp.

great little engine.

Stealth ( O-200 powered) Pilot

you are definately in need of a laxative.

If you'd ever flown an O-200 you would realise that you are wrong.
did you know that at 4,000rpm they deliver 150hp.

great little engine.

Stealth ( O-200 powered) Pilot

But running it that RPM would take the TBO down drastically. I grew up
in Miami, and used to hang around Tamiami airport. All those Pitts
guys used to overspeed their engines like that. And most of them got
around 300 hours before they needed to overhaul their engines.
Those kinds of RPMs are okay for racing and aerobatics, but be ready
for a very early overhaul.

But running it that RPM would take the TBO down drastically. I grew up
in Miami, and used to hang around Tamiami airport. All those Pitts
guys used to overspeed their engines like that. And most of them got
around 300 hours before they needed to overhaul their engines.
Those kinds of RPMs are okay for racing and aerobatics, but be ready
for a very early overhaul.

Are you sure about the RPM's contribution to the 300 Hr overhaul?
I would imagine that crank stress due to gyro maneuvers, and full power
climbs followed by immediate power off maneuvers might be a more
dominating factor to short time between overhauls.

Mike

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:53:19 -0500, pittss1c
wrote:


But running it that RPM would take the TBO down drastically. I grew up
in Miami, and used to hang around Tamiami airport. All those Pitts
guys used to overspeed their engines like that. And most of them got
around 300 hours before they needed to overhaul their engines.
Those kinds of RPMs are okay for racing and aerobatics, but be ready
for a very early overhaul.

Are you sure about the RPM's contribution to the 300 Hr overhaul?
I would imagine that crank stress due to gyro maneuvers, and full power
climbs followed by immediate power off maneuvers might be a more
dominating factor to short time between overhauls.

Mike



I've also heard that the guys installing 10 to 1 pistons are only
getting 300 hours before overhaul. I'm building a Glasair 3, and know
some other builders that have done that. It brings the power up to
about 330, from 300hp. But to me isn't worth it. It enters into
unknowns in regard to engine/propeller harmonics, drastically cuts
down on the TBO, and does who knows what to the crank, bearings, and
other engine parts. I talked to the late Bob Herendeen about that
when he had just finished his G-3, and he said he did nothing to boost
the engines power beyond what it was designed for. For reliability. I
can only imagine that running up into the RPM's you are talking about
could only involve similar stresses to the engine.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:11:19 -0400, newsreader
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:53:19 -0500, pittss1c
wrote:


But running it that RPM would take the TBO down drastically. I grew up
in Miami, and used to hang around Tamiami airport. All those Pitts
guys used to overspeed their engines like that. And most of them got
around 300 hours before they needed to overhaul their engines.
Those kinds of RPMs are okay for racing and aerobatics, but be ready
for a very early overhaul.

Are you sure about the RPM's contribution to the 300 Hr overhaul?
I would imagine that crank stress due to gyro maneuvers, and full power
climbs followed by immediate power off maneuvers might be a more
dominating factor to short time between overhauls.

Mike



I've also heard that the guys installing 10 to 1 pistons are only
getting 300 hours before overhaul. I'm building a Glasair 3, and know
some other builders that have done that. It brings the power up to
about 330, from 300hp. But to me isn't worth it. It enters into
unknowns in regard to engine/propeller harmonics, drastically cuts
down on the TBO, and does who knows what to the crank, bearings, and
other engine parts. I talked to the late Bob Herendeen about that
when he had just finished his G-3, and he said he did nothing to boost
the engines power beyond what it was designed for. For reliability. I
can only imagine that running up into the RPM's you are talking about
could only involve similar stresses to the engine.

2500 continuous and 2750 rpm tops is set where it is because engines
that loaf along at that get to TBO.

TBO -time between overhauls- is a certified engine concept. take the
engine over 2750 and there is no TBO because you have just negated the
certification requirements.
What I was getting to with brown eyes is that the engine is capable of
doing a lot more than the pedestrian RPM's that get you the 2000 hours
between teardowns. If you want the rpm's and the hp then accept that
you are now driving an experimental engine with no known service
history. ....which really is no different from his much loved car
engines.
Stealth Pilot

If you'd ever flown an O-200 you would realise that you are wrong.
did you know that at 4,000rpm they deliver 150hp.

great little engine.

Stealth ( O-200 powered) Pilot

But running it that RPM would take the TBO down drastically. I grew up
in Miami, and used to hang around Tamiami airport. All those Pitts
guys used to overspeed their engines like that. And most of them got
around 300 hours before they needed to overhaul their engines.
Those kinds of RPMs are okay for racing and aerobatics, but be ready
for a very early overhaul.

I believe that the Formula 1 racers generally got less TBO than that. I
have no idea how much of that was overspeed vs how much was high power; but
I am pretty sure that an overspeed of 33% on a certified aircraft would
require an overhaul--regardless of the duration. Some of the regular
posters are sure to know the rules on that.

Peter

Stealth Pilot wrote:
snip

you are definately in need of a laxative.

If you'd ever flown an O-200 you would realise that you are wrong.
did you know that at 4,000rpm they deliver 150hp.


What diameter of prop can you turn at 4000 rpm?

A Volkswagen is NOT a good direct drive aircraft engine because it
produces good power at 3200 to 3800 rpm. But it's a hell of a lot
easier to put a redrive on a VW than an O-200.

What is TBO of a O-200 at 4000 rpm?

Except for a very esoteric and crowd-unappealing, masturbatory sport
of F1 air racing no one is going to turn a O-200 at these RPMs. So you
are talking smack.

What diameter of prop can you turn at 4000 rpm?

A Volkswagen is NOT a good direct drive aircraft engine because it
produces good power at 3200 to 3800 rpm. But it's a hell of a lot
easier to put a redrive on a VW than an O-200.

Actually, 46 to 48"

The VW 1600 was used that way with considerable success in the early KR-2
aircraft. However, that only meant 60 to 65 HP with the small displacement,
and the modestly oversized cylinders which would be fitted without fairly
radical case machining provided only a very modest addition of take-off
power. Cruising speed was only about 115 kts within the thermal capacity of
the stock heads--which has been discussed previously in this NG--so pilots
who were heavier or wanted to fly faster sought more oomph.

There were also successfull amateur conversions of the VW Type-IV engine, of
1700 cc, which was used in the Porsche 914 and some years of Transporters
and which was also rated to turn 4000 rpm.

Most of the more recent VW "Based" engines have more displacement and turn
slower to provide a larger propeller disk area.

However, there is no single "best" rpm for all engines in all aircraft. It
is best to think of an airplane as a large number of compromises flying in
close formation; and if the design is not intended for the mass market, the
designed is free to make his own compromises.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
What diameter of prop can you turn at 4000 rpm?

A Volkswagen is NOT a good direct drive aircraft engine because it
produces good power at 3200 to 3800 rpm. But it's a hell of a lot
easier to put a redrive on a VW than an O-200.

Actually, 46 to 48"

The VW 1600 was used that way with considerable success in the early KR-2
aircraft. However, that only meant 60 to 65 HP with the small displacement,
and the modestly oversized cylinders which would be fitted without fairly
radical case machining provided only a very modest addition of take-off
power. Cruising speed was only about 115 kts within the thermal capacity of
the stock heads--which has been discussed previously in this NG--so pilots
who were heavier or wanted to fly faster sought more oomph.


Since VW engines in race cars and hot rods (sand rails, etc) operate
under continuous power at higher power settings than this (I have
driven Bugs up tall mountains in 90 degree weather at 25+ inches Hg at
3000-3700 rpm for as long as the mountain lasted, which was longer than
enough to heat the head all the way through) this thermal analysis
theory is flawed. The 356/912 Porsche has a head not much bigger and
they run for hours on the Autobahn flat out.

The difference is these engines have a cooling blower, where most
aircraft installations run them as free cooled engines.

Free air cooling and direct drive are simple. In the old A-65 and the
airframes it went into that worked okay. But the time has come to
recognize that for an airplane to not be something looked on as an
antique, it needs a liquid cooled engine with a flywneel, redrive,
single lever power control and enough power to haul fat people and lots
of crap out of high and hot fields with healthy margins to spare.

On 19 Sep 2006 18:59:35 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Peter Dohm wrote:
What diameter of prop can you turn at 4000 rpm?

A Volkswagen is NOT a good direct drive aircraft engine because it
produces good power at 3200 to 3800 rpm. But it's a hell of a lot
easier to put a redrive on a VW than an O-200.

Actually, 46 to 48"

The VW 1600 was used that way with considerable success in the early KR-2
aircraft. However, that only meant 60 to 65 HP with the small displacement,
and the modestly oversized cylinders which would be fitted without fairly
radical case machining provided only a very modest addition of take-off
power. Cruising speed was only about 115 kts within the thermal capacity of
the stock heads--which has been discussed previously in this NG--so pilots
who were heavier or wanted to fly faster sought more oomph.


Since VW engines in race cars and hot rods (sand rails, etc) operate
under continuous power at higher power settings than this (I have
driven Bugs up tall mountains in 90 degree weather at 25+ inches Hg at
3000-3700 rpm for as long as the mountain lasted, which was longer than
enough to heat the head all the way through) this thermal analysis
theory is flawed. The 356/912 Porsche has a head not much bigger and
they run for hours on the Autobahn flat out.

The difference is these engines have a cooling blower, where most
aircraft installations run them as free cooled engines.

Free air cooling and direct drive are simple. In the old A-65 and the
airframes it went into that worked okay. But the time has come to
recognize that for an airplane to not be something looked on as an
antique, it needs a liquid cooled engine with a flywneel, redrive,
single lever power control and enough power to haul fat people and lots
of crap out of high and hot fields with healthy margins to spare.

totally clueless nonsense brown eyes.
aircraft have a pressure plenum. almost no aircooled aircraft engine
are free cooled engines. everything with a cowling uses the very
effective technique of the pressure plenum.

I'd suggest you learn about them.
Stealth Pilot