Continental O-200 ?

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

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.


What is stupid for sure is the above remark....
and possibly the person who made it.


- Lycoming BOb -

Over 5 decades of powered flight

The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.

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.

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

I noticed in another post that the Continental O-200 is back in new
manufacture again.




I was the OP, and now see that I can't seem find any specs. They have a
phone number posted for additional information on each engine/series and
I
do plan to follow up.

Peter

I thank you for passing on the info.
best news since christmas.
Stealth Pilot

I gave them a call today at the number shown on their web site by clicking
through to http://tcmlink.com/engines/index.cfm?lsa=yes and learned that:

1) The "old" O-200 is still in production and still available new.

2) The new engine is expected to be called IO-200, and
Planned to be available some time next year
Planned to be certified for LSA under FAR Part 33
Has a target weight under 200 pounds
Has a terget TBO of 2000 hours
Other improvements should include crossflow heads,
revised oil sump, and electronic ignition.

At present, they really don't have much posted on their web site in the way
of specifications, but a phone call will reach a live person and they plan
to display at shows as the development proceeds.

All in all, I am very impressed, and the time frame is perfoect for a
project that I really can not even start for at least six months to a year.

There is just nothing else that I can do that I believe can really compete
on both weight and reliability. I can not find where I thought that I had
seen a weight of 170 pounds, but even 200 pounds is still the lowest weight
for 100 horsepower that I know of that I would trust over terrain containing
sharks, alligators, or jagged rocks.

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.

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

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.


What is stupid for sure is the above remark....
and possibly the person who made it.


- Lycoming BOb -


Lycomings suck. So do you.

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