Continental O-200 ?

Stealth Pilot wrote:
snip
If you'd ever flown an O-200 you would realise that you are wrong.

I soloed behind one at 18. My ears still ring.

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.

I have been a long time advocate of alternative power--where the weight,
speed, and operating conditions make that part of a reasonable
compromise--which is definitely NOT everywhere.

However, Bret, I have been reading a number of your recent posts and,
although I am normally a very mild mannered person, I feel compelled to say:
Go play n traffic!

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 18:03:00 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


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.


Yada, yada, yada.
AND... you've been BLOWING the troops here for nearly a year.
You attitude gives alternate engine power a bad name.


- Barnyard BOb -
Over a half century of powered flight.

On 19 Sep 2006 18:03:00 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


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.

Yada, Yada, yada.
Once again,you do nothing but BLOW a stream of nonsense.
Certified engines are the established kids on the block, dood.
Learn to deal deal with it in a positive way!
Your remarks do nothing for the advancement of alternate engine power.


- Barnyard BOb -

Over 5 decades of successful powered flight.

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

On 19 Sep 2006 17:46:12 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


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.

so I gather you find Formula 1 aircraft too hot to handle and the
engines too difficult to understand.

there is no TBO at 4,000 rpm and I never suggested there was.

I dont know where vw engines come in a discussion on the new O-200 LSA
engine but from personal experience both engines perform quite well as
direct drive powerplants with two and three bladed propellers.

sorry I missed a question there brown eyes. what diameter of prop?
dunno. ask the formula one guys they've managed to find suitable props
for nearly 50 years now.
when you're next as oshkosh have a look at wittman's hangar wall.
there were rows of them in the last photo I saw of the wall.

Stealth Pilot

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

On 19 Sep 2006 18:15:13 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Stealth Pilot wrote:
snip
If you'd ever flown an O-200 you would realise that you are wrong.

I soloed behind one at 18. My ears still ring.

it might take a few hours but the ringing will ease. :-)
Stealth Pilot

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:21:46 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:


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


appreciate the details pete.
calls from australia into america are problematic. most americans take
ages to attune the ear to the australian accent.

170 lbs is the bare dry engine. 200lbs is with accessories and oil
ready to run.
Stealth Pilot