Continental O-200 ?

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:46:26 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:

Bert Ludwig wrote:
Jerry Springer wrote:
snip

Stupid, stupid, ignorant person.



Yes you are, as you insist on proving repeatedly. Go back to your
freak show on TV you load.

Pudwig, the things you write here over and over show that you are an
ignorant person. You are not smart enough to build your own airplane and
find fault with anyone that does design and built airplanes. What a
pathetic life you must live. You are not even smart enough to quote
enough of the previous message so people well know what you are talking
about. As I said YOU are a stupid, stupid person.

he certainly hasnt realised why I use the brown eyes comment :-)
Stealth Pilot

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


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



Jabiru 3300... 170lbs complete, LSA certified.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Agreed, and it is also inherently very smooth, has a low frontal area,
and rivals most models of the Lycoming O-235 for maximum
power--although that last is subject to a lot of variables due to
propeller disk area and may have a different safety margin. A local
chapter member has one in a Sonex and it fits that airframe like a
hand in a perfectly fitted glove. It also ranks high amoung the
engines that I like personally for some airframes, but there are
caveats. It appears that some LSA aircraft may also be flown night
and IFR, in US airspace, limited by the lesser of the pilot
qualitications and the aircraft operating limitations. If you're
curious, start with a look at
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/LSA_rule.html and
http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html and also try a Google
search using the argument "FAA Part 33 LSA" but without the quatation
marks.

Peter

I know that "LSA aircraft" reads like something from The Department of
Redundancy Department, but couldn't decide how else to write it.




The Jabiru is NOT restricted to daytime VFR. The EAA article incorrectly
quoted that the Jabiru used their JAR22 certification to comply with the
slsa standards, but they actually did a separate ASTM compliance statement
that included no such restriction. EAA later printed a retraction in the
eaa email newsletter and the Sport Pilot magazine, but it appears that they
chose not to archive it, at least I cant now find it. Someone seriously
interested can call Pete at Jabiru USA in TN for confirmation.




--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

On 21 Sep 2006 10:05:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


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


- 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.


I would prefer to fly behind a certified power plant (or in front of
one). Pratt and Whitney for instance.


I'd rather trust a Lycoming than a Pratt & Whitney. I've been on too
many flights where the old Pratt failed. Once a cylinder came right
through the cowling. (DC-3 R-1830) And another time the engine sucked
a valve (Martin 404 - R-2800) I've never had that happen with a
Lycoming. But I have had problems with Continentials.(Beech Debonair)
Lycomings are about the best of the recips.

It's easy to sit on the ground and dream about developing and flying
in an "alternate" aircraft engine. But when airborne, in a homebuilt
is not the time to mess around with these types of engines. As they
say, it's better to be on the ground, wishing you were in the air,
than to be in the air, wishing you were on the ground.

Peter Dohm wrote:
[...]
BTW, I forgot to mention in the earlier post that I was also told that they
are designing a new oil sump integral with the crank case. The O-300 has
had that forever and it does facititate a very sleek cowling.

There is a good justification for an FAR Part 33 certified engine and FAR
Part 35 certified propeller in that, as I understand it, an appropriately
equipped LSA can have Night and IFR within its operating limitations when
flown by a qualified pilot and can still be flown Day VFR by a Sport Pilot.

Peter

Thanks, Peter, for your splendid commentary and data provided in this
thread. It makes wading through RAH worth it.

newsreader wrote:
It's easy to sit on the ground and dream about developing and flying
in an "alternate" aircraft engine. But when airborne, in a homebuilt
is not the time to mess around with these types of engines.

IOW there is no time to "mess around with" anything that is not a
certified aircraft engine. If everyone thought like that the OX-5 would
still be the "proven" aircraft engine. By now they would probably have
the old beast putting out 300-400 hp and getting a whopping 500 hour
TBO.

Stick with certified engines in CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT, with TWO (or three
or four) certified engines and a TWO MAN CREW. People like you make
good airline pilots but belong nowhere near single engine single pilot
aircraft.

As they
say, it's better to be on the ground, wishing you were in the air,
than to be in the air, wishing you were on the ground.

Worst case scenario: forced landing or bailout. It happens. Rarely.
But if you are not prepared to do that DO NOT FLY EXPERIMENTAL
AIRCRAFT.

The "average person" is not supposed to be flying experimental
aircraft. Does the average person build their own motorcycle or car?
No they buy one designed, built and tested by trained professionals.
You are WATERING DOWN this activity to something safely doable by
idiots (with fat bank accounts, mostly from house morgtgages or
consumer credit. GOD we need a Depression! Please Allah!!)

newsreader wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 10:05:32 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


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




I'd rather trust a Lycoming than a Pratt & Whitney. I've been on too
many flights where the old Pratt failed. Once a cylinder came right
through the cowling. (DC-3 R-1830) And another time the engine sucked
a valve (Martin 404 - R-2800) I've never had that happen with a
Lycoming. But I have had problems with Continentials.(Beech Debonair)
Lycomings are about the best of the recips.


I watched a CFI/CFII/ATP young stud at a FBO I work at lose a
O-235-L2C in the pattern and still wind up in a supermarket parking
lot. Would have been a beautiful rollout if not for those pesky parking
dividers! I also saw an ob/gyn with his wife and four rug rats in a
cabin class twin run an engine up and for some stupid reason pull the
prop ALL THE WAY BACK at full power. A cylinder on the right side of #2
came off and went through the cowling. If it had been a left hand jug
one or more people would have died for certain.

Sorry, I'd rather fly a Chevy.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

I watched a CFI/CFII/ATP young stud at a FBO I work at lose a
O-235-L2C in the pattern and still wind up in a supermarket parking
lot. Would have been a beautiful rollout if not for those pesky parking
dividers! I also saw an ob/gyn with his wife and four rug rats in a
cabin class twin run an engine up and for some stupid reason pull the
prop ALL THE WAY BACK at full power. A cylinder on the right side of #2
came off and went through the cowling. If it had been a left hand jug
one or more people would have died for certain.

Sorry, I'd rather fly a Chevy.

So a ham-handed pilot couldn't bust the Chevy. And a good
CFI/CFII/ATP couldn't glide back to the airport unless the dead engine
under the cowl was a Chevy. Hmm.
I flew a Subaru that burned a valve when the mixture was
adjusted to lean for cruise. The 16-valve engines have really slender
valves, just about the same size as you'd find in your Briggs &
Stratton, and they heat up REALLY fast and will burn instantly if they
get a tiny bit too hot. It's one reason they had electronic fuel
injection in the car: to protect the engine. I had my son's Suzuki 1.6
Litre 16-valve apart last week, same problem: burned valve, and it had
the same tiny little valves. The stem was so small (0.215" ) that the
valve grinder chuck would barely close enough to hold onto it. Such
small stems don't transfer heat well at high power settings (like in an
airplane).
Therefore, many auto conversions may run well and smooth and
deliver decent power and get good mileage, but they have to be run much
more carefully than the old Lyc with it's massive sodium-filled valve
stems and thick valve heads. The pilot who blew the jug off his engine
likely treated it that way all the time for a long time and it finally
bit him. He was asking for detonation and got it, and NO engine would
stand for detonation for any length of time.
The Lyc or Continental will stand for more abuse, except for
shock cooling or persistent really rough power handling. Lycoming, for
instance, says that you can lean their normally-aspirated direct-drive
engines any way you want when at 75% or less; just try THAT with your
Soob or Suzuki.

Dan

Bret Ludwig wrote:

I watched a CFI/CFII/ATP young stud at a FBO I work at lose a
O-235-L2C in the pattern and still wind up in a supermarket parking
lot. Would have been a beautiful rollout if not for those pesky parking
dividers! I also saw an ob/gyn with his wife and four rug rats in a
cabin class twin run an engine up and for some stupid reason pull the
prop ALL THE WAY BACK at full power. A cylinder on the right side of #2
came off and went through the cowling. If it had been a left hand jug
one or more people would have died for certain.

Sorry, I'd rather fly a Chevy.

So a ham-handed pilot couldn't bust the Chevy. And a good
CFI/CFII/ATP couldn't glide back to the airport unless the dead engine
under the cowl was a Chevy. Hmm.
I flew a Subaru that burned a valve when the mixture was
adjusted to lean for cruise. The 16-valve engines have really slender
valves, just about the same size as you'd find in your Briggs &
Stratton, and they heat up REALLY fast and will burn instantly if they
get a tiny bit too hot. It's one reason they had electronic fuel
injection in the car: to protect the engine. I had my son's Suzuki 1.6
Litre 16-valve apart last week, same problem: burned valve, and it had
the same tiny little valves. The stem was so small (0.215" ) that the
valve grinder chuck would barely close enough to hold onto it. Such
small stems don't transfer heat well at high power settings (like in an
airplane).
Therefore, many auto conversions may run well and smooth and
deliver decent power and get good mileage, but they have to be run much
more carefully than the old Lyc with it's massive sodium-filled valve
stems and thick valve heads. The pilot who blew the jug off his engine
likely treated it that way all the time for a long time and it finally
bit him. He was asking for detonation and got it, and NO engine would
stand for detonation for any length of time.
The Lyc or Continental will stand for more abuse, except for
shock cooling or persistent really rough power handling. Lycoming, for
instance, says that you can lean their normally-aspirated direct-drive
engines any way you want when at 75% or less; just try THAT with your
Soob or Suzuki.

Dan

A lot of good points, Dan, and I would like to add a little:

I think a lot of people run their conversions--or proposed conversions--much
too fast! That doesn't mean that I have ever completely withdrawn
automotive conversions from my consideration. Once you get away from the
LSA criteria, some candidates really stand out and some in GM's Vortec
series really stand out. However, before I actually undertake such a
project, I would very carefully review the portions of Part 23 that pertain
to VNE. There are portions of Part 23 where I would probably cut some
corners for my probable mission profiles, such as the propeller to ground
clearance for a tail wheel type aircraft, but I would not deviate from the
VNE definitions--because unusual an attitude recovery could be needed when I
least expect it. Obviously, this does not improve the power to weight
ration of the conversion.

I still like some of them; but it's not a "done deal" and, if it's supposed
to be a club project flown by several pilots to be determined later,
fuggeddaboudit!

Peter