Continental O-200 ?

[Stealth Pilot]

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

Are there any links to the price of the new engine and the
specification differences between the old O-200 that I fly with and
would like to replace and the new O-200 LSA engine?

I spent an hour probing the TCM website and found nothing.

when did they put this little masterpiece back into production?

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Reggie]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> I noticed in another post that the Continental O-200 is back in new
> manufacture again.
>
> Are there any links to the price of the new engine and the
> specification differences between the old O-200 that I fly with and
> would like to replace and the new O-200 LSA engine?
>
> I spent an hour probing the TCM website and found nothing.
>
> when did they put this little masterpiece back into production?
>
> Stealth Pilot
> Australia
************************************************** ********
http://www.mattituck.com/

[[email protected]]

Reggie wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
> > I noticed in another post that the Continental O-200 is back in new
> > manufacture again.
> >
> > Are there any links to the price of the new engine and the
> > specification differences between the old O-200 that I fly with and
> > would like to replace and the new O-200 LSA engine?
> >
> > I spent an hour probing the TCM website and found nothing.
> >
> > when did they put this little masterpiece back into production?
> >
> > Stealth Pilot
> > Australia
> ************************************************** ********
> http://www.mattituck.com/

Where at the Mattituck site is Stealth's question answered?

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> ************************************************** ********
>> http://www.mattituck.com/
>
> Where at the Mattituck site is Stealth's question answered?

Under the "Experimental" button. That is a strange site that does not
display discrete urls for each page.

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?

Vaughn


>

[flybynightkarmarepair]

> Where at the Mattituck site is Stealth's question answered?

http://www.mattituck.com/TMX20-24.htm

[[email protected]]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >> ************************************************** ********
> >> http://www.mattituck.com/
> >
> > Where at the Mattituck site is Stealth's question answered?
>
> Under the "Experimental" button. That is a strange site that does not
> display discrete urls for each page.
>
> 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?
>
> Vaughn

CubCrafters and Legend are building J-3 lookalikes with O-200
Continentals, but they are certified. I'm sure other manufacturers
are using the respected O-200 too.

Only thing I would do, if I bought a new engine, is put Millenium
cylinders on it, since their barrels are choked. Superior's cylinders
are better, cooler-running cylinders and can be run with the mags timed
at 28 deg. btdc.

One nice thing Continental has done with its C-75, C-85, C-90, O-200,
O-300 cylinders, though, is to make removeable pushrod tubes available,
which don't leak oil like the old tubes swaged into the heads.

[Peter Dohm]

> I noticed in another post that the Continental O-200 is back in new
> manufacture again.
>
> Are there any links to the price of the new engine and the
> specification differences between the old O-200 that I fly with and
> would like to replace and the new O-200 LSA engine?
>
> I spent an hour probing the TCM website and found nothing.
>
> when did they put this little masterpiece back into production?
>
> Stealth Pilot
> Australia

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

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:21:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>> ************************************************** ********
>>> http://www.mattituck.com/
>>
>> Where at the Mattituck site is Stealth's question answered?
>
> Under the "Experimental" button. That is a strange site that does not
>display discrete urls for each page.
>
> 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?
>
>Vaughn
>

no this is not the engine. yes it is an O-200 but it is the earlier
design.
apart from one blurb page with a lovely photo of a new LSA engine the
tcm website contains no details.

this O-200 is a NEW engine. what interests me , apart from the price,
is what update mods have been made. the starter looks like a new
lightweight one so the rear case casting may be different.
hopefully experience has improved the corrosion proofing internal to
the engine.

If all that LSA achieves in the long run is to cause Continental to
put this beautiful little engine into production then it will have all
been worth it.

one wonders how much the Formula 1 racing guys will be able to coax
out of new engines :-)
cant wait.

Stealth Pilot
Oz

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:45:24 -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

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Barnyard BOb]

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.

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[newsreader]

>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.

[pittss1c]

> 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

[newsreader]

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.

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> >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

[Peter Dohm]

>
> >> 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

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Peter Dohm]

> 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

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> 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

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[ET]

"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

[Peter Dohm]

> >>
> >> >> 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.

[Bret Ludwig]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
<<snip>>
> >
> > 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.
>

I find F1 air racing a misnomer in the extreme and a snoozefest. I go
to Reno to see warbirds, big warbirds with big engines. When those
annoying gnats are out there I am at the casinos or doing other
interesting things like watching girls in cherries dresses do the
paddleball thing at Mia's.

[Bret Ludwig]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
<<snip>>

> 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

The pressure plenum using ram air works at a given narrow range of
power settings, airspeeds and outside temperature. Ever see what
happens when a turbo Bonanza pilot at cruise pulls the power back and
puts the nose down into the yellow arc? CRACK!!!!! go the jugs!

PFM, although they had other problems, figured correctly that a blower
with well-designed thermostatic controls worked a lot better. You
couldn't shock cool one.


The old Connies, DC7s, etc. did very well with sophisticated cowlings
and high delta heat air cooled cylinder heads. But they were not
aerobatic, had a flight engineer just to run the power plants, like a
submarine, and the only sudden descents they dealt with were if they
had a cabin depressurization. If that happened they didn't bitch that
loudly at swapping out all four before the next flight-they swapped
engines all the time at the ramp with passengers watching in those
days.

If the massive death count of the Bonanza tells us anything, besides
that Beech management should have been shot at sundown on the ramp off
Webb Rd, it' s that single pilot IFR needs single lever power control.

[Jerry Springer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
>>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
>
>
> The pressure plenum using ram air works at a given narrow range of
> power settings, airspeeds and outside temperature. Ever see what
> happens when a turbo Bonanza pilot at cruise pulls the power back and
> puts the nose down into the yellow arc? CRACK!!!!! go the jugs!
>
> PFM, although they had other problems, figured correctly that a blower
> with well-designed thermostatic controls worked a lot better. You
> couldn't shock cool one.
>
>
> The old Connies, DC7s, etc. did very well with sophisticated cowlings
> and high delta heat air cooled cylinder heads. But they were not
> aerobatic, had a flight engineer just to run the power plants, like a
> submarine, and the only sudden descents they dealt with were if they
> had a cabin depressurization. If that happened they didn't bitch that
> loudly at swapping out all four before the next flight-they swapped
> engines all the time at the ramp with passengers watching in those
> days.
>
> If the massive death count of the Bonanza tells us anything, besides
> that Beech management should have been shot at sundown on the ramp off
> Webb Rd, it' s that single pilot IFR needs single lever power control.
>
Stupid, stupid, ignorant person.

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[Jerry Springer]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.
>

Sounds like the cylinders are similar to the IO-240 and the 6-cylinder
IO-360, which are cross-flow engines. Which bore?
I'm in agreement with you that an engine with these numbers is a
winner, except that what with the high prices of the experimental
IO-240 and the experimental O-200, one would expect the IO-200 to bear
a hefty price-tag.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> 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.
> >
>
> Sounds like the cylinders are similar to the IO-240 and the 6-cylinder
> IO-360, which are cross-flow engines. Which bore?
> I'm in agreement with you that an engine with these numbers is a
> winner, except that what with the high prices of the experimental
> IO-240 and the experimental O-200, one would expect the IO-200 to bear
> a hefty price-tag.
>
That's how it sounds to me as well, and I do expect that hefty price tag.

With the aid of a Google search, I was able to find a list of partial specs
at http://www.tcmlink.com/producthighlights/ENGTBL.PDF which shows all of
the older engine sizes O-200 through IO-360 having the same stroke, with the
O-200 and O-300 having a smaller bore. Therefore, the bore and stroke of
the O-200 and O-300 makes the most sense; and even suggests the possibility
of an IO-300 in the future. (Remember that you read it here first.)

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

[Stealth Pilot]

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

[ET]

"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

[newsreader]

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.

[newsreader]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bret Ludwig]

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!!)

[Bret Ludwig]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Peter Dohm]

>
> 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