Continental O-200 ?

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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