BMW bike ect are discarted a they require PSRUs.
How is that a bad thing? I bet that you have no idea of the number of engines that have PSRUs and were considered the greatest engines of their time??
Its hilarious that you would even entertain the amount of work/trouble to cut an engine completely in half, resign the accessories from scratch, modify the oil galleries and crank bearings... but two gears scares the hell out of you???
Lets just say I stopped reading when you made the above statement.
Hold yer horses.
Compared to any PSRU-engine an 1/2 O200 is "easy" engine: less there is, less to go wrong, weighs less and -most of the time- costs less and lives longer. If the power output is of the required quantity, I would opt for a direct driven prop any day of the week. But you may do as you like: won't bother me the slightest.
Sorry Tom, but in fact there are now very few direct drive options left anymore. Those that exist are very expensive and only produced a few hundred per year. The high volume engines like Rotax have a built in gear drive. The high volume auto engine conversions like Viking, have a reduction gearbox. And they are being bought in big numbers now. There are more people entering the auto engine conversion market and I would say output is in fact constrained by the fact that most companies who do produce a good gearbox have the gearbox production integrated into their overall manufacturing plan, meaning there are no gearboxes to be sold as a stand alone product.
Direct drive: Add Limbach as well as Sauer. Both certified by at least some national authorities.
D-Motor, too. Well, I guess. They don't seem interested in selling engines to homebuilders I guess.
From the report you referenced "Limbach, Sauer are the "better" VW-convertions. However (in Europe) these engine are mainly on (Fournier)-motorgliders, very little on motorized airplanes.
In Belgium I know but of 3 experimentals (non motorglider) with them and only because they all had severe and catastrophic in flight engine failures. While I suppose the product itselve is not the problem but more the image "it is but a VW". It attracts maintenance / rebuild- conditions not that followed.
D-motor will happily sell motors but they are a bit scared of the homebuilding scene.
I haven't put my 5 cents (to account for inflation) in this thread yet, so here we go:
The O-100 "seems" to an engine that could find a market, as Pete Plumb spent many years of research and R&D on his project.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the 50-60hp segment is very price sensitive (as is the 30-50hp segment).
- HKS had a nice engine with a good reputation but didn't last that long, most likely due to low demand from high price (they were around USD10k)
From the report you referenced "
Contributing safety factor:
Performing non-routine maintenance on critical aircraft components without having extensive
Other safety factor:
The lack of technical documentation and/or guidance from the engine manufacturer to warn the
mechanics about the “valve stem wear phenomenon”, possibly causing an insufficient gap between
the valve rotators and the rocker arms. "
A lot of people in the US use the VW maintenance Manuals for general maintenance & tech help on their basic engines
FWIW, US prices for built and tested aero engines based on VW Type 1. With carburetor, dual ignition, alternator, starter, prop hub, beefed up prop bearing, etc.I don't know (too lazy to look) the price of a basic VW-engine in the US but am willing to bet it is significantly less that the Sauer-version which retails around 13000-15000 Eur.
Since in some discussions the O-100 of the late P. Plumb appears from time to time, I have a (slightly) theoretical question.
What if from an O-200 or C-90 the complete assembly of the 2 rear cylinders (closest to the firewall on a tractor configuration) were removed?
By complete assembly of the 2 rear cylinders I mean the whole lot: cylinder heads, pistons , connecting rods , sleeves , push tubes, cam followers. This followed by plugging the holes in order to hold the oil inside.
Exhaust and intake would also require some plugging while the missing reciprocating weight of the connecting rods / pistons needs compensation at their former crank positions. Crankshaft remains as is, maybe with only some minor mods towards lubrification for the rear crankshaft bearings. Camshaft no mods.
Normally carb setting and ignition should stays as were, COG will move towards the prop. The stock O-200 weighs about 100 kg, Weight loss estimated at 35 kg. Power and torque will obviously be halved.
The above should turn the O-200 into an O-100 without any casing modification. Am I missing something obvious?
As for why: I collect my C-90 next week (in parts) being given a $$-reconditioning offer which I am not happy with. Might as well tinker a bit with it. As always: parts that I don't have , are worth fortunes , the parts I do have worthless. If some-one has a decent O-200 or C-90 blocking his doorway, one needed here.
You mean like this?
Here it is running:
I'm not associated with them, I just know OF it.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: