# O-100-- interesting new engine

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
The crankshafts will be a thing of beauty. The engines will be even better than before, rest assured.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
Just got off the phone with Pete Plumb of Pegasus Power.

Pete has spent the last three months desperately trying to find a machine shop that is able/willing to do the machining work on the ADI (Austempered Ductile Iron) crankshafts. He has spoken with hundreds and hundreds of machine shops.

Most of the shops are unwilling to work with this material, either it clogs up their cutting lubricant filters or creates some other issue. Many shops would not be interested in the smaller quantity he would be making. Then several other shops said that they could not do that many cranks (being prototype and super-short run shops).

Pete is 100% focused on finding the solution to this.
=========================================================================

So while I do like the Basic concept, a 1/2 Cont. O-200, which the O-200 was rated 100hp at 2750rpm has a 94% Volumetric Efficiency, so a 1/2 Cont. at 100ci turning 2750rpm at same 94% Volumetric Efficiency = 50hp! So to make 58hp it would need some Modifications(CR) and maybe even turned a little Higher rpm.

So WHY use a Material that is Hard to Machine if there are better Materials like 4340 Steel which is used with 98% of the Billet Cranks out there? TIME & COST is the Death of most of these Ventures. This has already taken way too long to get off the ground. Even if it was Upgraded from the Old Design and turned a Higher rpm for that 58hp, it's still marginal at 58hp for many Small Aircraft today. At one time there was 750+ Airframe Manufactures in the World out there per Kitplane Magazine, today 2019 we're down to about 300-350, and there is a Large Percentage of them 300-350 Airframes that can't use this Engine, either it's too Heavy at 105lbs or doesn't make enough HP for the rest. So his Market is shrinking fast.

He is also facing these other probably Cheaper, Lightweight Alternative Engines coming out or already on the Market, or being converted for Airplane use like these Honda/Briggs/Clone Singles and V Twins which are also 4 Strokes and some can make 58hp.

100ci = 1638.7cc 58hp@????rpm ????hr TBO? Cost?

Rotax 912(80hp) $15,813.00 - 2019 https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/rotax-engines-parts/new-rotax-engines/rotax-912ul-engine.html Rotax 582UL(65hp)$5,378.00 - 2019 +Cooling $2000-$2500.

A Briggs Van Guard 993cc V Twin 37hp@3600rpm EFI $3,299.00 +ACE Belt Drive$808 = $4,107 +Any Mods made to Engine, but probably less than$800 Max, say $5000 total for same 58hp. https://www.brandnewengines.com/61E477-0007.aspx 993cc turning 3600rpm making 37hp = 87% Volumetric Efficiency. 993cc at 87% Volumetric Efficiency turning 5500rpm = 57hp. 993cc at 95% Volumetric Efficiency with some Mods, turning 5200rpm = 58hp. So he is looking at a$5000 to $15,813 Window for a 58hp Engine Price. If to close to Rotax's 80hp Cost a +22hp and a High TBO, People will Buy the Rotax 912, if Cost a lot more than these V Twins, a lot of People will Buy the V Twin. TBO is still to be established for these V Twins, but I would say 1000hrs would be real close, maybe 1500hrs if all the HD Upgrades are made. He still has to Prove his Design Works and also establish a TBO. Just because an O-200 is 2000hrs, doesn't mean his O-100 will last as long. But it should be close if using a lot of the same O-200 parts. O-200 Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm) Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm) Displacement: 201 in³ (3293.8 cc) O-100 Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm) Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm) Displacement: 100.4 in³ (1646.9 cc) Would a Twin based off the IO-360 Jugs have been a better idea, I think so. (112mm x 98mm) 1931.7cc or 117.8ci or just a Big Bore O-200. A 75hp Twin Engine would be a more Ideal Engine, 10hp more than the Rotax 582UL(65hp), Lighter, Smaller, and close to the Rotax 912 80hp. If Priced at$13,800 would People Pay $2000 more for just 5hp? I doubt it. To make: 75hp@2750rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 148ci. 75hp@3000rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 137ci. 75hp@3250rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 126ci. What is the Max an O-200 Cylinder can be Big Bored too? If (103.1mm x 98.6mm) 100.4ci, then (116mm x 98.6mm) 127.2ci Many things affect your Engines Volumetric Efficiency, CR used, CAM LIFT & Duration used, Cylinder IN/EX VALVE Sizes, CARB CFM Size, your Cylinder Ports, and Exhaust Type used! The O-200 was rated Stock at 100hp@2750rpm using 7.0cr is 94% Volumetric Efficient. But I do wish him the best of Luck. #### Vigilant1 ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter I'd guess a 993cc engine would produce 58 continuous HP. For about 2 hours. Maybe it would be last 12 hours at 50 continuous HP. That's how long it would be competitive with Pete's engine. Sure, the O-100 will have competition, and it won't be right for every project. But the interest it has received from experienced folks indicates it has a bright future if the price works out OK. This is a free country and any sideline sniper who has a better idea and the guts, talent, and perseverance to bring the idea to reality can give it a shot. Otherwise. . . Last edited: #### BJC ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter The people actually hanging engines on airplanes will be interested in Pete’s O-100. BJC #### bmcj ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter .He is also facing these other probably Cheaper, Lightweight Alternative Engines coming out or already on the Market, or being converted for Airplane use like these Honda/Briggs/Clone Singles and V Twins which are also 4 Strokes and some can make 58hp. But the problem with that logic is that if you follow it to its ultimate conclusion, then only ONE of the engines you listed should be produced and the others should cease production because THE ONE already fills that space. #### mcrae0104 ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Log Member ========================================================================= So while I do like the Basic concept, a 1/2 Cont. O-200, which the O-200 was rated 100hp at 2750rpm has a 94% Volumetric Efficiency, so a 1/2 Cont. at 100ci turning 2750rpm at same 94% Volumetric Efficiency = 50hp! So to make 58hp it would need some Modifications(CR) and maybe even turned a little Higher rpm. So WHY use a Material that is Hard to Machine if there are better Materials like 4340 Steel which is used with 98% of the Billet Cranks out there? TIME & COST is the Death of most of these Ventures. This has already taken way too long to get off the ground. Even if it was Upgraded from the Old Design and turned a Higher rpm for that 58hp, it's still marginal at 58hp for many Small Aircraft today. At one time there was 750+ Airframe Manufactures in the World out there per Kitplane Magazine, today 2019 we're down to about 300-350, and there is a Large Percentage of them 300-350 Airframes that can't use this Engine, either it's too Heavy at 105lbs or doesn't make enough HP for the rest. So his Market is shrinking fast. He is also facing these other probably Cheaper, Lightweight Alternative Engines coming out or already on the Market, or being converted for Airplane use like these Honda/Briggs/Clone Singles and V Twins which are also 4 Strokes and some can make 58hp. 100ci = 1638.7cc 58hp@????rpm ????hr TBO? Cost? Rotax 912(80hp)$15,813.00 - 2019

Rotax 582UL(65hp) $5,378.00 - 2019 +Cooling$2000-$2500. https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/rotax-engines-parts/new-rotax-engines/rotax-582-engine.html A Briggs Van Guard 993cc V Twin 37hp@3600rpm EFI$3,299.00 +ACE Belt Drive $808 =$4,107 +Any Mods made to Engine, but probably less than $800 Max, say$5000 total for same 58hp.
https://www.brandnewengines.com/61E477-0007.aspx

993cc turning 3600rpm making 37hp = 87% Volumetric Efficiency.

993cc at 87% Volumetric Efficiency turning 5500rpm = 57hp.

993cc at 95% Volumetric Efficiency with some Mods, turning 5200rpm = 58hp.

So he is looking at a $5000 to$15,813 Window for a 58hp Engine Price. If to close to Rotax's 80hp Cost a +22hp and a High TBO, People will Buy the Rotax 912, if Cost a lot more than these V Twins, a lot of People will Buy the V Twin. TBO is still to be established for these V Twins, but I would say 1000hrs would be real close, maybe 1500hrs if all the HD Upgrades are made. He still has to Prove his Design Works and also establish a TBO. Just because an O-200 is 2000hrs, doesn't mean his O-100 will last as long. But it should be close if using a lot of the same O-200 parts.

O-200

Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm)
Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm)
Displacement: 201 in³ (3293.8 cc)

O-100
Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm)
Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm)
Displacement: 100.4 in³ (1646.9 cc)

Would a Twin based off the IO-360 Jugs have been a better idea, I think so. (112mm x 98mm) 1931.7cc or 117.8ci or just a Big Bore O-200. A 75hp Twin Engine would be a more Ideal Engine, 10hp more than the Rotax 582UL(65hp), Lighter, Smaller, and close to the Rotax 912 80hp. If Priced at $13,800 would People Pay$2000 more for just 5hp? I doubt it.

To make:
75hp@2750rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 148ci.
75hp@3000rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 137ci.
75hp@3250rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 126ci.

What is the Max an O-200 Cylinder can be Big Bored too?
If (103.1mm x 98.6mm) 100.4ci, then (116mm x 98.6mm) 127.2ci

Many things affect your Engines Volumetric Efficiency, CR used, CAM LIFT & Duration used, Cylinder IN/EX VALVE Sizes, CARB CFM Size, your Cylinder Ports, and Exhaust Type used! The O-200 was rated Stock at 100hp@2750rpm using 7.0cr is 94% Volumetric Efficient.

But I do wish him the best of Luck.
I like posts with high volumetric efficiency.

#### imacfii

##### Member
=========================================================================

So while I do like the Basic concept, a 1/2 Cont. O-200, which the O-200 was rated 100hp at 2750rpm has a 94% Volumetric Efficiency, so a 1/2 Cont. at 100ci turning 2750rpm at same 94% Volumetric Efficiency = 50hp! So to make 58hp it would need some Modifications(CR) and maybe even turned a little Higher rpm.

So WHY use a Material that is Hard to Machine if there are better Materials like 4340 Steel which is used with 98% of the Billet Cranks out there? TIME & COST is the Death of most of these Ventures. This has already taken way too long to get off the ground. Even if it was Upgraded from the Old Design and turned a Higher rpm for that 58hp, it's still marginal at 58hp for many Small Aircraft today. At one time there was 750+ Airframe Manufactures in the World out there per Kitplane Magazine, today 2019 we're down to about 300-350, and there is a Large Percentage of them 300-350 Airframes that can't use this Engine, either it's too Heavy at 105lbs or doesn't make enough HP for the rest. So his Market is shrinking fast.

He is also facing these other probably Cheaper, Lightweight Alternative Engines coming out or already on the Market, or being converted for Airplane use like these Honda/Briggs/Clone Singles and V Twins which are also 4 Strokes and some can make 58hp.

100ci = 1638.7cc 58hp@????rpm ????hr TBO? Cost?
Hi, is there an email address for Pete?. There's a company down here in New Zealand which has extensive experieence with ADI, both casting and machining, they produced hundreds of cranks and rods for compressors, etc. I for one, have many hundreds of hours behind the Continental O-200 and like it, it has always got me home. I also have experience with the Rotax 912 series, have experience with the gearbox, sprag clutch issues, give me a Continental any time.
Rotax 912(80hp) $15,813.00 - 2019 https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/rotax-engines-parts/new-rotax-engines/rotax-912ul-engine.html Rotax 582UL(65hp)$5,378.00 - 2019 +Cooling $2000-$2500.

A Briggs Van Guard 993cc V Twin 37hp@3600rpm EFI $3,299.00 +ACE Belt Drive$808 = $4,107 +Any Mods made to Engine, but probably less than$800 Max, say $5000 total for same 58hp. https://www.brandnewengines.com/61E477-0007.aspx 993cc turning 3600rpm making 37hp = 87% Volumetric Efficiency. 993cc at 87% Volumetric Efficiency turning 5500rpm = 57hp. 993cc at 95% Volumetric Efficiency with some Mods, turning 5200rpm = 58hp. So he is looking at a$5000 to $15,813 Window for a 58hp Engine Price. If to close to Rotax's 80hp Cost a +22hp and a High TBO, People will Buy the Rotax 912, if Cost a lot more than these V Twins, a lot of People will Buy the V Twin. TBO is still to be established for these V Twins, but I would say 1000hrs would be real close, maybe 1500hrs if all the HD Upgrades are made. He still has to Prove his Design Works and also establish a TBO. Just because an O-200 is 2000hrs, doesn't mean his O-100 will last as long. But it should be close if using a lot of the same O-200 parts. O-200 Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm) Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm) Displacement: 201 in³ (3293.8 cc) O-100 Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm) Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm) Displacement: 100.4 in³ (1646.9 cc) Would a Twin based off the IO-360 Jugs have been a better idea, I think so. (112mm x 98mm) 1931.7cc or 117.8ci or just a Big Bore O-200. A 75hp Twin Engine would be a more Ideal Engine, 10hp more than the Rotax 582UL(65hp), Lighter, Smaller, and close to the Rotax 912 80hp. If Priced at$13,800 would People Pay $2000 more for just 5hp? I doubt it. To make: 75hp@2750rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 148ci. 75hp@3000rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 137ci. 75hp@3250rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 126ci. What is the Max an O-200 Cylinder can be Big Bored too? If (103.1mm x 98.6mm) 100.4ci, then (116mm x 98.6mm) 127.2ci Many things affect your Engines Volumetric Efficiency, CR used, CAM LIFT & Duration used, Cylinder IN/EX VALVE Sizes, CARB CFM Size, your Cylinder Ports, and Exhaust Type used! The O-200 was rated Stock at 100hp@2750rpm using 7.0cr is 94% Volumetric Efficient. But I do wish him the best of Luck. #### addicted2climbing ##### Well-Known Member Log Member ========================================================================= So while I do like the Basic concept, a 1/2 Cont. O-200, which the O-200 was rated 100hp at 2750rpm has a 94% Volumetric Efficiency, so a 1/2 Cont. at 100ci turning 2750rpm at same 94% Volumetric Efficiency = 50hp! So to make 58hp it would need some Modifications(CR) and maybe even turned a little Higher rpm. So WHY use a Material that is Hard to Machine if there are better Materials like 4340 Steel which is used with 98% of the Billet Cranks out there? TIME & COST is the Death of most of these Ventures. This has already taken way too long to get off the ground. Even if it was Upgraded from the Old Design and turned a Higher rpm for that 58hp, it's still marginal at 58hp for many Small Aircraft today. At one time there was 750+ Airframe Manufactures in the World out there per Kitplane Magazine, today 2019 we're down to about 300-350, and there is a Large Percentage of them 300-350 Airframes that can't use this Engine, either it's too Heavy at 105lbs or doesn't make enough HP for the rest. So his Market is shrinking fast. He is also facing these other probably Cheaper, Lightweight Alternative Engines coming out or already on the Market, or being converted for Airplane use like these Honda/Briggs/Clone Singles and V Twins which are also 4 Strokes and some can make 58hp. 100ci = 1638.7cc 58hp@????rpm ????hr TBO? Cost? Rotax 912(80hp)$15,813.00 - 2019

Rotax 582UL(65hp) $5,378.00 - 2019 +Cooling$2000-$2500. https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/rotax-engines-parts/new-rotax-engines/rotax-582-engine.html A Briggs Van Guard 993cc V Twin 37hp@3600rpm EFI$3,299.00 +ACE Belt Drive $808 =$4,107 +Any Mods made to Engine, but probably less than $800 Max, say$5000 total for same 58hp.
https://www.brandnewengines.com/61E477-0007.aspx

993cc turning 3600rpm making 37hp = 87% Volumetric Efficiency.

993cc at 87% Volumetric Efficiency turning 5500rpm = 57hp.

993cc at 95% Volumetric Efficiency with some Mods, turning 5200rpm = 58hp.

So he is looking at a $5000 to$15,813 Window for a 58hp Engine Price. If to close to Rotax's 80hp Cost a +22hp and a High TBO, People will Buy the Rotax 912, if Cost a lot more than these V Twins, a lot of People will Buy the V Twin. TBO is still to be established for these V Twins, but I would say 1000hrs would be real close, maybe 1500hrs if all the HD Upgrades are made. He still has to Prove his Design Works and also establish a TBO. Just because an O-200 is 2000hrs, doesn't mean his O-100 will last as long. But it should be close if using a lot of the same O-200 parts.

O-200

Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm)
Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm)
Displacement: 201 in³ (3293.8 cc)

O-100
Bore: 4.06 in (103.1 mm)
Stroke: 3.88 in (98.6 mm)
Displacement: 100.4 in³ (1646.9 cc)

Would a Twin based off the IO-360 Jugs have been a better idea, I think so. (112mm x 98mm) 1931.7cc or 117.8ci or just a Big Bore O-200. A 75hp Twin Engine would be a more Ideal Engine, 10hp more than the Rotax 582UL(65hp), Lighter, Smaller, and close to the Rotax 912 80hp. If Priced at $13,800 would People Pay$2000 more for just 5hp? I doubt it.

To make:
75hp@2750rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 148ci.
75hp@3000rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 137ci.
75hp@3250rpm at 95% Volumetric Efficiency = 126ci.

What is the Max an O-200 Cylinder can be Big Bored too?
If (103.1mm x 98.6mm) 100.4ci, then (116mm x 98.6mm) 127.2ci

Many things affect your Engines Volumetric Efficiency, CR used, CAM LIFT & Duration used, Cylinder IN/EX VALVE Sizes, CARB CFM Size, your Cylinder Ports, and Exhaust Type used! The O-200 was rated Stock at 100hp@2750rpm using 7.0cr is 94% Volumetric Efficient.

But I do wish him the best of Luck.
When Pete was forced to abandon ADI, I ended up redoing the crank for him in Solidworks to reflect a crank cast in a more traditional steel. The file has 3 steps, Casting CAD model and Drawing, Machining CAD model and Drawing and finally a Grinding CAD model and Drawing. In the end I think he switched over to 4340 or something similar. Its been a long and hard road to get there as has been said many times, but having seen and worked with some of the CAD models for this, I can say it is well thought out and no expense spared in doing it right.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
I'd guess a 993cc engine would produce 58 continuous HP. For about 2 hours. Maybe it would be last 12 hours at 50 continuous HP. That's how long it would be competitive with Pete's engine.

Sure, the O-100 will have competition, and it won't be right for every project. But the interest it has received from experienced folks indicates it has a bright future if the price works out OK.

This is a free country and any sideline sniper who has a better idea and the guts, talent, and perseverance to bring the idea to reality can give it a shot. Otherwise. . .
=================================================================

Your Guess isn't a Fact, so is all you know a Guess. He doesn't have enough O-100's Flying to really give a Good TBO Rating even using O-200 Parts, and neither do these V Twins have enough Good Data to establish a Good TBO. Most Engine Failures are Human Related, and as they say, you can't fix Stupid. This O-100 is 1646.9 cc vs the 993cc V Twin so to make the same 58HP, you have to Upgrade it. There are HD Racing Parts available to do that, the O-200/O-100 don't have many aftermarket HD Parts to do that, and you forget, these V Twins can also be Big Bored similar to the Single's, which they can go up to 100mm. Just (100mm x 86.6mm) 1360.8cc. If Stock 993cc turning 3600rpm is making 37hp = 87% Volumetric Efficiency using 8.0cr. 1360cc at 3600rpm at 87% is 50hp. Which brings the two Engines much closer together. Do a CR Bump as he did on the O-100 (7.0cr to 9.0cr), and you would now probably have a 56-58hp@3600rpm V Twin Big Bore. I didn't see his rpm listed, just the 9.0cr upgrade. The Rotax 912 (80hp) is rated at 5500rpm. So could somebody build a V Twin Big Bore to compete, Yes, maybe not You, or some of these other Arm Chair experts, but some People could using these cheap HD Racing Parts. It's simple Economics, most People in the World won't spend more than the Cost of Rotax 912(80hp) for only a 58hp Engine no matter how good it is, just as most People won't spend much more for maybe 1-3hp if a V Twin Big Bore can come close to that 58hp which I'm sure it can. Why do you think Rotax dropped the 618UL(73.4hp) Engine, account it was $5000 cheaper than the New 912(80hp) when it first came out. People weren't Paying$5000 more for just 6hp. That's also WHY, the 670 was never made into a UL Engine, account at 6750rpm what the 618UL was rated, it made around 100hp.

#### poormansairforce

##### Well-Known Member
In a video from way back we were promised a dyno run? What prop are they running now?

#### mcrae0104

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
maybe not You, or some of these other Arm Chair experts
We need to make T-shirts: Armchair Mafia.

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
The people actually hanging engines on airplanes will be interested in Pete’s O-100.

BJC
====================================================

Well, just about everyone here is hanging some Type of Engine on their Airplane, that doesn't make You Special! Is their People on here who don't have a Plane or Engine, Yes. Some have been Building for 20+ Years and will never really finish it for a multitude of Reasons. Some People just enjoy Building. Yes, there is lot's of Interest from all over the World, but that doesn't mean they will Buy it. A 75hp Engine would have been a better choice. If you look at past popular Airplanes, the Vari Eze came out with 65hp VW soon went to an O-200, 100hp. The Quickey Q2 also came out with a VW 65hp, soon went to the O-200, the DragonFly also, etc. In the 50+hp to 65hp range has always been a Dead Zone for Planes. Do you really think People will Buy a 58hp Engine for more Money than a 582UL 65hp Rotax or a Cheaper V Twin Big Bore? Even your Commercial made Certified 2 Seaters went from 65hp to the O-200's and they are still Marginal with it. Planes are for Hauling People with Bags to a Destination Point, Hopefully for many Miles before needing Refueled, not Fly Circles around an Airport. I haven't seen an upsurge of New Single Seat Airframes come out that might use that 58hp. It's Way Too Heavy for any USA Part 103 or any Motor Gliders. Too little of HP for a C150, C152, Tomahawk, Q2, Dragonfly, Vari Eze, Long Ez, etc. So that Airframe market is shrunk drastically for only a 58hp, 105lb Engine. Vans Aircraft is one of the most popular, and even the RV3 is built for 100-160hp Engine. As I said, I like the basic concept, but it's just not practical at 58hp for probably 95% of the Airframes out there today. A Rotax 503UL(50hp) with just a Custom made Mild Tuned Pipe probably $650 today can easily make 62.3hp@6500rpm. http://www.rotaxservices.com/dyno.html#7 #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member But the problem with that logic is that if you follow it to its ultimate conclusion, then only ONE of the engines you listed should be produced and the others should cease production because THE ONE already fills that space. =============================================================== No, you can try to compete in the Engine market against Rotax, Simonini, Hirth, MKz, Jabaru, Continental, Lycoming, and the different Auto Engines, Corvair, VW's, Subaru's, Mazda, Chevys, Fords, etc. But it always boils down to HP vs Cost vs Weight. There is about 8 Billion People in the World now, but probably less than .001% of them Build or Buy a Plane to Fly. At only 58hp and 105lbs and Cost$???? yet to be determined, that puts him into a very narrow Market. Will he and maybe his Investors be the first to Fail in the Airplane Engine market, No. MKz recently Sold out to a Company in China. Continental was considering selling out the O-200 to a Company in China, never heard what went down on that. He would have better Luck selling an O-200 Hybrid to the Experimental Market. Even a Certified O-200(100hp) is around $23,000 today. The Rotax 912 (80hp) is$15,813.00. The Rotax 582UL(65hp) FWF $7,500. The Simonini Victor 1 Super Single is 54hp is around$6,500. A V Twin Big Bore for 58hp probably less than $5000. An Upgrade for a Custom Tuned Pipe$650 for a 503UL, 462UL, could easily make 62hp! A Hirth F-23(50hp) with just a Muffler, with a Tuned Pipe $650 could easily make 62hp for$8,000. A 377HO/380HO made 52hp@6500rpm using 11.2cr, so a 447UL with a CR Bump($80 to Mill Head) and a Custom Tuned Pipe$650 could also probably make that 58hp! There are other Engines out there, but I think you will see my point.

So what do you think People will really Pay for only 58hp at 105lbs?

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Pete's Engine has a few things going for it. It’s 4-cycle on proven (trusted) jugs. The fact that’s it is derived from a known and trusted engine will carry a lot of weight for buyers who have flown behind traditional aircraft engines.

Being 4-cycle means that it be easier to keep cool than a 2-stroke because it will only have half of the power strokes and will probably run at a similar RPM as the O-200 without the need for a reduction drive. The sound will be more ‘conventional’ (therefore, more ‘acceptable’) to us old-timers. Fuel flow will be less than a 2-stroke and there’s no need to premix oil.

Having large opposed cylinders will make it popular for those that want the “Cub look” with exposed jugs and eyebrow cooling scoops.

Last edited:

#### Armilite

##### Well-Known Member
When Pete was forced to abandon ADI, I ended up redoing the crank for him in Solidworks to reflect a crank cast in a more traditional steel. The file has 3 steps, Casting CAD model and Drawing, Machining CAD model and Drawing and finally a Grinding CAD model and Drawing. In the end I think he switched over to 4340 or something similar. Its been a long and hard road to get there as has been said many times, but having seen and worked with some of the CAD models for this, I can say it is well thought out and no expense spared in doing it right.
=============================================================================

So he did change to a better Machinable Steel like 4340, he still lost a lot of Time & $talking to many different Machine Shops. Every Month that goes by in R&D he is losing Money. Since he is looking to make many Engines for a Profit and I haven't seen any mention of trying to Certify it, it probably would be cheaper to Source it from a Crank Company like Scat, Hot Rods, etc. to get started, but there is also Good Used CNC Equipment out there to make your own Billet Cranks vs using a Casting & Machining it. Waiting for Parts from other Vendors can kill a Small Business. Last time I saw the Price of an O-200 Crank it was like$5,307msrp. To cut Cost on Materials, find a Company like John Deere that makes Large Cranks out of 20ft 4340 Billets large OD, that they usually cut off about a 3-4ft piece to make their Cranks for Large Engines and then Junk that 3-4ft left over as Scrap. I use to haul 1-3 Rail Gons of Scrap a week out of a John Deere Plant. Caterpillar, EMD probably has some large 3-4ft Scraps also around 12"-18" OD Billets also. Most Marine Engines have big Cranks so also large 2-3ft Scrap. I don't know what Steel Junk Prices are today, but probably still around 10-15 cents a pound. You can also Lease New CNC Machines also. As they say, One man's (Company) Junk, is another's Treasure! A Billet Scat VW 4 Cylinder Crank similar Size is $1,462. I would talk to Titian out in CA, that guy is an Awesome Machinist. He has many Youtube Videos and does a CNC/CAD/CAM Classes online also. #### simflyer ##### Well-Known Member =============================================================== No, you can try to compete in the Engine market against Rotax, Simonini, Hirth, MKz, JabIru, Continental, Lycoming, and the ..... etc. But it always boils down to HP vs Cost vs Weight. At only 58hp and 105lbs and Cost$???? yet to be determined, that puts him into a very narrow Market.
MKz recently Sold out to a Company in China. Continental was considering selling out the O-200 to a Company in China
So what do you think People will really Pay for only 58hp at 105lbs?
1/2 yr ago Pete wrote, that he's going to be setting TBO at 1800 hrs for the ASTM testing protocol.
Suggested retail is going to be $4,995.00 for the two cylinder kit ... HKS 700E is one forgotten engine to compare. Thing is if not make O100 lower ci and turn slightly higher rpm using PSRU. 80hp Rtx912 is 1200ccm, so what about more quadratic 1L ? Also Limbach and Hirth was sold to China I think ?? #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member Pete's Engine has a few things going for it. It’s 4-cycle on proven (trusted) jugs. The fact that’s it is derived from a known and trusted engine will carry a lot of weight for buyers who have flown behind traditional aircraft engines. Being 4-cycle means that it be easier to keep cool than a 2-stroke because it will only have half of the power strokes and will probably run at a similar RPM as the O-200 without the need for a reduction drive. The sound will be more ‘conventional’ (therefore, more ‘acceptable’) to us old-timers. Fuel flow will be less than a 2-stroke and there’s no need to premix oil. Having large opposed cylinders will make it popular for those that want the “Cub look” with exposed jugs and eyebrow cooling scoops. ================================================================= All Engines have to Face Cooling issues whether 2 or 4 Stroke. I understand that People like 4 Strokes better account of 2 Strokes Noise, Smoke, and being Temperamental at times, but there is probably more 2 Strokes used on Ultralights, Motor Gliders, and Small Kitplanes up to 100hp. We have had Oil Injection for 2 Strokes for 35+ Years. 4 strokes may seem to Sip the Gas, but also make 1/2 the HP of a 2 Stroke. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch, HP takes Fuel. Build a 100ci = 1,638.7cc 2 Stroke and it will Blow Out the O-200(100hp), 912(100hp), 914(115hp) out of the water. My Rotax 670 in my Sled is 115.7hp@7750rpm, with a R&D 618 Tuned Pipe makes 97hp@6600rpm and 103.8hp@6800rpm, the 618UL was rated at 6750rpm. The 670 (669cc) making 104hp at 6800rpm = 97% Volumetric Efficiency. A 1638cc 2 Stroke at 6800rpm at 97% Volumetric Efficiency = 254hp, at 6500rpm = 243hp! At 5000rpm = 187hp! PSI is the only ones making Hugh 2 Strokes around 1600cc. Hirths 100hp@6000rpm with a Muffler, using 9.5cr, 34mm Carbs, 2 Stroke is only 953cc. Has a 74% Volumetric Efficiency with just a Muffler. All Rotax UL 2 Strokes use 36mm Carbs. I do agree, using a lot of the O-200 parts should Help it live longer, but you have the Main parts of the Engine that need to be Tested the Heart and Soul of the Engine the Crank, Cam, that are now being put through different Loads, Harmonics where even a simple Machining Error, Heat Treatment Error, may prove to be Faulty. Even Continental and Lycoming and Rotax, etc., screw up once in a while. It looks well made, that's not the problem I see, it's more about too little of HP made 58hp, vs 105lbs, and Retail Cost yet to be determined. Having the Cub look is fine, but if it doesn't provide the HP & Weight People want, it won't Sell very Good. How many Cubs are still being Built each year? You can't Design an Engine for just (1) Type of Airplane and stay in Business today. General Aviation is Dying a Slow Death all over the World. Once 750+ Airframe Manufactures in the World, to now maybe 350 per Kitplane Magazine, and I don't think it's even that high, maybe 300-325. I know the T-Bird is listed and they have all but closed their doors. Many of these Failures is from Poor Marketing. He has to sell a lot of Engines just to recoup his R&D Cost, let alone start to make a Profit. #### Armilite ##### Well-Known Member 1/2 yr ago Pete wrote, that he's going to be setting TBO at 1800 hrs for the ASTM testing protocol. Suggested retail is going to be$4,995.00 for the two cylinder kit ...

HKS 700E is one forgotten engine to compare. Thing is if not make O100 lower ci and turn slightly higher rpm using PSRU.

Also Limbach and Hirth was sold to China I think ??
============================================================

1800hr TBO is feasible since he's using probably 70% O-200 parts.

The Majority of these People here and the rest of the World can't rebuild a Simple 2 Stroke Engine, and I forgot it was a Kit, so now you think they're going to Build a 4 Stroke for their Airplane. \$4995.00 for a Kit, what is Actual Total Cost to Build one?

Is HKS even still in Business, I haven't renewed my Kitplane Mag in a while. I forgot about that one. But similar Engine to this O-100 kit.
https://www.hks-power.co.jp/hks_aviation/products/700e/spec.html

Didn't hear about Hirth being Sold. Haven't heard anything on Limbach either.

Yes, the Rotax 912(80hp@5800rpm) for 1/min, is (79.5mm x 61mm) 1211.6cc = 73.9ci. Has a 97% Volumetric Efficiency. 2000hr TBO. You don't want to go Smaller, but Bigger.

Rotax 912(100hp@5800rpm) for 1/min is 1352cc.

I did see a Turbo Kit for the 912 80hp to 120hp and one for 912 100hp to 135hp. Didn't see a Price.
https://www.912turbokit.com/fly-120hp#!

My self, I don't really like the Rotax 912/914 Engines. I would much rather prefer the Continental O-200 but I would like to see an Upgraded Version with all the bells & Whistles, and with EFI. Maybe a Hybrid using the Core O-200 Design, but using Cheaper HD VW or Chevy Racing parts which would cut down Total Cost for Experimental Market. The Rotax 912(100hp) Bore is 84.0mm / 3.31in and Stroke is 61.0mm / 2.4in. A Hybrid made from Chevy 454 parts with a (4.25in x 4.0in) in a 4 Cylinder O-200 Version = 226.9ci. 226ci at 95% at 3000rpm = 124hp. But a version using mainly HD VW Racing parts would probably be the simplest.

#### CharlieN

##### Active Member
For what it is worth, Continental engines is a Chinese owned company, this is a simple link and there is allot more info on the web, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Aerospace_Technologies
With this new Chinese funding they are building an all new manufacturing facility in Alabama and it has been announced their product will not be legacy aircraft engines. Our gasoline powered engines are a dying breed in the world wide market. Anyone who has visited Continental's building at Oshkosh will note how many heavy fuel engines are in production and flying elsewhere in the world.
Since 2015 even Cub Crafters has a production facility in China.

So if this O-100 is to come to market, I doubt he is well off trying to source manufacturing here in the states. The amount of very good quality billet crankshafts and connecting rods coming out of China for the automotive performance market is astounding.
If I were trying to bring something like this engine to market I would source my parts from the same place most of my competition is from.
Maybe it would be nice to claim this engine is made in America but if you want to have product on the market, do it the way Harley Davidson and General motors have been doing it, make your parts over there and assemble them here.

As for one aspect I see, I would make a longer stroke crankshaft. The best thing one can do with a C-85 is to install an O-200 crank, build a stroker. This O-100 would be allot better off as a 110 or 120 in the market he is trying to build.

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I understand that People like 4 Strokes better account of 2 Strokes Noise, Smoke, and being Temperamental at times, but there is probably more 2 Strokes used on Ultralights, Motor Gliders, and Small Kitplanes up to 100hp. We have had Oil Injection for 2 Strokes for 35+ Years.
Perhaps I should have been more specific and said oil in the fuel as a consumable instead of premix. Oil I njectors relieve you of the need to premix, but they have a pretty hefty penalty on the engine if they ever fail.

4 strokes may seem to Sip the Gas, but also make 1/2 the HP of a 2 Stroke. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch
2-strokes will typically be lighter for a given horsepower, but I think they will be thirstier too when you compare engines of similar power. A 50hp Rotax 503 burns what, maybe 6 gallons per hour? That compares with the more powerful O-200 (100hp). The 55hp O-100 should burn quite a bit less, maybe half?

Listen, I’m not saying one is better than the other, I’m just saying that there are some market factors that will make the 0-100 a preferred choice for certain applications. By the way, I’m with you on your comment about wanting an updated 0-200 (or even an updated Lyc in the same range).

2