Quantcast

O-100-- interesting new engine

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,339
Location
CT, USA
The 2180cc VWs can make 75HP without any problem, and they can maintain 72+ output for a long time >if< careful attention is paid to cooling. I don't mind that they have to turn at 3400 RPM to do that, it works fine for clean airplanes. If thrust at lower airspeeds is the main requirement, then a longer prop with resultant lower RPM, and lower HP (due to cooling requirements and off-peak HP RPMs) may be required. That's a choice and not a problem with the engine.
Turn it at a lower RPM and it won't be making 75 or 72HP any more. But that's what reduction drives are for.

Whatever the actual output of an O-200 is, the O-100 should be able to make half of that. I wonder how accurate the HP ratings of the old Continental A-series engines were?

The original E-2 Taylor Cub flew on 40HP and people were happy with it, but nowadays people consider a 65HP J-3 marginal with two modern fat adults. 50HP can certainly carry two people safely in a simple, light, efficient airplane... but not fast or far, and it won't be a STOL plane.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,197
Location
Rocky Mountains
Whatever the actual output of an O-200 is, the O-100 should be able to make half of that.
The added compression of the O-100 might make that possible. Cutting off 2 cylinders of a 4 cylinder won't give you half the power. You still have to drive the accessory case/oil pump gears. They take the same parasitic power regardless of the number of cylinders.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,339
Location
CT, USA
You still have to drive the accessory case/oil pump gears. They take the same parasitic power regardless of the number of cylinders.
True, though I suppose it could be a lower volume pump using less power. I wonder how much HP they consume? For that matter, what about magnetos, alternator, etc? Detroit got in a big stink back in the day by quoting "gross" HP, with no accessories, not even the fuel or water pumps. But an aircraft engine may or may not have an alternator or fuel pump, may have different magnetos, etc... I don't know what the industry standard is as to what to include in the HP ratings.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,572
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
..... I don't know what the industry standard is as to what to include in the HP ratings.
That is determined by the marketing department.

Many years ago I read that none of the Lycoming O-360’s made the claimed 180 HP when new from the factory. I asked a well known performance engine builder about that, because he had data that he had collected over the years on pre- and post- modified engines. His reply was that the 360’s with the -B sumps made a little over 180 HP, and the others just under 180 HP.

I believe very little of what I read about the HP of any (not just aircraft) engine, especially when people who claim to know (not aiming this at anyone specifically) clearly don’t know the difference between torque and power.


BJC
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,778
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
OK, let's try to approach this in a different manner. Until further notice, I believe it is fair to say that Pegasus Power is very confident that the engine will make significantly in excess of 40HP, and that it will produce enough thrust in most installations to power the majority of light "low and slow" style aircraft that were designed around stock un-boosted VW engines and Rotax 503's.

These estimates are subject to change when scientific testing has been completed, but I stand by the statement that these are fairly conservative estimates.

Based on my personal eyewitness experience and the experience of those who have flown and operated the engine, it produces more than enough thrust to power an LSA class single seat sportplane. The engine may indeed produce enough thrust in certain situations to adequately power minimalist "ultralight" style two seat aircraft but this has not yet been demonstrated.
 
Last edited:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,864
Location
Mojave, Ca
Well, the engine HAS flown, and reports are that it's entirely satisfactory, right?

I think that buys some credibility until the actual production spec engine gets its day on the dyno.
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
3,909
Location
capital district NY
Considering better engine balance and less vibration will contribute to hp gain and longevity. And I am not privy to what the cam shaft profile is but it is reasonable to think it is not the stock O-200 grind (why would it be?) the ability to stuff some more fuel air mix in the cylinder is possible. O-200 actual 90hp? / 2800rpm = 0.03214 x 5252 = 168.8ft.lbs. so O-100 84.4ft.lbs? x 2900rpm = 244,760 / 5252 = 46.6hp. Or 58hp at 2900rpm is .02 x 5252 = 105.04ft.lbs. … so … a … 105.04 / 84.4 = 25% increase in torque from theoretical 1/2 O-200. 25% is a lot. Even considering that the torque isn't 1/2 the O200's but (hard to phantom) more, because better breathing, and better balanced.....

I don't care though. Say the engine is closer to 46hp than 58hp it is still going to be a good solid engine for the class it is intended. And if 58hp to 60hp happens woot!
 

cptcliffhanger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
54
Location
san diego
As i recall pete made the con rods and pistons quite a bit lighter than o200 bits.. less hp spent making that mass make U-turns will account for some HP per cylinder gains as well as the increased CR over an o200.. I too am curious to know what the real dyno results are on the final config, but I dont think his published predictions are crazy or worth getting worked up about.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,058
Location
US
As i recall pete made the con rods and pistons quite a bit lighter than o200 bits.. less hp spent making that mass make U-turns will account for some HP per cylinder gains
There are valid reasons for seeking lighter conrods, but they won't, in themselves, result in any measurable increase in HP at the crank. Once the rods are accelerated to speed, the only difference in power between a heavy set and light set is any >infinitesimal< difference in bearing friction. Unmeasurable.

I too am curious to know what the real dyno results are on the final config
Not directed at this project specifically, but there are >so< many questionable dyno runs published that I suspect knowledgeable buyers of >any> engine would be more convinced by torque/HP measurements resulting from some engine runs with calibrated test clubs and an optical tachometer. That's lots cheaper to do, too, and an accompanying video can show the test, show the engine configuration (air cleaner? Exhaust setup? Generator?), etc.
 
Last edited:

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,582
Location
Port Townsend WA
Blane.c,
a two cylinder can never be better balanced than a proper four cylinder.
I asked Scott Casler at his forum. The 1/2VW is not as smooth even with the added balance weights.
A four is smoother than two, a six is smoother than four....
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,776
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
As i recall pete made the con rods and pistons quite a bit lighter than o200 bits.. less hp spent making that mass make U-turns will account for some HP per cylinder gains as well as the increased CR over an o200.. I too am curious to know what the real dyno results are on the final config, but I dont think his published predictions are crazy or worth getting worked up about.
58hp would be akin to 116 on an O-200. Let's say an O-200 really puts out 100 hp at 2750 and the O-100 runs at 2900, that would be 52.5HP, add 5% for the CR increase, That would be 55hp absolute best scenario. The lightweight parts won't add any measurable power. Now let's assume an O-200 puts out 80hp. The numbers for the O-100 become 44 hp. Realistically, the O-100 is a 45-50hp engine at 2900 rpm unless it has more magic going on than we know about.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,112
Location
Orange County, California
In case anyone isn't clear here, we're talking about a dead stock O-200 turning 2800 rpm. Yes, we all know F1 O-200s can make something close to 150hp turning 4000+ rpm...

The point being, taking half of a stock O-200 and turning it to 2900rpm isn't going to make 60hp. If you up the CR or VE with a better cam grind, yes, possible.
I don't know how much I should say, but I can probably say this without saying "too much": The DP-1 is not just half of a stock O-200. At this point, it's essentially an all-new airplane engine that happens to use some O-200 parts. Direct comparison to the O-200 would be misleading.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,112
Location
Orange County, California
...Based on my personal eyewitness experience and the experience of those who have flown and operated the engine, it produces more than enough thrust to power an LSA class single seat sportplane. ...
I can second that. The little "CrackerJack" really gets up and moves with the DP-1 up front, and Pete in the cockpit. Climbs really strongly. I've seen this myself, in person, standing alongside the runway. Pete's about 6' and you can see his build in the video I posted earlier, so I think the performance, at least in this airplane, is fairly representative. It certainly wasn't "struggling" by any stretch of the imagination, either on the ground nor in the air. The CrackerJack isn't exactly a motorglider, so it's not like a surfeit of span was creating the climb performance.

We can quibble over power numbers all we want. Fact is, I've seen the engine operated, in a flying airplane, first-hand. It had plenty of power for that application, no matter what the "numbers" were.
 
Last edited:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,864
Location
Mojave, Ca
I don't know how much I should say, but I can probably say this without saying "too much": The DP-1 is not just half of a stock O-200. At this point, it's essentially an all-new airplane engine that happens to use some O-200 parts. Direct comparison to the O-200 would be misleading.

But let's also keep in mind that the power is directly related to the cylinders, and those ARE O200 parts. A cam , compression and induction will help, but you are still hamstrung by the Continental jugs. No way around that.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,112
Location
Orange County, California
But let's also keep in mind that the power is directly related to the cylinders, and those ARE O200 parts. A cam , compression and induction will help, but you are still hamstrung by the Continental jugs. No way around that.
I won't argue with you since, to the best of my knowledge, the final production design has not been on a dyno yet. Pete's the kind of guy that, when the time comes for him to do a dyno run, he'll probably shell out the cash to send it to an outside testing firm, rather than do it himself, just so there's no doubt about validity. The man is ... well, I'll use "obsessed" without intending the negative connotation ... with "doing this right" and being on the up-and-up. He doesn't have dyno values because a dyno run hasn't been done yet. Whenever I've met with him, he's been absolutely open about everything he's doing, knowing that I'm going to keep his confidence until he's ready to fully pull the wraps off the final engine, and so won't talk about details of what I've seen. I've absolutely never gotten any impression that he's inflating numbers, relying on unobtainium, or otherwise "selling" me on his project and, given my career path, I'm pretty good at catching "sales jobs." I wasn't getting one here.

Best thing I can recommend is that we all give the man the benefit of the doubt for now, and trust that if the final performance numbers don't match his guesses, Pete will be absolutely forthcoming about what the "real" numbers are. In today's world, that trust may certainly be hard to give. But I've met the man, more than once, and I have zero issue giving it to him myself.
 
Top