O-100-- interesting new engine

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,338
and we can all attest that Pete did in fact design a counterweight or two into the crankshaft, and this counterweight did in fact resolve the typical 2 cylinder engine shake that the Franklin and half-VW are known for.
The Half-VW plans I had called for counterweights to be welded to the crankshaft to remove the offset shake. I think one can buy a counterweighted half-VW crank now, with the weights as part of the forging.

1663947672183.png
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
11,106
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I asked Petes son Nick about this and I believe the person building the Crackerjack 2 also ended up with the crackerjack that Pete used as a test bed for the engine. I believe he plans to complete the Crackerjack2 but unsure who it is. I could ask Nick to give me his email and pass it onto you. Also the original crackerjack Pete built is looking for a home in a museum and is not airworthy. EAA was not interested sadly. Its in California if anyone has any ideas. I suggested the museum in San Martin.
That's a neat little museum in San Martin, I'm sure Pete would like that ! There's also the Hiller Museum a little further North that is very well respected. There is another aircraft collection in Bakersfield that should be contacted about this as well, I can't remember their name but it is a small private collection/museum that includes a couple of gliders and old tailwheels. That might be ideal if they have room to hang it.

There is aso a nice hangar at Shafter Airport that Pete's friend has, with several restored antique gliders, and I'm certain Pete would be happy if that person was able to have the Cracker Jack hanging there too if there's room.

To be honest, the Shafter Airport really ought to have a small museum there. They could have some of Bill DeStefani's stuff, Pete's stuff, some displays from the MacCready projects that were tested there...
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,256
Location
USA.
The Half-VW plans I had called for counterweights to be welded to the crankshaft to remove the offset shake. I think one can buy a counterweighted half-VW crank now, with the weights as part of the forging.

View attachment 130175
I built a 1/2 VW several years ago. Welding the counterweights on is not an easy job . You also need a small 90 deg tig head to get in the narrow space of the width of the rod.
I'll buy one from Hummel engines before building another.
 

Regdor

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
46
Anybody who was there, and laid their hands personally on the O-100 while it was running, and who can personally attest to the idea that Pete had balanced it correctly and it was as smooth as an O-200... please take one step forward and feel free to discuss the vibration level.

Anybody else who cannot attest to anything about this engine, but just assumes this engine would vibrate wildly.... please take one step back, proceed to the Duct Tape Table, and use a piece of the tape to cover the opening under your nose.

There are probably several others, but myself, HBA members MM4440, Topaz, and addicted2climbing have put their hand on this engine while it was running at cruise power, and we can all attest that Pete did in fact design a counterweight or two into the crankshaft, and this counterweight did in fact resolve the typical 2 cylinder engine shake that the Franklin and half-VW are known for.

I have zero formal education or experience with these dynamics and forces, but I know for a fact that some-how, some-way... Pete did manage to design that thrash out of this engine. It was a small amount of extra balance weight in the crank, not a ten pound flywheel.

The fact that someone has stepped up to at least try and rescue this engine from fading away into a footnote should make everyone pretty happy.
Like you said, at cruise power, meaning that the rotational inertia was carrying the compression load
and power pulse load at a rate that the mass of the engine case could not react to with it's inertia....
Try that at idle or under say 1500 rpm.....and as for that tape.......
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
11,106
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I'll surely apologize for the tape reference, however I will absolutely stand by the overall notion that several of us on this forum have indeed physically laid hands on this engine while it was running, at various different RPM's, and the level of vibration/shaking/thrashing was no worse than the O-200 in the Cessna 150.

So you should by all rights take my personal opinion out of the equation (I'm admittedly highly biased in favor of this engine, and the original developer, and the current custodian). I ask that you post a request here on this thread asking for any HBA participants other than me who have also laid their hands on this engine, and solicit their opinion on the "thrash factor" at any and all RPM.
 

Regdor

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
46
This version of the 0-100 has AFAIK been through Three owners and now, a fourth friend is trying to
bring it to the fore.....FYI, I have put my hands on one developmental version, more than once, and the shake is Real just like the shake of that vibrator installed on the Aeronica that a friend of mine
had at Fox field.....A twin cylinder, four stroke engine will Always have a range where it will shake your airframe, much like a Lycoming death rattle shutdown.....Way too many people spend their life and fortune trying to put lipstick on that pig when the better answer is a Four cylinder version of the Same Displacement and one doesn't have to put extra volume to contain the air/oil that is pumped by the pistons in the crankcase.......The Real answer of course, is a Turbine with heat recovery, but that
will need an advocate who is not blinded by the Box.....
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,622
Location
Memphis, TN
I think for what it is, it’s a winner. Ok, it’s not for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not ok for many. The perfect engine does not exist.

In the 100 cubic inch direct drive world, what is there. It’s not going to have the cooling issues a VW anything will have. Direct drive, it won’t be turning a toothpick. It’s also going to be a little more compact. Against is it’s not going to be cheap, not like the dream. There probably isn’t going to be volume. Some are going to be disappointed for other considerations. Some people just won’t get their hands on one. Some just like a VW will underestimate what it can do and build the wrong plane for it.

I got to see it at Oshkosh and it was nicely done. Didn’t get to see it run, but it was going to be a big block 1/2 VW which I have seen many times with friends who fly them. I would not want to fly the Atlantic with one but within 100 miles from home, it should be perfect which would be matching the same type of airplane.

I always thought the Fox 120 was cool. Closest I got is a Saito 90 single crank pin not boxer. There is always character, but it’s not a V12 Ferrari. Holding it to that standard is just being cranky.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,386
Location
Glendale, CA
This version of the 0-100 has AFAIK been through Three owners and now, a fourth friend is trying to
bring it to the fore.....FYI, I have put my hands on one developmental version, more than once, and the shake is Real just like the shake of that vibrator installed on the Aeronica that a friend of mine
had at Fox field.....A twin cylinder, four stroke engine will Always have a range where it will shake your airframe, much like a Lycoming death rattle shutdown.....Way too many people spend their life and fortune trying to put lipstick on that pig when the better answer is a Four cylinder version of the Same Displacement and one doesn't have to put extra volume to contain the air/oil that is pumped by the pistons in the crankcase.......The Real answer of course, is a Turbine with heat recovery, but that
will need an advocate who is not blinded by the Box.....
How do you suppose this has been through 3 owners and now a 4th. This engine was all Pete design wise aside from one partner who was involved a bit. Nick is Petes son so he does not count. I am not an owner either, just trying to help finalize it for a departed friend. Where it goes from there who knows. Also a developmental version is not the latest version and there was much improvement between various revisions. In some regards too much via delays due to analysis paralysis, but that is another story.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,139
Location
US
In the 100 cubic inch direct drive world, what is there. It’s not going to have the cooling issues a VW anything will have.
Let's keep it apples-to-apples. A 4cylinder VW putting out the 50-58 claimed HP of this 0-100 will not have cooling issues, even at very low airspeeds.

If somebody wants to make this O-100 produce the 75+ HP that many stroker VWs produce (and where cooling and airspeed become more critical), we'll see how well the O-100 cools at those power levels.

I think the O-100 will find an audience. It has some charm that many people will be attracted to.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
8,139
Location
US
Has the O-100 turned a calibrated club yet? I was happy to see the video of it running and know many folks got to see that, which was good. But, did the 58 HP claimed in the promotional material get validated? If not, I'd suggest that as an early priority.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
14,267
Location
Fresno, California
That's a neat little museum in San Martin.

If I’m not mistaken, that collection (and maybe the museum itself) used to be up in the hills above San Martin/Morgan Hill under the old name “The Flying Lady Museum”. I used to visit that one quite often in the 70’s. (Rode my bicycle up there from Morgan Hill)


several of us on this forum have indeed physically laid hands on this engine while it was running, at various different RPM's, and the level of vibration/shaking/thrashing was no worse than the O-200 in the Cessna 150.

Include me in that count.
 

sotaro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
265
Location
San Francisco
Hello Hot Wings,

I have a bit of news. I recently picked up all the parts for the O-100 from Pete's son Nick. He needed it out of the storage facility and I am hoping to help the family by trying to get this engine finalized in honor of Pete who was my friend. I have no idea whether this will end up succeeding and becoming a saleable product or not but for the time being, I will be working on the design trying to sort out where Pete left off and see where it goes from there. I have a fair amount of cases but unsure if they are the latest revision or not. Also have some of the newer forged cranks but they still need the oil tube installed. I also have all the Solidowrks CAD files. I had also helped Pete with some of the CAD work so I have a fair amount of knowledge of where he was when he passed away. I had also met with him 3 weeks before passing and he gave me an update on what remained then as well.

I picked all this up then immediately left the country to visit my wife's family in France for a bit of an extended trip. We return 11/02 and once back my plan is to inventory what I have and go from there. For the moment this is about as much info as I have. Also since I am just stepping in where Pete left off please dont bombard me with emails requesting refunds or asking where your engine or deposit is. I am not involved in that at all so unable to help there.
YAY!!! Thank you for taking on this project!
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
11,106
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
This version of the 0-100 has AFAIK been through Three owners and now, a fourth friend is trying to
bring it to the fore.....FYI, I have put my hands on one developmental version, more than once, and the shake is Real just like the shake of that vibrator installed on the Aeronica that a friend of mine
had at Fox field.....A twin cylinder, four stroke engine will Always have a range where it will shake your airframe, much like a Lycoming death rattle shutdown.....Way too many people spend their life and fortune trying to put lipstick on that pig when the better answer is a Four cylinder version of the Same Displacement and one doesn't have to put extra volume to contain the air/oil that is pumped by the pistons in the crankcase.......The Real answer of course, is a Turbine with heat recovery, but that
will need an advocate who is not blinded by the Box.....

Until a month ago, the O-100 had one and only one driving force and company owner: Pete Plumb and to a small degree his immediate family. Any investors, customers, advisors, or even groupies like me were not ever company owners. Pete's right hand man throughout the engine development, a great guy named Bill Vasilovich, was not even an owner. Pat Panzera, publisher of Contact! Magazine, purchased and owned one of the Cracker Jack airframes that was being used to flight test the O-100 engine, but even Pat was never an owner of the engine company.

Yes, the Lycoming death rattle happens after every flight but doesn't happen in flight - if the O-100 does the same thing as a 4 cylinder Lycoming then what are people worried about?

The better answer of a 4 cylinder engine woulda-shoulda-coulda been a fantastic solution, but I believe the lightest VW was 33-40% heavier and was simply too large and too heavy for this type of small single seat "fat ultralight" niche.

A turbine as the "real answer"? Yeah, most of us are blinded by The Box..... the cash box ! :)
 

daveklingler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
178
Location
Albuquerque
Way too many people spend their life and fortune trying to put lipstick on that pig when the better answer is a Four cylinder version of the Same Displacement and one doesn't have to put extra volume to contain the air/oil that is pumped by the pistons in the crankcase.......

Can you name an example of comparable weight? I can name competitive engines, but none that are four-stroke and four-cylinder without gear reduction of some kind and higher weight.

The Real answer of course, is a Turbine with heat recovery, but that will need an advocate who is not blinded by the Box.....

I.e., not burdened by knowledge of the subject matter or engineering, in general. Describe a "heat recovery" device that doesn't weigh...a lot. :)

Why do you suppose that aircraft turbine manufacturers haven't applied these "heat recovery" devices you speak of to commercial jet turbines so that they could be as efficient as, say, reciprocating engines were just before jets took over?

Education is hard work. Not being willing to do said work doesn't make you smarter or wiser than the dude or gal who buckled down and stuck it out.
 
Last edited:

mm4440

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
326
Location
LA area, CA
The ~60 hp aircraft engine is the proper place for a 2 cylinder two stroke with a PSRU. It will be the lowest cost, lightest, and simplest choice. With proper advanced EFI they can even be cleaner and fuel efficient. For the tiny production volume for experimental aircraft, basing the aircraft engine on a higher production engine like the O-200, a snow mobile or an auto engine is the key to making it somewhat affordable. Do you remember the KFM 4 cylinder 4 stroke? HKS 2 cylinder 4 Stroke?, Weslake designed flat twins?
 

Regdor

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
46
Can you name an example of comparable weight? I can name competitive engines, but none that are four-stroke and four-cylinder without gear reduction of some kind and higher weight.



I.e., not burdened by knowledge of the subject matter or engineering, in general. Describe a "heat recovery" device that doesn't weigh...a lot. :)

Why do you suppose that aircraft turbine manufacturers haven't applied these "heat recovery" devices you speak of to commercial jet turbines so that they could be as efficient as, say, reciprocating engines were just before jets took over?

Education is hard work. Not being willing to do said work doesn't make you smarter or wiser than the dude or gal who buckled down and stuck it out.
I note from your comment appended to your reply, implying this commentator may posses an education deficiency, however, not knowing what a heat recovery device is, may in it's self, indicate such a deficiency, and remaining within the Box in imagination is the sign of a "Real" education...
 
Top