Wings Forum

ralynda · Joined: 19 Feb 2008 Posts: 3 Location: Gulfport, MS

We are working on a Highlander and have decided to go with the Continental 0200 instead of either the Rotax or the Jabiru. Has anyone else considered using this engine?

DaveU · Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 173

seriously considered using the 0-200.

I do not think it is a reasonable choice for the airframe. It exceeds the design parameters for weight on the firewall. The usefull load will suffer. You will likely have to put lead in the tail to get the CG in range, and the fuselage is not stressed for that type of concentrated weight.

If you must use an 0-200, build a different airplane.

Sorry to bear the news.

Dave

082 · Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 7 Location: wisconsin

Hi all,
New to the forum but I've been building a Highlander for 2 years.
Dave, what you say makes sense but Just has approved the Jabiru 3300 for the airframe and it's heavier than the Continental. I don't see why the O200 wouldn't work.
Dan

DaveU · Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 173

I am not sure where you get your info, but the Jabiru 3300 is about 178 lb wet. The O-200 is about 235 with all the accessories on it (exhaust, starter, alt, etc) and no oil.

Maybe my data is off, but that is the range that I determined when I was checking into the O-200.

Dave

scubarider2 · Joined: 28 Jan 2008 Posts: 286 Location: Cleveland, GA

posted this on the other topic but here it is again:

Rhonda, I did take a look at that motor especially since that motor was the one chosen to go in the new Cessna. But, I also heard that it is much heavier when all is said and done. This has caused a much less useful load. I don't have the figures right now but I will do some research. I would look real hard at this looking at using such an engine with its weight on your plane. I would look at CG the most. There is where you might run into the problem and Troy probably knows this. There is only so much you can put up front without using some balast in the back then you are really taking the useful load out of the plane.
Just my thoughts....
I have a Rotax 912uls and it is running beautifully at 8 whole hours!
Dennis

082 · Joined: 16 Feb 2008 Posts: 7 Location: wisconsin

Dave you may be right. I'm using TCM's spec of 170 dry and 215 wet. http://www.tcmlink.com/EngSpecSheetDocs/O200A.pdf Jabiru list a "ramp" wt of 178lbs http://www.jabiru.net.au/6%20cylinderbodyFrame-1.htm . There is probably some apples and oranges here.

rgmullins · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 93 Location: Cincinnati

I read that Cessna got industry pressure to install the 0-200, and they had originally intended to install the 912. Because of that decision if you put in two "average" size pilots and full fuel it puts it over gross. I found out not long ago that a 912 with a turbo and fuel injection is what the Air Force is using in the original Predator. Interesting they didn't use the Continental...

I looked at a lot of engines and weight was the reason I ruled out the 0-200. I decided the 912 was just the best engine, and by far the most expensive. My second choice was a toss up between a modified Subaru and the Jabiru

Dave Krall CFII SEL SES · Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 358 Location: Seattle WA

rgmullins wrote: I read that Cessna got industry pressure to install the 0-200, and they had originally intended to install the 912. Because of that decision if you put in two "average" size pilots and full fuel it puts it over gross. I found out not long ago that a 912 with a turbo and fuel injection is what the Air Force is using in the original Predator. Interesting they didn't use the Continental...

I looked at a lot of engines and weight was the reason I ruled out the 0-200. I decided the 912 was just the best engine, and by far the most expensive. My second choice was a toss up between a modified Subaru and the Jabiru

Anybody know of any turbos on the O-200s?
That may be why the T-Rotax would be better in Predators?

ralynda · Joined: 19 Feb 2008 Posts: 3 Location: Gulfport, MS

Thanks for all the input. We are aware of the loss of usable load, but plan to use the plane for only local flying, so we are not concerned about that loss. We do know we will have to put ballast in the tail because of the effect on CG, but don't consider that to be an issue for us either. We have also decided to leave off the alternator and we are using a smaller started to help reduce some of the excess weight.

Additional thoughts and comments are welcome.

Rhonda

rgmullins · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 93 Location: Cincinnati

It sounds like you've already made up your mind, but weight really is your enemy with aircraft. Adding weight to compensate for too heavy of a motor just strikes me as very wrong. I've been taking great pains at every step to cut weight anywhere I can.

I'll bet you're an old GA guy. I've ran into several that won't consider anything but Lycoming or Continental. That's not meant to be derogatory, it's just hard for some people to look beyond what's served them well even if it's not a good fit in another application.

jesander · Joined: 28 Feb 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Gulfport, MS

I have been helping with the build of the Highlander with the 0-200 Continental. It's a fun project and a real challenge to adapt the 0-200 to the Highlander.
Here are the facts as we've been able to put together:
I'm Posting this for RAYLNDA

Continental 0200 – 212 lbs wet with standard accessories (Continental tech support)

Distance from firewall to prop flange 28” approx.

We were able to reduce the weight by 21 lbs by using a lightweight starter and alternator. This brings the weight down to 191 lbs. Before we began the project, Troy assured us that the structure is strong enough to hold the 0200.

In talking to Troy today, he said he thought the Jabiru was 188 lbs and the distance from the firewall to the prop flange was 31”.

Thank you for all your well-intentioned comments and suggestions, but as you can see from the facts that we got straight from the authoritative sources, the 0200 is fine for the Highlander: it is not too heavy, and it does not significantly affect the usable load, CG, or weight and balance

rgmullins · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 93 Location: Cincinnati

The numbers I read were about 25lbs for the original starter and generator combined. If you can shave 21 pounds off that, you have some extremely light components! But if you can get the engine under 200 that would be great! With the dollar stinking so bad against the Euro, builders over here really need a decent alternative. Keep us up to date on how it's going.

Dave Krall CFII SEL SES · Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 358 Location: Seattle WA

rgmullins wrote: I read that Cessna got industry pressure to install the 0-200, and they had originally intended to install the 912. Because of that decision if you put in two "average" size pilots and full fuel it puts it over gross. I found out not long ago that a 912 with a turbo and fuel injection is what the Air Force is using in the original Predator. Interesting they didn't use the Continental...

I looked at a lot of engines and weight was the reason I ruled out the 0-200. I decided the 912 was just the best engine, and by far the most expensive. My second choice was a toss up between a modified Subaru and the Jabiru

What was the wet weight offered for the Subaru engine?

rgmullins · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 93 Location: Cincinnati

There is a company in northern Ohio called Ram Performance that makes Subaru aircraft engines. I seem to remember he told me he had a 115hp engine that weighed about 120lbs. But looking at their web site now I don't see anything less than 130lbs. Not sure if they no longer sell that version or my memory has failed me again....

rgmullins · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 93 Location: Cincinnati

There is a company in northern Ohio called Ram Performance that makes Subaru aircraft engines. I seem to remember he told me he had a 115hp engine that weighed about 120lbs. But looking at their web site now I don't see anything less than 130lbs. Not sure if they no longer sell that version or my memory has failed me again....