Continental 0-200

[NWade]

Nothing is bullet proof- there are far too many issues with the VW derivates, the R912 and the Jabs, to merit anything near such a statement.

Neither is the Corvair. There are plenty of cases of Corvairs converted to aircraft use with all the tricks in the books- forged crank, fifth bearing- you name it- that have quit.

...And the O-200, if you bother to look through accident records you can find plenty of engine failures of all kinds. The first half of your first statement is correct: Nothing is bullet proof.

Which is why I find people's religious devotion to one engine and one engine only so curious.

--Noel
Sonex #1339

[Jgibson]

I challenge Kai to find me NTSB reports of Corvair quitting because of the basic engine core itself.
Any that I researched quit because of failure of support systems (carb). And your issue with balancers is....? Do you mean like the crank counterweight balancers and/or flywheel balancers used on 'certified' engines? When building a new Corvair, of COURSE a new balancer is used. And have I seen balancers go bad? Of course......after THOUSANDS of miles and many many years of hard use.
And 5000 rpm short bursts? Bogus my friend. Read up on the racing history by Don Yenko and Fitch when those engines were running SCCA races for hours on end.....WITHOUT FAILURE.
But let's for a moment agree that 5500 would destroy the engine: so what would running it at 3,000 do while still making 100 hp or more?
Wynn modifies one of the weak points in Corvairs; that of the distributors. They were originally produced with a single bushing in the distributor which after years of use or extremely hard use at high rpm would allow the distributor shaft to 'walk' and skew timing. Eventually that 'walk' would wear out distributor gears. He modifies the oil pump system, and uses nothing but aircraft carbs WITH CARB HEAT (which is absolutely necessary) Some of the other 'builders' did none of that. But their engines were very pretty on the outside.
And if you try hard enough, there's always the chance something will fail. NOTHING is 100 percent guaranteed. If you don't believe that, ask the poor guys who bought BRAND NEW Lycomings who now have garbage rod end bushings that will facilitate replacing the rods. Or guys like me who have had Lycoming change their oil pump gears three or four times now that forced me to tear into the engine to correct.
William uses redundant ignition, redundant coils, correct baffels, aircraft carbs, aircraft hardware where applicable.
There were 2 or 3 other converters of Corvair engines that used junk parts and questionable techniques and for those I won't speak. But the testing and thoroughness of WW is second to none.
If you search the internet, you'll find MANY Corvair EXPERTS who have never owned one, never run one, and have never torn them apart. I've done all of the above. And like I said in a previous post: I intentionally TRIED to blow up a 150 hp turbo motor (factory setup) by running it wide open until destruction....
And it just kept running.
I've worked on and torn apart just about any aircraft engine you can name (well okay: not a Franklin) and I'm personally convinced that WW's version is as good an engine as any IF it's built to his standards and IF nothing but the best (proven) parts are used. Not junk overseas parts that LOOK great and are a good price or are acceptable for auto use.

[Kai]

Ok- great!

I am not going through the archives for you, but one comes to mind: N56ML some years back. Crankshaft failure due to severe bending loads, I seem to recall. The guy at least appeared to know what he was doing. And I believe he was flying a WW conversion, or at least built with him as a reference?

No, nothing is bullet proof, especially not the established makes. And what a disappointment when the Wankel and the Subaru's disappeared from a potential market.

Presently I would'nt know what engine make to recommend to a future builder. They all seem to break.

Thanks
Kai

[Jgibson]

You are correct in that he actually broke 2 crankshafts if my old memory serves me correctly. These were before the addition of the 'fifth bearing' mod that is now being installed on all WW builds.
And if I remember correctly, Mark was using his plane for a lot of aerobatics and very hard use. His failures actually lead to the search for additional crank support solutions which uses basically the same bearing and load support capabilities as a Ford 429 big block.
What I like about WW's approach is that he's not afraid to abandon his own processes if he determines them to be inadequate. He constantly tests and refines the parts he and Dan supply.
Just another note; I have a fair bit of experience with Wankel rotaries and they sure do make good, smooth power in their cars but the god awful racket an un-muffled one makes will literally make you sick to your stomach over a very short period of time. But GREAT engines if maintained properly (oil injection) and run like you stole it!

[surfly]

I am delighted to read all the inputs concerning the Continental 0-200. I am a retired IA and am building a Onex and have built and hung an AEROVEE on my firewall. Although I am still in building stages and have not flown this aircraft I can't stop questioning my decision to use AEROVEE power. After a lifetime of working on and flying Lycomings and Continentals both of which have excellent track records I have no experience with the use of other power plants. I would like to note that I have a friend who flies an AEROVEE on his Sonex and developed a crack branching out from a valve seat after 400 hours of use. I questioned this at the Sonex display at 2015 Sun-N-Fun where I was told by a dealer rep that this was not unusual. Somewhat later on I went ahead and bought an AEROVEE kit and the engine is now hanging on my firewall with my mind questioning myself should I have or should I have not chosen this power plant. The future will tell.
Blue Side Up !........Surfly