What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Why no Continentals?

G

GhostRider32

Active Member
This post isn't meant to start a flame war over engine brands but I was just wondering, what is Lycoming the only brand that Vans "seems" to support, other than the Rotax for the -12? I'm not saying that Continental would be equivalent or better than the equivalent Lycoming, I'm just curious as to why they never seem to get any consideration.

Case in point, the -12 has been flown with a 80hp Jabiru 2200, 110 hp Viking, 120hp Jabiru and so on. Why not a 100hp O200? They are being advertised as new for $20,000, nearly $10,000 less than a 100hp 912uls.

It would seem that a O-200 would fit right in the middle power wise for a -12. Is it a weight issue or what?
 
The Rotax 912UL/S 100hp engine is $18,500 brand new. Just thought I'd clarify that. Maybe it's part of the reason, maybe not. :confused:
 
The O-200 is too heavy for the RV-12.
And as far as the other RVs go, Continental goes to 6-cylinders at 125 hp. Again too heavy.
Van's did do an RV-10 with a Continental IO-360, but again that's only 210 hp with 6 cylinders. And VERY few, if any wanted it.
 
Mel said:
The O-200 is too heavy for the RV-12.
And as far as the other RVs go, Continental goes to 6-cylinders at 125 hp. Again too heavy.
Van's did do an RV-10 with a Continental IO-360, but again that's only 210 hp with 6 cylinders. And VERY few, if any wanted it.
Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable Mel on the 6 cylinders. I can see how that would be a detriment.

The latest O-200 ad I saw showed 199 lbs for a O-200 but that may not include all of the accessories which might make it too heavy.
 
GhostRider32 said:
This post isn't meant to start a flame war over engine brands but I was just wondering, what is Lycoming the only brand that Vans "seems" to support, other than the Rotax for the -12? I'm not saying that Continental would be equivalent or better than the equivalent Lycoming, I'm just curious as to why they never seem to get any consideration.

Case in point, the -12 has been flown with a 80hp Jabiru 2200, 110 hp Viking, 120hp Jabiru and so on. Why not a 100hp O200? They are being advertised as new for $20,000, nearly $10,000 less than a 100hp 912uls.

It would seem that a O-200 would fit right in the middle power wise for a -12. Is it a weight issue or what?
Click to expand...

The Jabiru 2200 is 85-hp. Don't try to rob me of 5-screaming horses ;)

:D:D:D:D:D
 
Weight it out...

GhostRider32 said:
Case in point, the -12 has been flown with a 80hp Jabiru 2200, 110 hp Viking, 120hp Jabiru and so on. Why not a 100hp O200? They are being advertised as new for $20,000, nearly $10,000 less than a 100hp 912uls.

It would seem that a O-200 would fit right in the middle power wise for a -12. Is it a weight issue or what?
Click to expand...

DS,
It's hard for a former A-65 (T-Craft) and C-85 (C-140) driver to admit, but the Rotax 912 pound for pound is a lighter and better engine than the 0-200. In fact, the 912S is just a bit over 1lb per HP, a very impressive feat. The installed weight of well over 200lbs makes the 0-200 seem fat in comparison. The USAF chose the 914 over anything else for the Predator drones and they have millions of hours on them worldwide. It's modern engineering vs old school. Lesser cost would be the Corvair with 5th bearing mod. However comma, the only engine IMHO that compares with the 912S on paper is the UL power engine, just getting a foothold here in the US.

Here's a pic of it mounted on the RV-12.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ul+...QTm4IHICw&ved=0CFUQsAQ&biw=1610&bih=896&dpr=1

I too love the small Continentals and still would like to build an RV3-like single seat airplane matched to the bullet proof A-65...

V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Keel Mounts

Most of the Continentals I'm familiar with have keel mounts akin to the Beech Bonanza. To adapt a keel to Vans traditional firewall construction is probably too expensive and time consuming.
 
GhostRider32 said:
Where do you see that? Vans own price list shows $27,885 for a 912 uls.
Click to expand...

That is for the powerplant kit. Includes propeller and firewall forward necessities

Per Vans

Powerplant Kit:contains new Rotax 912ULS engine,engine installation kit and a Sensenichcomposite ground adjustable propeller
 
Last edited:
Grezdlitn said:
Most of the Continentals I'm familiar with have keel mounts akin to the Beech Bonanza. To adapt a keel to Vans traditional firewall construction is probably too expensive and time consuming.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be. My Cessna 180 has a keel-mounted (more properly termed a bed-mount, I think) engine and a conventional engine mount connection to the firewall.

There's no requirement that it be made like a Bonanzas, unless it's for a Bonanza.

Dave
 
Well, most of these answers sound like decent reasons of why Continentals usually aren't seen on RV's, I'm just a believer that more choices are better than fewer choices, most of the time.

Maybe I'm using the wrong plane so let's compare a closer set of engines.

Vans says that the 9A flies very well on the 118hp Lycoming O-235 so other than the mount, it seems that a 125hp Continental O-240 would be a potentially decent choice given that the weights are similar.

What say ye........?
 
Kaffer62 said:
That is for the powerplant kit. Includes propeller and firewall forward necessities

Per Vans

Powerplant Kit:contains new Rotax 912ULS engine,engine installation kit and a Sensenichcomposite ground adjustable propeller
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was thinking it was just the engine.
 
Too heavy?

Continental IO-360:

General characteristics
Type: 6-cylinder, fuel injected, horizontally opposed, piston engine
Bore: 4.438 (112 mm)
Stroke: 3.875 (98 mm)
Displacement: 360 in? (5.90 L)
Dry weight: 294 lb (133 kg)

Performance
Power output: 195 hp (145 kW) at 2,800 rpm continuous, 210 hp (157 kW) at 2,800 rpm for take-off
Compression ratio: 8.5:1
Power-to-weight ratio: 0.71 hp/lb

Having 6 instead of 4 cylinders is no guarantee that the engine will be heavier. (It's actually likely that it will be lighter at the same performance level; ask a structural engineer or an F1 race car engine guy why.)

Bigger factors for most would likely be the ~50% higher overhaul cost for cylinders and the shorter TBO (~1500-1600 hrs for the Continental), and the monster: you can't plug & play with the Continental (no support from Van's).

Ask a few Globe/Temco Swift drivers which they prefer. (And remember, it was designed for an 85 HP engine).

I can tell you that I've co-owned a Lyc IO-360 powered swift, & flown a Cont IO-360 powered Swift, & the Continental was significantly more impressive on takeoff. And it was...smooooooothhhhh. And then there's that sound. One of my neighbors has a Cont. Swift with 6>1 exhaust, and it's hard to describe how good it sounds compared to a 4cyl Lyc. If I were using a conventional a/c engine on my -7, I would give the Cont. serious consideration. But I do have a neighbor who's both a structural engineer and an accomplished welder. :)

If you get an honest answer from Van's it will almost certainly be that they don't like them because they aren't familiar with them & they don't want to fool with with supporting a 2nd (now 3rd) engine line. Ask yourself if the -12 would have a Rotax if there was a Lyc that could be forced into working. (I'm pretty sure I know the answer).

Charlie
 
Van's struck an OEM deal with Lycoming years ago. I'm sure they get great pricing on Lycomings, and would bet that the Lycoming deal wouldn't be as favorable if Van's went away from being an exclusive Lycoming "house".

Since Lycoming doesn't have a product that competes with the Rotax, that exception probably doesn't bother them.
 
rv7charlie said:
Continental IO-360:

General characteristics
Type: 6-cylinder, fuel injected, horizontally opposed, piston engine
Bore: 4.438 (112 mm)
Stroke: 3.875 (98 mm)
Displacement: 360 in? (5.90 L)
Dry weight: 294 lb (133 kg)

Performance
Power output: 195 hp (145 kW) at 2,800 rpm continuous, 210 hp (157 kW) at 2,800 rpm for take-off
Compression ratio: 8.5:1
Power-to-weight ratio: 0.71 hp/lb

Having 6 instead of 4 cylinders is no guarantee that the engine will be heavier. (It's actually likely that it will be lighter at the same performance level; ask a structural engineer or an F1 race car engine guy why.)

Bigger factors for most would likely be the ~50% higher overhaul cost for cylinders and the shorter TBO (~1500-1600 hrs for the Continental), and the monster: you can't plug & play with the Continental (no support from Van's).

Ask a few Globe/Temco Swift drivers which they prefer. (And remember, it was designed for an 85 HP engine).

I can tell you that I've co-owned a Lyc IO-360 powered swift, & flown a Cont IO-360 powered Swift, & the Continental was significantly more impressive on takeoff. And it was...smooooooothhhhh. And then there's that sound. One of my neighbors has a Cont. Swift with 6>1 exhaust, and it's hard to describe how good it sounds compared to a 4cyl Lyc. If I were using a conventional a/c engine on my -7, I would give the Cont. serious consideration. But I do have a neighbor who's both a structural engineer and an accomplished welder. :)

If you get an honest answer from Van's it will almost certainly be that they don't like them because they aren't familiar with them & they don't want to fool with with supporting a 2nd (now 3rd) engine line. Ask yourself if the -12 would have a Rotax if there was a Lyc that could be forced into working. (I'm pretty sure I know the answer).

Charlie
Click to expand...

Some very good points. I didn't realize that the Cont. IO-360 had a TBO of 1600 hours.

There are definately some differences between the 2 manufacturers and there may not be a lot of interchangeability in some most models but it is interesting that the Cont. IO-240 and the Lycoming IO-235 "appear" to be nearly interchangable for the 9 or 9A.

I can see how Van's would want to keep it within one engine line as much as possible to keep it as simple as possible.

It would be cool to see someone put a IO-240 on a 9A and compare the performance to the IO-235.
 
rwhittier said:
The IO-360-ES, for example, has a 2000 hour TBO.
Click to expand...

I haven't paid much attention to the TBO numbers in a long time.

This is excellent news, & even more reason to consider a Cont., if someone is willing to do the extra work on the motor mount.

Charlie
 
Being a numbers game, the Conti probably fares well, but I suspect the choice was the effect of management - Conti management. They made some poor choices in management in the 90's. They were not inclined to sell to the experimental market when I was there, and suspect that could have been another factor for Vans selection. Vans has to rely on good support from vendors and steady support for issues.

Having said all that, a well designed/documented installation for an I-6 would be a very interesting comparison to the standard. W&B, performance, and fuel burn, etc comparisons would be very interesting.

Where are our Conti guys?
 
Franklin 6 cylinder engines have been installed on RV-8s.
Vans Franklinstein wasn't very popular with them, but a few other builders have done it, we hear from them every now and then.
Perhaps there is a Continental IO-360 builder lurking out there, willing to share their experience?
 
GhostRider32 said:
Vans says that the 9A flies very well on the 118hp Lycoming O-235 so other than the mount, it seems that a 125hp Continental O-240 would be a potentially decent choice given that the weights are similar.
Click to expand...

But how many RV-9A builders are choosing to put only 118 hp up front? Few if any I'm sure. More are probably choosing to go with 180 hp against Van's advice.
 
Buggsy2 said:
But how many RV-9A builders are choosing to put only 118 hp up front? Few if any I'm sure. More are probably choosing to go with 180 hp against Van's advice.
Click to expand...

There are some that are using the o235 in the 9a, I've seen some people posting about it. It would just be an interesting comparison.
 
I didn't realize that the Cont. IO-360 was 210 hp. that seems like it might be a good match for a 14 since they recommend 210hp for the 14......
 
How about the new Diesel engines from cont. Read an article that their line will be expanded this comming year to include -150 hp and up. They probably weigh more but Jet A is less expensive until some line guy pumps in 100 LL in that diesel and the pilot takes off and the engine coughs at 150 feet,

Been in this game a long time Bob Hoover's Shrike was fueled with jet fuel once in The Western US. It is one of his famous crashes. Likewise a Convair 440 fueled with Jet fuel at PDK years back landed on I75.

I am sure some pilot will trust some line guy to fill up his diesel 182 only to find out to late it has av gas in it.never trust anyone fueling your aircraft.

The point is I am sure Lycoming is probably not sitting on their laurels developing a diesel. World market are demanding it.
Smilin' Jack
 
GhostRider32 said:
...

There are definately some differences between the 2 manufacturers and there may not be a lot of interchangeability in some most models but it is interesting that the Cont. IO-240 and the Lycoming IO-235 "appear" to be nearly interchangable for the 9 or 9A.

I can see how Van's would want to keep it within one engine line as much as possible to keep it as simple as possible.

It would be cool to see someone put a IO-240 on a 9A and compare the performance to the IO-235.
Click to expand...

As someone who started with a 135 HP O-290-D2 in his -9, I can say that it was a great match for the -9. Just the right amount of power, not overpowered, overweight, etc. (Even though I replaced the O-290 with an O-360, I would have been very content keeping the 290, had parts been available when I needed them.)

The real questions are the engine mount, cowling, and W&B. I'm sure the engine will pull a -9/9A along very nicely.

GhostRider32 said:
That sounds reasonable Mel on the 6 cylinders. I can see how that would be a detriment.

The latest O-200 ad I saw showed 199 lbs for a O-200 but that may not include all of the accessories which might make it too heavy.
Click to expand...

You are referring to the O-200D, which is the lightweight LSA version Continental came out with a few years back. This is a different engine than the O-200 installed in C-150's. About the only thing in common is the boor and stroke. Very few parts are interchangeable between the engines.

When matched with Sensenich Ground Adjustable Prop, the O-200D's are destroying the right mags in less than 100 hours. In one case I heard of it took less than 70 hours before the right mag failed. The left mags, with the impulse coupling are not impacted. It seems to be related to this engine prop combination creating some type of harmonics that is destroying the mags. So, if you are going to go this route, just be aware of this issue. Continental has just started looking into this issue and will come up with a solution.
 
RRRRRRMMMMMMMM...BRFP....BRFP....BRFP....Sputter, sputter, sputter, pop, stop.:D All joking aside, Conti's are made by a Chinese owned company now. Actually, a government owned Chinese company, the same one that owns Cirrus, if I'm not mistaken. Lycomings are still proudly made in the good ole USA, by a good ole USA company. On principle, I would never purchase an engine manufactured by a Chinese company if there was an American engine company still making good quality engines.
 
Last edited:
Thy may be China motors now,but they used to be "Continental Motors, Muskegon Michigan.....Powerful As The Nation". Said so on the tag.
 
Lycoming moved the camshaft to the bottom on one engine, the TIO-541.
I think they were used in the Beech Duke?
Kind of an admission that Continental has it right? :rolleyes:
Just a poke, I like both of them. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
So did a lot of the builders that went with Viking. :rolleyes: ;)
Click to expand...

To be fair though, the FWF package for the Viking is $17,000 and that includes the prop, cowl, engine mount, ect...

The FWF package with the Rotax is $28,000 which includes the prop, cowl, engine mount, ect....


Though the Rotax itself may be $18,500, you still have to buy the related components. Same with the Viking, the actual engine is advertised at $13,000 with the other accessories adding to $17,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top