Full disclosure: This guy is a close friend of mine, and there is a good chance I will eventually be involved as a dealer.

My friend Pete Plumb in Shafter, CA has been developing a really neat little engine for several years now. This engine will be a very good choice for small LSA type aircraft being flown in the back country, because the design and "architecture" is built upon the "small Continental" which has been the gold standard of reliability for 80 years. This is a nominal 60HP two cylinder 4 stroke engine, weighing 120 pounds.

The latest news is that the "beta test" engines are nearing completion, with at least ten significant revisions and tweaks to the crankcase castings and production tooling. The prototype engine is about to be flown within a few weeks on a single seat initial flight test aircraft. I have donated an airframe (Lil John's old Avid B model, with post-HSF incident repairs) to Pete as the 2 seat demonstrator.

It started out as an O-200 cut in half like they do to VW engines. Pete soon realized that it would be better and solve several problems to have a new crankcase and crankshaft built, which he has done. Other engine developers and designers go to Chinese or Mexican foundries and fabricators. Pete worked with engine developers and prototypers in Detroit and their foundries, steel forges, and metal tempering/treatment facilities in the US.

He started by duplicating the O-200 case in a shorter size, but with the help of modern CAD capabilities (SolidWorks) he created a nearly identical case that was far more accurate and higher quality, better tolerances, improved fit, etc. When you look at Petes' crankcase, it just seems like Continental made a "show quality" version of their classic small engine crankcase as if they were developing the engine themselves.

Numerous small inaccuracies and rough spots (the original case half casting molds were hand made using 1930's casting methods) were designed out iin CAD, making this basically a "better than new" version of the original.

The crankshaft was made using the more modern "ADI", or Austempered Ductile Iron, which offers several advantages over the original method. The crankshaft was slightly modified to provide equal pusher/tractor thrust bearing capability. A counterweight was added to the crankshaft to take out the typical 2 cylinder "boxer" vibration problem... it works incredibly well. I have put my hands on tihs engine when it was running on the test stand, and at crusie power it was smoother than an A-65!

The engine will be sold as a "short kit" at a very very attractive price, where you take the complete cylinder assemblies, camshaft, lifters rods, and accessory case off of a "donor" O-200 to install in this new engine. This enables junkyard scroungers and engine parts collectors to build the engine "on the cheap" and still come out with a first class engine. The customer will of course be able to buy new ECI or Continental parts if they see fit, to have a 100% "new" engine.

Pete's prototype features high-end pistons and top quality Carillo connecting rods for light weight, strength and reliability. These components will be available as optional upgrades to the Continental parts as desired.

The engine will be offered in two versions, the original "mounting ears" on the crankcase, and a "bed mount" version allowing it to bolt-on to a standard light aircraft Rotax style mount. This will be a perfect power/reliability/efficiency upgrade for many aircraft originally powered by the Rotax 503 and 582 engines.

SEVERAL aircraft manufacturers have been following the development of this engine, and have demanded that Pete offer a complete ready to fly engine in addition to the lower cost "short kit". After Oshkosh, where Pete demonstrated the engine numerous times, even building a complete engine from parts outside at his test stand and running it, the demand from major kit manufacturers for a bolt-on engine was overwhelming. The "production" ready to run engine is now in the works.

The engine in prototype configuration, with "quick and dirty" intake manifold and a not-ideal carburetor, and magneto ignition, produces just under 58 horsepower at 2900 RPM. Expect that number to go up a little as the intake manifold is tuned and developed. An electronic ignition module and electronic fuel injection system will be available, boosting horsepower and improving fuel economy further. A tuned exhaust will add a little more.

Pilots operating in remote areas, who want the safety and confidence of ultra-reliable 4 stroke power, with direct drive at low RPM and low fuel consumption, will probably be very interested in this new engine.

Pete's website is http://flypegasuspower.com/wp/

Anyone near the SoCal area feel free to come see Pete's next talk and engine demo at the Experimental Soaring Association fly-in and workshop in Tehachapi, CA on September 3rd.

I dunno if I'm buying those numbers. The HKS engine is basically the same thing with a reduc drive and makes 60hp. I had a half VW and that engine was a dog on an CGS hawk. The prop was too small to get the thrust needed for a backcountry airplane. This engine would probably work on a thatcher or something small, but I just don't see it for a small bush plane. How is this better than the HKS, a proven design? I love to see innovation, hope it works out

I have an HKS but have not flown it yet. A smaller engine, spinning at 5000 RPM through a gearbox, is always going to make more power to weight than a direct drive engine at 3000 RPM. More power pulses per second, regardless of number of revolutions. That's why a 2-stroke makes more power to weight than a 4-stroke too. Horsepwoer is measured by work over time, not work per revolution.

One of the things that engine designers and test labs think about (in terms of wear, longevity, etc.) is piston speed. The faster the piston speed is in the cylinder bore, the more wear will occur. Same for rotational speed across bearings and in bores.

What all this mumbo jumbo means is that (all else equal) a slower turning engine that is loafing along at 2750 or 2900 will last longer than a smaller engine that is huffing and puffing at 5500-6000 RPM to make the same horsepower. Less heat from friction too.

There are a lot of highly experienced people who have nearly religious faith in the small Continental engines, having trusted their lives to them in very remote areas over many years. A lot of these folks would feel more comfortable with this type of design architecture and "DNA" when they have a need for a smaller engine.

The O-100 is simpler, lower parts count, and can be far less expensive than the HKS for those with a little scrounging ability. As mentioned, I had bought a used HKS for my lightweight off-airport airplane project. But it is a more complicated engine than the O-100. There are advantages to both. Simplicity is one of the desirable system advantages that people talk about on BCP fairly often.

The 9:1 compression ratio might account for the additional power per cubic inch.

Of course it accounts for a lot. The original Continental engines were certified on 73 octane fuel, a lot lower than even the average cheap gas at the pump today.

Sounds interesting. My dad cut off two cylinders of a sbc and made a 2 cylinder for a motorcycle out of it. I'm guessing this will be affordable... the weight and power isn't really there, being that a rotax, or better yet a zipper rotax weighs only a little more and makes almost 2x the power.. but of course also costs some pretty real bucks!

Makes sense that this could be really good for the target as you stated - 503/582 etc. Moving away from the two strokes is really worth something IMO... pretty neat sound regardless though... Looking forward to seeing what comes of this...