As Mark says, it mostly boils down to personal preference. A more realistic view of the fuel burn was when Joe Horton and I flew side by side from Los Alamos,NM to Chino, CA and back, he in his Corvair powered KR and me in my O-200 powered KR. We flew the whole trip within sight of each other. There are differences between our planes to be sure, but we are very closely matched in speed and performance. Joe burned 1/2 gal/hr less than I did with my O-200 for the trip.
On the other hand, in 1150 hrs, my KR has never fallen from the sky. Not many Corvair powered KRs can make that claim. For sure, I have abused and broken things in my engine. But the O-200 is stout where it counts. It has never missed a beat, and things like a broken rocker shaft boss were found while performing routine maintenance in the hangar. If you're going to build a Corvair to try to match an O-200 for reliability, it's going to cost as much to build as the O-200. -Jeff Scott Los Alamos, NM ? ? Sent:?Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM From:?"Mark Langford via KRnet" <krnet at list.krnet.org> To:?KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> Cc:?"Mark Langford" <ml at n56ml.com> Subject:?Re: KR> Kr2s Engine? "Stan" wrote: > Based on the above wouldn't the Corvair seem to be the better > choice? What is the advantage of the o200 vs the Corvair or the > Corvair over the o200? What is the time between overhaul on a > Corvair? The difference between the two boils down to the O-200 is a real airplane engine, designed for the job, with compromises to make it last. This includes lower compression for reduced stressed, and a more primitive carb for simplicity. The biggest thing with the O-200 is that it's purpose made for the job, with giant bearing near the prop to handle prop loads. The Corvair was not designed to run wide open all the time, but if you put a $2000 crankshaft in it and add a $1000 front bearing, the crank becomes pretty reliable and there are few weak links left, one of which is the semi-rare cam gear failure (and we know what to watch for on that now). Rebuilds on a Corvair are pretty cheap, compared to the O-200, and heads and cylinders survive rather well. Corvair parts are rather plentiful, and simple stuff like gears are still made and cheap, rather than rare and expensive. Having said that, if reliability is your number one goal, the O-200 is the way to go. If efficiency and performance is your goal, the Corvair may be the way to go. Cost is probably about the same either way, as far as initial installation, depending on luck and scrounging ability. It's too early to tell what the TBO is on the Corvair...there just aren't enough hours on them yet. I'd bet serious money that it's longer on the Continental than the Corvair though! I don't think anybody would disagree with that. I have a lot invested in Corvairs, and will stick with them. They are far better than VWs, both in reliability and safety. And I have two of them ready to run already. No, I'm not trying to sell either of them. If I were starting over and an O-200 presented itself for a reasonable price, I'd seriously considering buying it. With a new 4340 crank in my Corvair though, I'm good with that option too, especially since they are both paid for. Mark Langford ML at N56ML.com http://www.n56ml.com _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search[http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search]. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html[http://www.krnet.org/info.html] see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org[http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org] to change options
