Lycoming vs Continental in a SS 7 ??

[southwind32]

I asked this a few weeks ago, on the engine forum, but thought I'd put it here to see if I could get a little more feed back.
First off, I know most go with the Rotax engines, nothing against the Rotax, but I'm old school and prefer a Lyc or a Cont.
So my question is, O-200 or Lyc O-235 (or other Lyc size) which is better, preferred, best or whatever for the Kitfox SS 7.
Pros and cons are greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Brian

[Av8r3400]

They will all perform well.

I'd look at weight as a major deciding factor. The Lycoming O-235 is heaviest, but makes a little more power, with the Continental O200 and Lycoming O-233 very close to one another.

There are some Continental IO-240s on the forum. These make even more power at the penalty of some more weight.

And of course now we have some Lycoming 320 and 340s going into Kitfoxes...

[southwind32]

I think the Io-240's are out, just because they are so few, and the O-233 is very rare also. I don't want to go to a bigger engine, then is typically used, so I think generally I'm looking at an O-200 or O-235. Another reason is I'm going to be buying a used low time or a core for overhaul, I can't afford a brand new engine.

[dcsfoto]

I went with the Rotax 912iS as I saved $8000
and the FWF Package is more complete.

David Kelm

[Blain]

They will all perform well.

I'd look at weight as a major deciding factor. The Lycoming O-235 is heaviest, but makes a little more power, with the Continental O200 and Lycoming O-233 very close to one another.

There are some Continental IO-240s on the forum. These make even more power at the penalty of some more weight.

And of course now we have some Lycoming 320 and 340s going into Kitfoxes...

What mods if any are needed to hang a -320?

[SS7Flyer]

A Cessna 172 flies good on a 320.. A Kitfox that was designed to weigh in at 700lbs empty not so much. Why ruin a perfectly good airplane with a giant boat anchor on the nose? 1940's technology doesn't belong on modern day experimentals when there are so many other reliable options out there that offer much more performance. With literally 10's of thousands of Rotax motors out there I still can't figure out why people aren't on board. A light weight 912 powered fox will literally fly circles around one with lead in the tail and a anchor up front and burn half the fuel.

[efwd]

We prefer airplane sound instead of snowmobile sound. But when I flew it I didnt really hear it the same way. Noise cancelling headsets do work effectively and I had to heed advice of many that the performance and economy was great and I agreed so Rotax it was.
Eddie

[Esser]

I don't know if you guys have seen the teaser clip that John McBean posted on Facebook on July 19 of the Speedster flyby but I think that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for the argument that it doesn't sound like a plane.

[efwd]

I dont have facebook! Aargh.

[jrthomas]

SS7Flyer hit the nail on the head. Hang an O200 or an O235 on a Kitfox and loose performance, loose half your rate of climb, add a bunch to your take off roll and see the load you could have carried with a 912 disappear. But it'll sound like a real airplane. I like the sound of the old engines too but the 912's are 10 time more efficient. I can't think of a single area where the 912's are not superior. I wonder if those 1st Mustang and Spitfire pilots complained that their water cooled, geared Merlins didn't sound like an R2800. Don't let the sound bother you. You'll be spoiled to its smoothness and economy. James Thomas