Contact information

Pete Plumb, CEO

Pegasus Power Systems, Inc.

1 800 580 3250

330 Aviation Street

Shafter, Ca. 93263

 

52 Responses to Contact information

  1. Mike S. says:

    I am an experienced pilot (fixed and rotor). Interested in building my own aircraft. Like the idea of single seat, all metal or tube & fabric, preferably low wing, but would only consider 4 cycle, aircraft engine (not VW derived). This would be my first build. Intrigued by the idea of a Hummel. Your DP-1 seems like a good potential fit. I have followed you on Homebuiltaircraft, but notice that the list of potential existing designs (compiled by Topaz and others) that would be well suited for your O-100 fails to mention any of the Hummel craft.
    Can you comment?
    Thanks

  2. dragon2knight says:

    So….any updates? I know you hate this site, lol, but we do need regular updates, like at least monthly ;) Thanks, Pete :)

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Big changes are in our future. I actually have a webmaster to help me.

      Point well taken.

      Pete

      • dragon2knight says:

        Hahaha, about time :-) Still, you’ve been posting on HomeBuiltAirplanes.com, so you have been trying to keep us informed. Look forward to more from this, it’s really, really happening–Woohoo!!

        • Pegasus Pete says:

          Well, thanks, but I feel like I’ve dropped the ball there too. I hate going stealth on you guys but I felt that until I actually had the production logistics worked out and had something to sell, I would keep it low key. Don’t know if that was a good plan or not but who knows. Now that I’m so close to launch, there will be more and more and finally a blitz on promoting it and flying reports. Stay tuned and thanks for your support ‘Dragon’.

      • datumair says:

        Hi Pete, can’t wait to be able to talk to you, I have tried the phone you today but your 1-800 doesn’t work for Canada. As I have looked and did not find anything else, I have had to register and log in to talk to you, I am very interested in the product.
        Very nice work and smart to. Keep up the good work, We need it!

        Kind regards, John

  3. dsteele713 says:

    What are you expecting as far as fuel consumption?

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      I’m expecting half of O-200 at all power settings. I fully expect to see 3 gallons/hr at 2600 normal cruise. We’ll know for sure in a couple of weeks.

      Pete

  4. Westcliffe01 says:

    Hello Pete
    I am interested in making a uniflow scavanged 2 stroke, 2 cylinder engine with direct injection and your crankcase and rotating assembly seems like a perfect starting point. It would really be ideal for me since the cylinders would be custom and I would not be using any of the original O-200 parts. If you think you might have one to spare, I would love to take it off your hands. Looking to use DI injectors and high pressure pump off a Honda Fit 2015 or later and will have mapped fueling and ignition like any modern engine. I figure it could be an 80hp engine by virtue of the cylindrs firing on every revolution instead of every second.
    Hope to hear from you soon.
    Keith (aka Westcliffe01)

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Probably not a DP-1 case but I do have 2 or 3 DAF cases down in my hanger I can talk to you about if you haven’t already done something else. Let me know.

      Pete

  5. Hap Hazard says:

    Any new updates Pete?

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hey there! So here is a condensed version of the last 3 hectic months. Early in September I realized there was a time crunch approaching on the crank shaft because I had been “stood up” by the foundry I was contracted to and was back to square one on the production of the crank blanks. I still had my final machining processor but no product to machine. So I went on the hunt for a foundry with “rapid prototyping” capabilities and found one in Virginia who is producing about 10 test samples for me as I type this. They should go to the heat treater this week then on to the machine shop in the next week or so. The case corrections have all been done in Solid Works and have been submitted to the foundry with all additions and corrections – small stuff mostly but necessary for the machining changes I made to make the DP-1 more user friendly for you guys.

      We are now about 2 months behind where I wanted to be but I am still optimistic that the beta test engines will be flying by the end of the year. I am still planning a ceremonial presentation to the owner of serial number 001 at Sebring this next January and will also be delivering one of the betas to a manufacturer down there in FLA at that time. Hope this catches you up a bit. Sorry for the delay.

      Pete Plumb

      • Hap Hazard says:

        Thanks for the updates Pete. Still at the top of my shopping list for my future project.

      • Goldenhands57 says:

        A big hello to Pete and Pegasus customers.
        Pete..outstanding article in Contact! Magazine and as a retired Boeing (and several other aviation companies) engineer I admire your tenacity to achieve this effort. It is worthy! I can think of at least a dozen LSA and similar Experimental aircraft that this engine is a perfect fit for. After an in-depth investigation of the ADI process and considering the high costs of OEM 0-200 rocker arms, they seem a logical item to also use the ADI process. Have you considered this? First advantage is the much improved dampening from other metal processes, second the lighter mass..and more important..the much less cost to manufacture using ADI. I might suggest that designing using rocker shafts of a smaller diameter and the rocker I.D. also reduced diameter would prevent direct transfer to a certificated 0-200 (or 0-300) application. Later retrofit kits of the Pegasus 0-100 could include bushings for the head castings to accommodate the smaller diameter rocker shaft diameter. Fitting in sleeve bushings and honing them for final fit is a fairly easy task (freeze the bushings in dry ice and 99% isopropyl alcohol for about 20 minutes..the new bushings will slipfit in very easily in a room temperature cleaned cylinder rocker shaft bore). Continental rocker shafts themselves have no history of failure in service that I know of. The stock O-200 shafts are way over engineered considering the loads they accept.
        My interest in your engine design points the way with one I have been mulling over for some time now. It is 6 cylinder air cooled horizontal opposed but I was concerned about the forged billet steel to make the crankshafts and the resulting treats also required (Nitriding for one). The requirement for wide journal fillets in aviation use crankshafts is critical as well. ADI is superior to forged steel or machined forged billet for crankshafts from the engineering data available. I will be very interested in seeing your fatigue data in operation. My expectations are you’ll have a very robust rotating assembly. Correctly you relate that certificated aircraft engine forged steel crankshafts DO fail and in fact it happens more often than most pilots/owners consider. The contributing reason is the fatigue threshold is exceeded because forged steel embrittles over time due to resonate cycling loads. Stress risers accelerate crack propagation. Forged steel billet have less tendency for this problem but have the added high costs of machining the blanks. Several factors affect the resonate cycling in piston engine propeller aircraft. Ductile cast tends to dampen these rather than resonate, thus the embrittlement tendency is reduced. As your studies proved, the counterweight locations also dampen flex fatigue issues. My hope is the supplier in Virginia stays on course for your engine package and please do ask if Pat Panzera will do a followup.

  6. Grasshopper.Kingdom says:

    Hello,

    Are the first 100 delivery positions sold? If not what are the details to reserve one?

    Pieter Prall

  7. dragon2knight says:

    Hi :) I’ve been looking at this design from the get go, looks like a great idea….with one flaw that I could see. You went with a cast crankshaft? If history (Volkswagon conversions come to mind), cast cranks are a recipe for disaster in aircraft engines. I see you are using a special heat treated version, but it will still pale in comparison to say a 4000 series forged crank, which is very well proven in aircraft conversions. I’m just wondering where your proof is in saying that a cast crank can be as strong, handle prop loads, and will generally be a good replacement for a proven(forged) design. By the way, I’m not attacking you here, just wondering why you didn’t go with tried and true over completely unknown on an otherwise well thought out design. Thanks.

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hello Dragon2Knight! Sorry for the late response.

      Very good questions and believe me, A LOT of engineering thought went into that decision! To answer the main question as to “WHY” I went cast instead of forged, the decision was many-fold but primarily I wanted a final shape that does not lend itself to forging easily. Secondarily, I like a couple of characteristics of ADI better than forged 4140 or 4340 steel – those being 1) strength to weight ratio, 2) its frequency resonance and 3) its natural wear resistance with plain bearings.

      Now, as to the VW cast crank comparison, I’m at a bit of a loss to comment because I don’t know what type of cast iron they used. To be able to compare apples to apples, I would need to know the dynamic properties of the iron (or steel), the cross-sectional shape, the loads that were applied and the moment, the fillet size (a HUGE factor and generally too small on VWs) and finally, the type of failure they experienced and where. I know NONE of those things so any kind of practical analysis is out the window.

      What I DO know is that Continental’s engineers made it very easy for me to engineer a [theoretically] strong crank for the DP-1 from cast ADI. The fillet sizes are HUGE in comparison to the VW, the crankpin widths are huge, the diameters are all reasonable for the design. I used C.F. Taylor’s book “The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice”, Volume 2 as my “bible” on the crank design. There is a wealth of information for the engineer in that book including empirical data and tests from many contributors. The crank design I used for the DP-1 is compared with others on page 495 and is shown to be the strongest cross-section you can build! He also mentions on page 501 that cast cranks lend themselves better to counterbalances than do forged.

      Opinions are worthless to me. Engineering data that can be calculated is EVERYTHING to me. I had “experts” – who, by the way, didn’t know a single load, a single moment, a single size or cross section – tell me a cast crank would break. When I asked them how they knew that, they just said “because I know”. In an engineer’s world, that is just pure bullshit! Give me data! Give me NUMBERS!

      Here, allow me to dispel a few misconceptions many people have about cast vs forged cranks. Modern metallurgy has come A LONG WAY since the days of “yer basic gray iron crank”. Austempering is a modern process for achieving superior structural characteristics of ductile iron. It opens up the door to creating strong, light-weight structures with less expense and more environmentally friendly methods than forging. It is a wonderfully versatile material with MANY applications. Just because a crank is made from 4340 and forged DOES NOT mean it won’t break. There have been many aircraft crankshaft failures over the years. In forging, you are taking an extruded chunk of round stock, heating it up to extreme temperatures and then mashing it, bending it, and pushing it into a shape. Forging steel into a crankshaft is a very violent and extreme procedure. While the grain structure of a cast crank is much different than that of a forged crank, it is not necessarily inferior.

      The data I used to determine whether or not I could use ADI originated from PhDs in metallurgy, engineers at FORD, Chrysler, John Deer, C.F. Taylor and many other people, WAY smarter than me. Then, what I did is calculate the worse-case rotational bending stress (Fb= Mr/I), the torsional stress (T= Tr/I) and combinations of loads that the crank is likely to see from the prop, piston and rod inertial loads and then made sure that the cross sectional area of the stressed sections could handle it based on the information I had on Grade 2 ADI. Just so you know (assuming the data I have on ADI is correct), Grade 2 ADI has the same, or better, qualities than 4140 steel. Its Fatigue strength in Rotational Bending (@10 x 10^6 cycles) is listed at 70,000 psi. To put that into context, the maximum, worst-case-scenario combined loads on this engine’s crank putting out 105 ft. lbs of torque is about 15,000 psi. Now, according to the the S-N curves (Stress and Number of Cycles) for ADI, stress that is kept below 33% of Fu shows no failures – or 49,900 psi in this case. At 15,000 psi, we are at about 10% of Fu.

      The true test will be the actual duty cycle that we experience. But my numbers for the cross sectional areas and the loads imposed on those structures show that the Grade 2 ADI was a good choice for this crankshaft. If you have data to the contrary, please, by all means, tell me about it so I can investigate it further.

      If you are interested in learning more about ADI you can find a wealth of information at http://www.ductile.org/didata/Section4/4intro.htm. Also, Applied Process, our Country’s premier austempering house (and ours) has great info at http://www.appliedprocess.com.

      Thank you for your inquiry! I would never consider it “beating up on me” to ask an intelligent question about such an important part!

      Thanks,
      Pete

      • Bruno Porto says:

        Thank you for the inspiration! I am a Mechanical Engineer and I am designing an ethanol aircraft engine (for now only for hobby… designing is free :D ) and this answer truly inspired me. My best regards for you and your project. It is a beautiful machine!

  8. Dennis Brooks says:

    I have read that you are moving to Mo. Where in Mo. are you moving to? Thank You

  9. wellnow1101 says:

    Do you have a List of O200 Product Items required to assemble the engine? It would be helpful to see what the final cost would be. I am sure it is WELL within my budget for my Ridge Runner 3 under construction now. I am truly interested in being one of the first 100!

    Tom

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hi Tom,

      It is tough to pin down an exact cost at this time but assuming you have nothing to start with and you pay full retail through Fresno Airparts or someone similar, I added up about $6,000 in additional parts – the cylinders being the most expensive individual parts you need. We will probably be able to trim that price quite a bit by making some of the expensive parts ourselves like a custom accessory case and intake elbows, rocker arms (WOW they are expensive!) etc. First things first though and the basic kit is my primary focus right now. A complete parts website with great prices is planned!

      Thanks!

      Pete

  10. blane.c says:

    Hello; What a beautiful engine. I would like to make it a little lighter, How do you feel about CDI ignition such as one from lightspeed engineering in place of the slicks, and a aeroinjector from aeroconversions or similar in place of the carb? Also what is the current price of the engine? Thank you, Blane E. Chism

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hi Blane! Thanks for the nice compliment. Yes, we have a company (remaining nameless for the time being) that is actively designing a fuel injection system and even inverted oil for the DP-1. I think they like the E-Mag installation but that will be totally up to the builder. Current price: I am introducing the first 100 engines at $3,495.00 for the complete kit. After the first 100 engines are gone, the price will have to go up to $3,995.00 to pay for the expensive Carrillo rods and pistons. They are offered as “free” in the first 100 as incentives. Thanks for your inquiry and sorry it took so long to respond!

      Pete

  11. mkatoak says:

    Hi Pete,
    Several months ago we spoke on the phone about the engine and the Cracker Jack II. If I remember correctly you told me that the airframe will be designed to +6,-3. If that is correct will it be ultimate load factor or with a 50% safety margin?

    I’m still anticipating an airframe and engine kit bundle,

    Matt

  12. crusty old aviator says:

    Hi Pete,
    If you’re still experiencing some leaning at certain throttle settings, have you considered looking into the SDS fuel injection system? It would add about $1K to the cost of the engine and the induction elbows would need to be modified to accept an injector body, but you would have no hesitation throughout the whole throttle range, and you could use an inexpensive automotive throttle body & injectors. Les Smoot has had very good results with his SDS installations on 4AO84 engines and other engines. The system requires very little power to run, in case you have no electrical system.

  13. wottreng says:

    Tom Wottreng here. I rebuild engines for a living. I am interested in your development or connecting rods and pistons for use in my experimental four cylinder engines. The external crankshaft balance weights also interest me.
    Thanks for your help-Tom

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hi Tom!

      Sorry for the delay in my reply – I’m just now getting up to speed on my WordPress abilities.

      Back in 1985 when I developed the DAF automobile conversion engine for the prototype Cracker Jack, I used Carrillo “H” beam racing rods. When it came time to develop lighter rods for the O-100, I called on them again (I could not achieve dynamic balance with the heavy stock rods and pistons). We designed our rod to fit the O-200 crankpin bearings (diameter) but I made the O-100 crank so the crankpin widths are .030″ narrower – with a corresponding width on the rod – to eliminate the builder’s temptation to use the heavy stock rod in our engine AND to prevent our uncertified parts from ending up in a certified engine. The O-100 rods are stock CL to CL length but our piston pin is larger diameter for the same reasons. Carrillo is making our pistons as well so they are first class! Weight savings is not quite half of stock but it IS significant! On 4 cylinders, it would be huge!

      Our design is proprietary but since they are designed to be used with stock cylinders, I would like to offer to work with you on this. As a joint effort, we can save you a lot of time and tool-up charges. Depending on your quantities, the crankpin width can go back to stock easily. Call me Please! (800) 580-3250.

      Thanks Tom,

      Pete

  14. cgritella says:

    I’m really interested to your O-100 for my Codirosso ULM ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_bqrs2wYCY ).
    I hope to hear good news very soon!!!
    I’m available for beta test if needed.
    Carlo – Italy

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hello Carlo!

      I wasn’t ignoring you – just getting up to speed on my website.

      I would be very interested in exploring the possibility of putting you in the beta-test program! We need European representatives! Please stay in touch. You may call the toll free number in the US any time! 800-580-3250. I look forward to hearing from you and thanks for the video link!

      Pete

      • cgritella says:

        Hello Pete,
        how should I do to buy the engine? What is the final price?
        The online store isn’t still available.
        I have not answered since last December 30th.
        Thanks in advance for your quickly answer!
        Carlo

        • Pegasus Pete says:

          Hi Carlo,

          I’m back on the web site. People thought I forgot about it! No, just trying to get this project off the ground…so to speak.

          You will order from a distributor. In a few months, this website will route you to a brand new page with all the specs, tests, info and everything everyone has been waiting for. There have been big changes going on in the background but will be good for everyone. The new website will give you a list of distributors of the kits and complete engine builders. We will also have a builder’s forum.

          Thanks for your interest!

          Pete

  15. Sweidemann says:

    Great to hear there is new small engine technology available soon. I have a light sport aircraft powered by a two cylinder four stroke HKS engine that works well however the longevity of this engine is unknow to me. I like the idea that your engine will be made in the U.S. I will be watching.

    Is there room on the accessory case at least for an alternator, and possibly a starter?

    Thanks much

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      I wasn’t ignoring you – just getting up to speed on my website.

      Yes, the accessory case is a stock O-200 unit so the starter and alternator holes are there. Some nice lightweight units are available these days and we will be testing many in the near future!

      Thanks for your interest!

      Pete

  16. Hap Hazard says:

    What is the latest reports? Is the engine still going into production Pete?

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hello,

      I wasn’t ignoring you – just getting up to speed on my website.

      Yes, definitely! To give you an update: as of Monday, we are finished with the SolidWorks files for the case halves which were needed before the pattern shop could start. They have been submitted and I expect to be writing checks soon! The crank is still out for bid but it will be under construction very soon as well. Our plan at this time is to show up at AirVenture 2015 with several units flying and several beta-test kits. Almost there! Thanks for your interest!!!

      Pete

  17. abraham leket says:

    Pete- I do hope to purchase a running engine for my FRED a year+ from now- I pray that this jewel will be running
    and I vision a dramatic change in the LSA due to this engine.
    Keep up the good work Pete- you’re on the right path !

    • Pegasus Pete says:

      Hey Abe! I finally sat down and figured out this Word Press website and how to reply! LOL! Of course we’ve been in contact through the HomeBuiltAirplanes forum but this is another way to stay in touch since I will come here daily now. I want to see an O-100 on the front of your FRED! That plane has been an interest of mine since high school when Aircraft Modeler did a peanut scale of it.

      See you either here or “there”.

      Pete

  18. ALLEN says:

    Sounds like a great engine. Love to have one on my challenger 2 LW. Doesn’t mention anything about a cam? I want one!

  19. elijahjs says:

    Is this engine currently for sale? And what is not included that I have to buy?

  20. TCAS13 says:

    Hello Pete,

    what are latest updates?
    could you also please give the width of engine , important for those wishing to set in a monoseat!

  21. slowflight says:

    Please allow me to beta test before I spend a box of cash in the wrong direction……I would settle for a crankcase and a crankshaft. We come up with a cylinder and cam setup….plenty of engines to get parts from around here. I really believe this could be a very good thing.

  22. Woody Weaver says:

    Very exciting. Hope to see you at Sun n Fun.
    Any feel for price?
    Woody

Leave a Reply