----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Hello all; As far as I'm concerned, the advantage of the O-200 is it's maintainability and readily avaialble parts. My O-200 coupe flies out of a field at 4000 AGL (frequently 7000-8000 ft. density altitude in the summer) and, by very carefully flying Vy, I can sustain a 500-600 fpm climb rate. Because of the draggy nature of the airframe, it would take much more power to go significantly faster, so the O-200 doesn't help the cruise much. Dave N93971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- > > I don't have any experience with an 0-200 conversion...but realize there are > good reasons for considering the conversion. > > Parts availablity for C-75/85...are very scarce, and the cost of a useable > crankshaft, and other parts are out of site. > > 0-200 is a later ( read improved ?) version of the same engine, so it may > make semnse to utilize the improved version. > > Climb rate is better due to the increased displacement......, but top speed > is similar due to the required use of a prop that limits power output and > speed; within the approved, safe limits of the Ercoupe airfame. > > If your present engine is useable, and you fly out of the lower lands...under > 3000 feet msl, it would be hard to justify, just to have an 0-200.....for the > increased climb rate. I get about 600 ft/min flying out of 2000 ft msl > airport with my C-85. Now if you and your passenger are quite heavy....and GW > approaches 1400+, then the increased climb power makes sense....to obtain an > acceptable, safe climb rate. > > If your engine still has the tapered shaft ( as mine does), I think it makes > sense when rebuilding to be sure to get a Flange shaft. Taper shafts were > discontinued in about 1948.....I think because they were more suseptable to > fatigue failure from use of metal props, and the resonance vibrations .... > Now if you still use a wooden prop, this is not as important, as the wood > prop absorbs engine pulses better. > > Continental's requirement is to replace the c/s and most other internal parts > at the 13 year life limit...applicable to airplanes used commercially, but > not required for private use, I think. > > I think the use of the 0-200 c/s and rods, pistons/cyl STC makes sense, > utilizing the old Crankcase.......BUT a mid time complete 0-200 may be less > expensive... > > The 0-200 camshaft ---(Please correct my misconception) does not have a fuel > pump cam...so an electric fuel pump must be utilized. > > Cost includes the STC, the engine or parts, and the new prop in the case of > the 0-200. I don't know if a new prop is required when utilizing the STC for > 0-200 C/S replacement in an old case, but I suspect it is...again to limit > performance to the design limits of the Ecoupe airframe. > > I expect one could easily spend $10,000 to build and install a completely > rebuilt 0-200 engine....perhaps $ 2000 more than rebuilding the C-85 ????? > > Comments ?? > > REgards, > > Harry Francis > Blacksburg, VA. > > --------------------------------- > to unsubscribe send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ____________________________________________________________ > T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. > Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01 --------------------------------- to unsubscribe send mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________ T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
