At 04:57 AM 12/4/98 -0600, Mi Vida Loca wrote: > >Guess you've never tried to get out of a short field on a +100 degree day >or tried to climb out of a 5000' MSL field on a warm day. Trust me you >can't have too much climb performance.
True, and true of all aircraft. Going out of Grandy in a light A36, I wanted more power! The question is, 'what are you willing to do/trade off to get it?' I submit that the sensible top-end trade-off is an O-200 for an Ercoupe. > Throttle back and Fuel >consumption should be roughly the same. It is supposed to be worse, because larger cylinders aren't as efficient. It might be better, as one would hope that the newer motor's combustion chamber design has been improved at least a little (remember when 18 miles to the gallon out of a 2-liter was GOOD mileage in a car?) >Now as for all the flowery crap about how well balanced the coupe was with >65 hp. The first coupe flew with an A-40. Now Fred was smart enough to know >more HP would increase the safety margin. So ERCO produced a few 60HP >inline engines (the coupe looked really good with that in line) but didn't >prove economical to produce. The A-65 just happened to be the biggest >commercial engine available at the time that would work with the airframe. > So actually with the C-90 it is actually a 225% increase over what the >Coupe was originally designed for. Fred didn't seem too upset about that. >If he wasn't upset or concerned about it maybe you should reassess your >evaluation of the situation. I guess if you always fly off 3000 foot >runways and rarely fly above 5000 feet you have a good point. Not all of us >do that though. My point exactly. More so. We're all the way to 100HP now, from 40 (which nobody would take seriously these days). Enough already! Say... ...how about a very light, low boost turbo unit for the O-200? Just enough to give you full MP up to 6000 feet. Greg
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
