Wayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Alon with the O-200 in it might have been caught in the 1990 contaminated fuel crisis wherein there were several O-200's installed by the fuel companies when there fuel inventories were contaminated by jet fuel. The reason the O-200's were installed was that there were not enough C-90 cases for Continental to rebuild at the time. The oil company had to replace about 300 engines nationwide. Sandy Beliwitz got an O-200 and she hated it, her plane was slower and used more fuel with the short propeller. Before I went swapping propellers I would like to know if I was making power with my engine with an accurate Tachometer, and static power reading with the propeller I already had legal paperwork for. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hum, that's an interesting thought about the engine replacement. The propeller standard on the Cessna C-150 that was specified for the O-200 engine installation on the Ercoupes makes a climb propeller on the Ercoupes. And, that can be good because a lot of the Ercoupe owners who install an O-200 are people who really need maximum climb performance due to high altitude airports or terrain. The Alon airframe is somewhat more efficient than the Ercoupe because, I think, the improved canopy shape. Alons seem to cruise about 5-10 mph faster than Forney Aircoupes which have the same engine. The C-90 equipped Alons climb nicely, too, compared to C-85 equipped Ercoupes. (I haven't compared their climb to C-90 equpped Forney Aircoupes.) Putting a prop on an O-200 equipped Alon that would be a climb prop on an O-200 equipped Ercoupe just doesn't seem right. It'd be too much of a climb prop and cruise would stink. Within the legalities, I think it would be a good experiment to mount the 1A105/SCM7153 prop from a C-90 Alon and record the climb and cruise performance, static rpm and in cruise redline rpm you get. Don Baker has been working with an AI and DER, I think. I hope he can get this resolved properly without too much expense. Ed
