John...
Thank you, you have far more experience than I. The 0-200 had a part
that was added the the cam to drive the pump. So far, it seems to
keep up fine. It has the 69" x 50" prop and Marvel carb. I cruise at
about 2500 and it seems to be getting about 5.5 gpm.
So far it more than keeps up, but I'll keep an eye on it.
thanks for the info....
Kim Blackseth
N2332H
On Sep 17, 2009, at 7:46 PM, john E. Daugherty wrote:
<11.gif>
Kim, if during the overhaul the camshaft lobe was ground then the
engine driven pump will not keep up. You will have to install an
electric pump.I have beenthere -done that. In order to get iooh.p.
Out of your engine----You must cruise it at 2600 rpm with a 69 inch
-48 to 50 invh prop.These figures apply to mine which is a standard
0-200 A continental.On cross country trips my fuel consumption is
5,5 gph with aggressive leaning.I flight plan for 6gph.This is with
a marvel-schebler carbureator.
Note:I'm not a mechanic,but I learned to fly in an Ercoupe in
1946.Have owned 6 of them since then and own one now with an 0-200
A,in it. I have about 1500 hrs in coupes wit a total of over 4000
hrs.in all types.
If I can give any other info,let me know.
John Daugherty
-------Original Message-------
From: kim Blackseth
Date: 9/17/2009 4:06:29 PM
To: Robert Blanchard
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Fuel Replenishment Rate
I just did the same LARGE rebuild. I replaced my C-85 with an 0-200
and a TON of other stuff. TTSM is about 21 hours. However to try to
respond to your question, I found I had to add a lobe to drive a
mechanical fuel pump. I also rebuilt the wing tanks.
I have found my fuel burn is very close to before and had no problem
with the system. I love the new 0-200
Kim Blackseth
N 2332H
On Sep 17, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Robert Blanchard wrote:
Group: We have just finished a major rebuild of 415-CD #4787,
N94676 airframe. Restoration work was accomplished by a highly
experienced team composed of an AP and an AP/IA. The C-85-F engine
was majored just prior to my purchase and fitted with the 0-200
modification. Currently, TTSM is 28.6 hrs. As part of the rebuild,
the fuel plumbing system was replaced due to use of unauthorized
components an unworkable plumbing configuration. The new system
follows the configuration shown in Figure 34 of the Ercoupe Service
Manual. All tanks are vented with serviceable gaskets. The orifice
input fitting at the fuel pump was measured at .062". During post
rebuild flight tests, it was discovered that, although fuel was
being pumped from both wing tanks, the flow rate was insufficient to
fully replenish the fuel drawn from the header tank. This was
particularly true with the fuel burn rate experienced during touch
and go landings.
We did not receive any engine performance data on the C-85-0200
engine with the airplane. Fuel consumption data for the C-90 is
appreciably higher than for the C-85. Assuming the C-85-0200 is
reasonably approximated by the C-90 fuel consumption at various
power levels, it occurred that the header tank fuel replenishment
rate for the C-85-0200 may be higher than that allowed by the
current orifice in the fuel pump of .062”. So far, we haven’t been
able to find data on the required orifice for the C-90 or 0200
Continental engines.
First, can anyone provide fuel consumption data for the C-85-0200
engine? Is the C-90 a reasonable approximation? Is the
restriction orifice of .062” adequate for this engine modification,
or should it be relieved? If so, by how much? The fuel system IS
transferring fuel from the wing tanks to the header tank, but the
fuel transfer rate seems to be insufficient. I am concerned that a
fuel burn rate resulting from a long climb at full power would
deplete the fuel from the header tank to an extent it would take an
inordinately long time at cruise to replenish. We would greatly
appreciate any insights, experiences, or recommendations that might
be offered.
Thanks to all.
Bob Blanchard, Owner/Pilot
N94676
Kim Blackseth, ICC, CASp
310 17th St
Oakland, CA
510-839-1760
<stampa_girl_line_en.gif>
