PS, I DO know that we did nothing to the camshaft.
TonyB Denver 3067H ________________________________ From: James Bilello <[email protected]> To: Robert Blanchard <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:27:30 PM Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Fuel Replenishment Rate Hi Bob, My coupe has the C-85 with the O-200 cylinders, pistons, and crank. When I had it redone about 2 years ago, I made no changes to the old C-85 configuration of fuel lines, etc. I'm still using the original wobble pump as well.. The past two year fuel consumption up here in Colorado is faithfully around 5.6 gph. I no nothing about "orifices" but I seem to recall that we gave some consideration to the fitting orfice to the pump and made a change to the original part. I couldn't find any documentation on the change though. Mr Cooper, where are you? TonyB Denver 3067H ________________________________ From: Robert Blanchard <rblanchard20@ att.net> To: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:51:25 PM Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Fuel Replenishment Rate 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
