The C-85 weighs 180 lbs dry, the O-200 190 lbs according to TCDS

Bill
 


To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:59:55 +0000
Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: PROP PITCH

  





I love this discussion, keep it up guys!
Blowing holes in "hangar talk theories" is important. I was led to understand 
that there are prop limits for the 0200 and 0200 crank STC that limit the 
potential for higher speed they could offer, is that correct? Also, I 
understand the 0200 installation is quite a bit heavier, how much more than a 
C85 stock engine does the 0200 crank STC engine weigh? 

.--- In [email protected], "bigbrownpi...@..." <bigbrownpi...@...> 
wrote:
>
> Ed,
> 
> My thinking is that there may be a small increase in fuel consumption, but 
> not much. First, the O-200 rorating assembly is stroked, so it is a 201 
> c.i.d. vs. a 188 c.i.d. The engine is not working as hard as a C-85 at the 
> same RPM; it's putting out more torque than a C-85 at the same RPM. Second, 
> it's higher compression. Third, the O-200 recommended 75% cruise speed is 
> 2500 RPM, so I would expect that whatever the O-200 fuel economy is, I would 
> see the same. The only thing I haven't accounted for is the different cam 
> profile between the C-85 and O-200. I will be keeping the C-85 cam as far as 
> I know. So any increase in fuel consumtion should be from the increase in 
> parasite drag, and from the greater displacement engine; kind of the same way 
> that the 6.0 liter LS-2 engine uses more fuel than the 5.7 liter LS-1. (I 
> think!)
> 
> Dave
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Ed Burkhead" <ed@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Dave wrote:
> > > I'm getting 107.95 at 2500 RPM with a 7148. 
> > > That's with the 5% loss. Certainly seems 
> > > realistic for the C-85/O-200 STC engine. 
> > 
> > 
> > Right
> > 
> > Flying at 2500rpm instead of 2400rpm, gets you almost four extra mph.
> > 
> > I'd also want to figure the increase in fuel consumption. If extra speed
> > makes you do an extra fuel stop, you've lost all advantage of the greater
> > speed.
> > 
> > In many cross country flights, I've increased my total speed by slowing down
> > to 90 or 85 or so and, by getting better fuel economy, I've been able to
> > safely bypass a fuel stop.
> > 
> > Taking all this into account adds to the mental
> > brain-all-involved-and-active aspect of flying that I love.
> > 
> > Ed
> >
>




                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/

Reply via email to