Kim.
The 415 C flies essential the same as a 415 D. They are the same airplanes with minor differences. Installing an O-200 is not the wisest choice for an Ercoupe. First you don't get 100 hp from an O-200 - even Continental admitted this. Second, the O-200 does not come with an fuel pump, so you'll need to either add an electrical fuel pump or get the lower ump adapter and the cam with it. All additional complications of a simple engine installation. Then you will limit your propeller to only one choice. THe 69/48 is the approved pitch for this engine. It is a climb prop that allows to run the O-200 to the speed of 2750 where it eventually can develop these 100 hp. The O-200 does not fit the cowling right, one needs to change quiet a few things here. Plus you'll need a field approval for the installation. How much easier is it to rebuild your C-85 with an O-200 crankshaft and pistons, making this essentially an O-200 from it's heart. The reliable Stromberg carburetor jetting for a C-85 is using basically the same jets as needed for a C-90 engine. The C-90 is using the same crank and pistons as the O-200. The C-90 is said to really able to produce it's 90 horse powers, while the O-200 is lingering around 95 hp. Now, wouldn't it be a no-brainer to rebuild your C-85 with the O-200 STC - no field approval needed for the engine installation, fitting right under your cowling, fuel pump and all at the right place and then have true 90 horses available AND the choices of almost all propellers the Ercoupe was approved for? Plus saving some moneys along the way? I don't understand the urge for installing the O-200. Is it the promise of magical 100 horses? Or the newer is better ideology that seems to ride our societies into a never ending race. I believe that when going for an engine in an vessel one needs to see the mission and the installation constrains to get the perfect engine in. The C-90 or the C-85 with the O-200 crankshaft has produced much praise under us Ercoupers. The O-200 engine is noticed about the abundant climb it will produce, but besides that the owners are not happy. The cruising speed is rather going down than up. I could cruise as fast as Maynard with my stock C-85 compared to his O-200. I was using a cruise prop and was throttling down, while he propably fire walled his engine to keep up with me. Ok I admit, we both fire walled. But hey. his O-200 did not make him any faster. And the abundant climb power I could have had too by using a 48 pitched prop. To wrap it up. The -200 engine installation is going a long way with a lot of offsets for the Ercoupe owner. It is a much easier road for the C-85 - O-200 crankshaft conversion. Last note. While not common, It is thinkable that the fuel valve was partly closed. But if that is the cause of the accident, one has to ask whether the fuel valve had been touched between the first take-off trouble and the accident. Maybe this should become a pre-take-off item on my checklist... Actually, it is. I developed the habit of closing the header fuel valve after flight and then of course open it again. Because the valve is used often that way, the definite stop of the fully opened valve can be felt. Hartmut To: [email protected] From: [email protected] Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:38:20 -0700 Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Kim's Ercoupe All... I have purchased a 415C to replace/rebuild my recently damaged 415D. I appreciate everyones support to have made this happen. I used Ed's very complete pre-buy checklist and the plane has "good bones". While it still needs modifications for my disability and some "TLC", it's going to get me flying in a few months... The insurance company was kind enough to let me take most of my hand controls and equipment for my disability out of the 415D. I'm negotiating for the rest of the plane salvage, as there are MANY new pieces that would be very useful. If I cannot make a "deal", I'll just upgrade and work on the 415C, as resources permit. However, if a do get the "D" back, I have few questions: 1. Can the new 0-200 in the"D" be installed on a "C"? 2. I hope this isn't to dumb, but as the airframes are the same, etc, why is this "C" be limited to 1260 lb, but my old "D" is rated at 1400 lb, besides the obvious, "the rules say so". What physically or mechanically limits the GW limits on these two identical airframes? I.e, while illegal, does the "C" fly bad at 1400 lb? 3. I read in an earlier post discussing the split tail, that the "landing speeds" were different between the "C" and "D". Again, what physically or mechanically affects the landing speeds on these two identical airframes? By the way, the FAA and NTSB have finished their investigation on the accident and tell me "preliminarily" that the pilot "must have" knocked the fuel cutoff with his knee" off center slightly. I'm quite skeptical and they based their conclusion on: 1. The selector had no "positive" detents". (Couldn't tell you as I never have turned it off!) 2. I was in the off position when found. (It's because the pilot turned it off after the incident, as he smelled gas!) 3. The plane started up after the crash for the investigators; 4. They could not find any other problem; and my favorite... 5. When they turned the selector off center, the engine acted "just like the pilot reported". Oh well....I guess it could have happened, but I don't see the "smoking gun"... Kim Blackseth 310 17th St Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
