I am in total agreement with Hartmut here Kim. As I was thinking about this, as I recall your 0200 will have to be torn down anyway since it had a prop strike as I recall, so costwise you could just put the parts in a C85 at very small cost (assuming no bent crank).
--- In [email protected], Hartmut Beil <hb...@...> wrote: > > > 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: kimblacks...@... > 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 > kimblacks...@... > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 >
