Original Posted By: bowdler(at)juno.com
Ok Guys,After talking to some of you and to some local A&P's I've made apreliminary decision to power my plane with a Continental 65-100.This is my first plane and I don't look forward to building a motor.I'll save that for the next one maybe. Some of the mechs have told methat Lycomings may be a little easier to work on......some disagree. I'mcurious why I havent heard of any of you using them. Any answers here? Anyway, several people have mentioned the advantages of having a littleextra power, is there any disadvantage to the 100 over the 65? Also, isthere a difference in the engine mount? Thanks for all your help so far.Eager to get started, DannyMac________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Power
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: Ken Hannan
Thanks Tom,This is how we learn.bowdler(at)juno.com wrote:> > Smart move choosing Continental Danny,> A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and it had no guts. I have> heard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was more like> it.> Peter Mc Hugh has an 0200 Pietenpol and thinks that is fine. I've> also seen 85's mounted on Piets. I'm using a 65 Continental which is> more than adequate. They are quite popular and there should be lots of> them around from all the old cubs, t-crafts and airknockers. Mine came> from a Champ the owner was upgrading to an 85.> Tom________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Tom,This is how we learn.bowdler(at)juno.com wrote:> > Smart move choosing Continental Danny,> A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and it had no guts. I have> heard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was more like> it.> Peter Mc Hugh has an 0200 Pietenpol and thinks that is fine. I've> also seen 85's mounted on Piets. I'm using a 65 Continental which is> more than adequate. They are quite popular and there should be lots of> them around from all the old cubs, t-crafts and airknockers. Mine came> from a Champ the owner was upgrading to an 85.> Tom________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: Chad Johnson
>Smart move choosing Continental Danny,> A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and it had no guts. I have>heard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was more like>it.Danny- What Tom cites above here is what I've found too. There isa big difference between a Lyc 65 and Cont. 65. Parts are more difficultand more $$$ for the Lyc too. As I recall the Lyc. head has both cyls. castin place so if you have a problem w/ one, you have to replace the whole assy.Mike C. Smart move choosing Continental Danny, A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and ithad no guts. I haveheard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was morelikeit.Danny- What Tom cites above here is what I've found too. Thereisa big difference between a Lyc 65 and Cont. 65. Partsare more difficultand more $$$ for the Lyc too. As I recall the Lyc. head has bothcyls. castin place so if you have a problem w/ one, you have to replace the wholeassy.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
>Smart move choosing Continental Danny,> A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and it had no guts. I have>heard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was more like>it.Danny- What Tom cites above here is what I've found too. There isa big difference between a Lyc 65 and Cont. 65. Parts are more difficultand more $$$ for the Lyc too. As I recall the Lyc. head has both cyls. castin place so if you have a problem w/ one, you have to replace the whole assy.Mike C. Smart move choosing Continental Danny, A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and ithad no guts. I haveheard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was morelikeit.Danny- What Tom cites above here is what I've found too. Thereisa big difference between a Lyc 65 and Cont. 65. Partsare more difficultand more $$$ for the Lyc too. As I recall the Lyc. head has bothcyls. castin place so if you have a problem w/ one, you have to replace the wholeassy.Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: dannymac
I'm new to the list, and I don't even have a set of plans yet, but I doknow that Continentals - A65 to 0-200 are used here, and that the C90appears to be the preferred engine. I believe people are also using Subarusand Air Cams. You see, we don't have a lot of Model A Fords over here, andI think they would be a little underpowered for our green and crowded land.I'm thinking about a Subaru EA81, as they are a fair bit cheaper then thealternatives.Leo in England>....I've made a>preliminary decision to power my plane with a Continental 65-100.>This is my first plane and I don't look forward to building a motor.>I'll save that for the next one maybe. Some of the mechs have told me>that Lycomings may be a little easier to work on......some disagree. I'm>curious why I havent heard of any of you using them.________________________________________________________________________________
I'm new to the list, and I don't even have a set of plans yet, but I doknow that Continentals - A65 to 0-200 are used here, and that the C90appears to be the preferred engine. I believe people are also using Subarusand Air Cams. You see, we don't have a lot of Model A Fords over here, andI think they would be a little underpowered for our green and crowded land.I'm thinking about a Subaru EA81, as they are a fair bit cheaper then thealternatives.Leo in England>....I've made a>preliminary decision to power my plane with a Continental 65-100.>This is my first plane and I don't look forward to building a motor.>I'll save that for the next one maybe. Some of the mechs have told me>that Lycomings may be a little easier to work on......some disagree. I'm>curious why I havent heard of any of you using them.________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: dannymac
Smart move choosing Continental Danny, A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and it had no guts. I haveheard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was more likeit. Peter Mc Hugh has an 0200 Pietenpol and thinks that is fine. I'vealso seen 85's mounted on Piets. I'm using a 65 Continental which ismore than adequate. They are quite popular and there should be lots ofthem around from all the old cubs, t-crafts and airknockers. Mine camefrom a Champ the owner was upgrading to an 85.Tom__________________________________________________________________________________________
Smart move choosing Continental Danny, A friend had a Lycoming 65 powered J2 and it had no guts. I haveheard the Lycs were optimistically rated at 65 hp but 45 was more likeit. Peter Mc Hugh has an 0200 Pietenpol and thinks that is fine. I'vealso seen 85's mounted on Piets. I'm using a 65 Continental which ismore than adequate. They are quite popular and there should be lots ofthem around from all the old cubs, t-crafts and airknockers. Mine camefrom a Champ the owner was upgrading to an 85.Tom__________________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: Richard DeCosta
Danny...Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably overhaul it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently overhauled engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat agree with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me right now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C" engines is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to come up with: A-65-8 170 pounds dry A-75-8 170 pounds C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case) C-85-8 178 pounds C-90-8 184 pounds O-200A 190 poundsAll of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or starters. Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft, requiring an adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for pull vs. key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model (also available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A" engine be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uh huh. More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel (I get a little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your mind is you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle ________________________________________________________________________________
Danny...Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably overhaul it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently overhauled engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat agree with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me right now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C" engines is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to come up with: A-65-8 170 pounds dry A-75-8 170 pounds C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case) C-85-8 178 pounds C-90-8 184 pounds O-200A 190 poundsAll of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or starters. Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft, requiring an adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for pull vs. key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model (also available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A" engine be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uh huh. More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel (I get a little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your mind is you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: "Lightsey, Mark - TP2MAL"
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but maybe someone could answer me aquick question about the 'A' engine installation: I am under theimpression (due to lack of knowledge?) that planes with an 'A' enginedo not have an electrical system. Is this true? If so, how does one doabout adding one (I will very likely need a transponder and radio,since I am within the Portland Class C airspace, or if I hangar itelsewhere, will need to fly into 'C' airspace quite often).Richard--- Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> Danny...> Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably> overhaul > it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently> overhauled > engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat> agree > with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO > expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me> right > now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C"> engines > is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to> come up > with:> > A-65-8 170 pounds dry> > A-75-8 170 pounds> > C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)> > C-85-8 178 pounds> > C-90-8 184 pounds> > O-200A 190 pounds> > All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or> starters. > Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft,> requiring an > adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and > generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for> pull vs. > key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model> (also > available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A"> engine > be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less > dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uh> huh. > More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!> > The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel> (I get a > little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)> > No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your> mind is > you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.> > Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle> > ===My homepage: http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder....Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.-Psalm 55:6---------------------------------------------------------Visit www.AirCamper.org - A Low 'n Slow Online Community!---------------------------------------------------------____Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com________________________________________________________________________________
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but maybe someone could answer me aquick question about the 'A' engine installation: I am under theimpression (due to lack of knowledge?) that planes with an 'A' enginedo not have an electrical system. Is this true? If so, how does one doabout adding one (I will very likely need a transponder and radio,since I am within the Portland Class C airspace, or if I hangar itelsewhere, will need to fly into 'C' airspace quite often).Richard--- Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> Danny...> Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably> overhaul > it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently> overhauled > engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat> agree > with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO > expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me> right > now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C"> engines > is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to> come up > with:> > A-65-8 170 pounds dry> > A-75-8 170 pounds> > C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)> > C-85-8 178 pounds> > C-90-8 184 pounds> > O-200A 190 pounds> > All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or> starters. > Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft,> requiring an > adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and > generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for> pull vs. > key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model> (also > available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A"> engine > be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less > dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uh> huh. > More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!> > The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel> (I get a > little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)> > No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your> mind is > you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.> > Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle> > ===My homepage: http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder....Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest.-Psalm 55:6---------------------------------------------------------Visit www.AirCamper.org - A Low 'n Slow Online Community!---------------------------------------------------------____Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com________________________________________________________________________________
> Re: Power
Original Posted By: Ed0248(at)aol.com
This reminded me,The regs state that if you have no electrical system then you don't have tohave a transponder to enter the Mode C veil. I found that out trying tonegotiate the Mode c and Class B airspace at SLCSteve EldredgeProvo UTIT ServicesBrigham Young University> -----Original Message-----> Richard DeCosta> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:35 AM> To: Pietenpol Discussion> Subject: Re: Power>>> Not to sidetrack the discussion, but maybe someone could answer me a> quick question about the 'A' engine installation: I am under the> impression (due to lack of knowledge?) that planes with an 'A' engine> do not have an electrical system. Is this true? If so, how does one do> about adding one (I will very likely need a transponder and radio,> since I am within the Portland Class C airspace, or if I hangar it> elsewhere, will need to fly into 'C' airspace quite often).>> Richard>>> --- Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> > Danny...> > Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably> > overhaul> > it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently> > overhauled> > engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat> > agree> > with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available> and not TOO> > expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me> > right> > now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C"> > engines> > is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to> > come up> > with:> >> > A-65-8 170 pounds dry> >> > A-75-8 170 pounds> >> > C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)> >> > C-85-8 178 pounds> >> > C-90-8 184 pounds> >> > O-200A 190 pounds> >> > All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or> > starters.> > Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft,> > requiring an> > adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and> > generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for> > pull vs.> > key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel> injected model> > (also> > available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A"> > engine> > be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will> it be less> > dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less> power? Uh> > huh.> > More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!> >> > The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel> > (I get a> > little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)> >> > No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your> > mind is> > you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy> your Piet.> >> > Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing> it) Woerle> >> >>> ===> My homepage: http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder> ....Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly> away, and be at rest. -Psalm 55:6> ---------------------------------------------------------> Visit www.AirCamper.org - A Low 'n Slow Online Community!> ---------------------------------------------------------> ____> Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com>________________________________________________________________________________
This reminded me,The regs state that if you have no electrical system then you don't have tohave a transponder to enter the Mode C veil. I found that out trying tonegotiate the Mode c and Class B airspace at SLCSteve EldredgeProvo UTIT ServicesBrigham Young University> -----Original Message-----> Richard DeCosta> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:35 AM> To: Pietenpol Discussion> Subject: Re: Power>>> Not to sidetrack the discussion, but maybe someone could answer me a> quick question about the 'A' engine installation: I am under the> impression (due to lack of knowledge?) that planes with an 'A' engine> do not have an electrical system. Is this true? If so, how does one do> about adding one (I will very likely need a transponder and radio,> since I am within the Portland Class C airspace, or if I hangar it> elsewhere, will need to fly into 'C' airspace quite often).>> Richard>>> --- Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> > Danny...> > Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably> > overhaul> > it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently> > overhauled> > engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat> > agree> > with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available> and not TOO> > expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me> > right> > now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C"> > engines> > is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to> > come up> > with:> >> > A-65-8 170 pounds dry> >> > A-75-8 170 pounds> >> > C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)> >> > C-85-8 178 pounds> >> > C-90-8 184 pounds> >> > O-200A 190 pounds> >> > All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or> > starters.> > Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft,> > requiring an> > adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and> > generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for> > pull vs.> > key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel> injected model> > (also> > available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A"> > engine> > be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will> it be less> > dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less> power? Uh> > huh.> > More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!> >> > The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel> > (I get a> > little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)> >> > No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your> > mind is> > you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy> your Piet.> >> > Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing> it) Woerle> >> >>> ===> My homepage: http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder> ....Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly> away, and be at rest. -Psalm 55:6> ---------------------------------------------------------> Visit www.AirCamper.org - A Low 'n Slow Online Community!> ---------------------------------------------------------> ____> Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com>________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
Danny Mac:After I finished up my last post, my tired mind got to wandering...seems I recalled putting a larger engine in a Cub. Got to looking through my old records, found where I did, indeed, replace a C-75 with a C-85. No engine mount change, so the mount is the same. I can't swear to the O-200, but I think it and the C-90 share the same bolt pattern, and it is slightly larger (wider) than the C-75/85.Hope this helps.Ed Woerle________________________________________________________________________________
Danny Mac:After I finished up my last post, my tired mind got to wandering...seems I recalled putting a larger engine in a Cub. Got to looking through my old records, found where I did, indeed, replace a C-75 with a C-85. No engine mount change, so the mount is the same. I can't swear to the O-200, but I think it and the C-90 share the same bolt pattern, and it is slightly larger (wider) than the C-75/85.Hope this helps.Ed Woerle________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: Ken Beanlands
After a lot of careful consideration, I am planning to sell my C-85-12F"project engine". The engine is disassembled at the engine shopand has asmany bad parts as good. Here's what's included:Crankshaft: Magnafluxed and dimensions checked. Currently at 0.010"/0.010" under and needs to go to 0.020" under on both. Case: OKRear accessory case: Two included, one is OK, the other is shot in the oilpumpGears: mag, cam and oil pump gears are poor.Cylinders: 8 in total. 4 are completely shot, the other 4 have some cracksbut are in much beter shape.Rods: Servicable. A second set of servicable 0-200 rods are includedMags: NoneGenerator: Servicable with gearStarter: Pull type with gearCarb: Stromberg, not O/H'dCam: Good but needs re-grindLots of new seals, gaskets, intake tubes, clamps, etc. The O/H kit for itwas purchased. Manuals are also included.I'd like to get $3500 plus shipping for the lot, but I'm open to offers. Cost to O/H with factory new jugs was estimated at around $6000 USD. Ifyou used the -8 rear case and gears, the cost could be significantlyreduced. Oh yeah, I'll be using a PZL/Franklin engine on the Christavia. The extra35 ponies at only a little more seams reasonable.ThanksKenOn Tue, 18 May 1999 Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> Danny...> Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably overhaul> it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently overhauled> engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat agree > with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO > expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me right > now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C" engines > is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to come up > with:> > A-65-8 170 pounds dry> > A-75-8 170 pounds> > C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)> > C-85-8 178 pounds> > C-90-8 184 pounds> > O-200A 190 pounds> > All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or starters. > Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft, requiring an > adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and > generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for pull vs. > key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model (also > available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A" engine > be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less > dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uh huh. > More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!> > The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel (I get a> little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)> > No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your mind is> you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.> > Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle > ________________________________________________________________________________
After a lot of careful consideration, I am planning to sell my C-85-12F"project engine". The engine is disassembled at the engine shopand has asmany bad parts as good. Here's what's included:Crankshaft: Magnafluxed and dimensions checked. Currently at 0.010"/0.010" under and needs to go to 0.020" under on both. Case: OKRear accessory case: Two included, one is OK, the other is shot in the oilpumpGears: mag, cam and oil pump gears are poor.Cylinders: 8 in total. 4 are completely shot, the other 4 have some cracksbut are in much beter shape.Rods: Servicable. A second set of servicable 0-200 rods are includedMags: NoneGenerator: Servicable with gearStarter: Pull type with gearCarb: Stromberg, not O/H'dCam: Good but needs re-grindLots of new seals, gaskets, intake tubes, clamps, etc. The O/H kit for itwas purchased. Manuals are also included.I'd like to get $3500 plus shipping for the lot, but I'm open to offers. Cost to O/H with factory new jugs was estimated at around $6000 USD. Ifyou used the -8 rear case and gears, the cost could be significantlyreduced. Oh yeah, I'll be using a PZL/Franklin engine on the Christavia. The extra35 ponies at only a little more seams reasonable.ThanksKenOn Tue, 18 May 1999 Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> Danny...> Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probably overhaul> it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recently overhauled> engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat agree > with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO > expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me right > now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C" engines > is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to come up > with:> > A-65-8 170 pounds dry> > A-75-8 170 pounds> > C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)> > C-85-8 178 pounds> > C-90-8 184 pounds> > O-200A 190 pounds> > All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or starters. > Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft, requiring an > adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and > generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for pull vs. > key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model (also > available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A" engine > be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less > dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uh huh. > More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!> > The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel (I get a> little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)> > No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up your mind is> you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.> > Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle > ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: robert hensarling
Nope, the A-65, A-75, A-80, C-75, C-85, C-90 and 0-200 all have the samemount bolt pattern. THe only thing to watch is the length of the mount. The electric equipped models require a little more length to accomadatethe starter and generator. As long as you've left enough room you shouldbe fine. Even if you havent left the room, you could always try the B&Cstarter/altenator as they are much smaller than the original.KenOn Tue, 18 May 1999 Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> Danny Mac:> > After I finished up my last post, my tired mind got to wandering...seems I > recalled putting a larger engine in a Cub. Got to looking through my old > records, found where I did, indeed, replace a C-75 with a C-85. No engine > mount change, so the mount is the same. I can't swear to the O-200, but I > think it and the C-90 share the same bolt pattern, and it is slightly larger> (wider) than the C-75/85.> > Hope this helps.> > Ed Woerle> ________________________________________________________________________________
Nope, the A-65, A-75, A-80, C-75, C-85, C-90 and 0-200 all have the samemount bolt pattern. THe only thing to watch is the length of the mount. The electric equipped models require a little more length to accomadatethe starter and generator. As long as you've left enough room you shouldbe fine. Even if you havent left the room, you could always try the B&Cstarter/altenator as they are much smaller than the original.KenOn Tue, 18 May 1999 Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:> Danny Mac:> > After I finished up my last post, my tired mind got to wandering...seems I > recalled putting a larger engine in a Cub. Got to looking through my old > records, found where I did, indeed, replace a C-75 with a C-85. No engine > mount change, so the mount is the same. I can't swear to the O-200, but I > think it and the C-90 share the same bolt pattern, and it is slightly larger> (wider) than the C-75/85.> > Hope this helps.> > Ed Woerle> ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Power
Original Posted By: steve(at)byu.edu
I am interested in a cylinder. How much would you be asking for one of theserviceable ones. jas>After a lot of careful consideration, I am planning to sell my C-85-12F>"project engine". The engine is disassembled at the engine shopand has as>many bad parts as good. Here's what's included:>>Crankshaft: Magnafluxed and dimensions checked. Currently at 0.010"/0.010" >under and needs to go to 0.020" under on both. >>Case: OK>>Rear accessory case: Two included, one is OK, the other is shot in the oil>pump>>Gears: mag, cam and oil pump gears are poor.>>Cylinders: 8 in total. 4 are completely shot, the other 4 have some cracks>but are in much beter shape.>>Rods: Servicable. A second set of servicable 0-200 rods are included>>Mags: None>>Generator: Servicable with gear>>Starter: Pull type with gear>>Carb: Stromberg, not O/H'd>>Cam: Good but needs re-grind>>Lots of new seals, gaskets, intake tubes, clamps, etc. The O/H kit for it>was purchased. Manuals are also included.>>I'd like to get $3500 plus shipping for the lot, but I'm open to offers. >Cost to O/H with factory new jugs was estimated at around $6000 USD. If>you used the -8 rear case and gears, the cost could be significantly>reduced. >>Oh yeah, I'll be using a PZL/Franklin engine on the Christavia. The extra>35 ponies at only a little more seams reasonable.>>Thanks>Ken>>On Tue, 18 May 1999 Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:>>> Danny...>> Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probablyoverhaul >> it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recentlyoverhauled >> engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat agree >> with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO >> expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me right >> now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C"engines >> is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to comeup >> with:>> >> A-65-8 170 pounds dry>> >> A-75-8 170 pounds>> >> C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)>> >> C-85-8 178 pounds>> >> C-90-8 184 pounds>> >> O-200A 190 pounds>> >> All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or starters. >> Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft, requiring an >> adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and >> generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for pullvs. >> key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model(also >> available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A"engine >> be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less >> dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uhhuh. >> More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!>> >> The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel (Iget a >> little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)>> >> No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up yourmind is >> you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.>> >> Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle >> >>________________________________________________________________________________
I am interested in a cylinder. How much would you be asking for one of theserviceable ones. jas>After a lot of careful consideration, I am planning to sell my C-85-12F>"project engine". The engine is disassembled at the engine shopand has as>many bad parts as good. Here's what's included:>>Crankshaft: Magnafluxed and dimensions checked. Currently at 0.010"/0.010" >under and needs to go to 0.020" under on both. >>Case: OK>>Rear accessory case: Two included, one is OK, the other is shot in the oil>pump>>Gears: mag, cam and oil pump gears are poor.>>Cylinders: 8 in total. 4 are completely shot, the other 4 have some cracks>but are in much beter shape.>>Rods: Servicable. A second set of servicable 0-200 rods are included>>Mags: None>>Generator: Servicable with gear>>Starter: Pull type with gear>>Carb: Stromberg, not O/H'd>>Cam: Good but needs re-grind>>Lots of new seals, gaskets, intake tubes, clamps, etc. The O/H kit for it>was purchased. Manuals are also included.>>I'd like to get $3500 plus shipping for the lot, but I'm open to offers. >Cost to O/H with factory new jugs was estimated at around $6000 USD. If>you used the -8 rear case and gears, the cost could be significantly>reduced. >>Oh yeah, I'll be using a PZL/Franklin engine on the Christavia. The extra>35 ponies at only a little more seams reasonable.>>Thanks>Ken>>On Tue, 18 May 1999 Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:>>> Danny...>> Just a thought: no matter which engine you use, you should probablyoverhaul >> it before flight, unless you can get a terrific deal on a recentlyoverhauled >> engine (and I mean both operating hours AND calendar!). I somewhat agree >> with the Continental over Lycoming. Parts are available and not TOO >> expensive. Somehow my overhaul manuals for these engines escape me right >> now, but I would almost bet money that the mount for any of the "C"engines >> is identical. As for weight differences, here's what I was able to comeup >> with:>> >> A-65-8 170 pounds dry>> >> A-75-8 170 pounds>> >> C-75-8 177 pounds (this is a no accessories case)>> >> C-85-8 178 pounds>> >> C-90-8 184 pounds>> >> O-200A 190 pounds>> >> All of the -8 engines are not set up for electrical systems or starters. >> Some may have flange cranks, but others have a tapered shaft, requiring an >> adapter. The O-200 comes in basically one flavor...starter and >> generaror/alternator. Main differences in the dash numbers is for pullvs. >> key starter, alternator vs. generator, and even a fuel injected model(also >> available in the C-85 and C-90). The choice is yours. Will the "A"engine >> be less expensive to obtain/overhaul? UNDOUBTEDLY. Will it be less >> dependable? Questionable, with proper care of both. Less power? Uhhuh. >> More fun? YOU BETCHA!!!>> >> The little Continentals are fairly simple to overhaul, and sip fuel (Iget a >> little less than 5 gph on my '66 Cessna 150)>> >> No matter which way you go, the only person that should make up yourmind is >> you. Weigh all the factors, make your decision, and enjoy your Piet.>> >> Ed (working on airplanes too darned long to be still doing it) Woerle >> >>________________________________________________________________________________