Pietenpol-List: I wish it could fly!

[matronics]

Original Posted By: "Piet2112"
Michael,I found this, but haven't been able to find the actual STC if it exists. I waslucky enough to buy a C85-8 so no mods required.Curt MerdanFlower Mound, TXhttp://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm#C ... 5-12C-85-8 vs. C-85-12I have a Air knocker with a C-85-8. I believe I need to convert this to a -12 configurationto mount a starter. What parts are involved other than changing outthe accessory case using one from a C-85-12,C-90.or a 0-200?The C-85-8 and C85-12 engines are significantly different. The crankcase, accessorycase, accessory gears, and magnetos are different, among other details.The hole spacing and pattern on the -8 accessory case is different than the -12case, so the -12 accessory case does not bolt right up to the -8 crankcase.I am not aware of any approvals to convert from a -8 configuration to -12. The good news is that your engine is quite desirable, and the C85-12 is not aspopular. The -8 is so desirable that there is an STC to convert -12 enginesto -8 status (but not the other direction). You would be money ahead to sellyour -8 and buy a -12.Unfortunately, there is no easy way to install a starter on the -8 series engine.I have looked at several methods, but the expense and complexity of the conversionis simply too high.I'm converting my Champ to a C-85-12 (but no electrics) and I'm using the LasherSTC because it provides the least amount of restrictions for engine choice.The Lasher STC works for the C-85 series of engines, but not for the O-200. You will need some factory drawings and an entirely new cowling to legally installthe O-200.Sorry I don't have a better answer, but this is the straight story.HarryFollow-UpYou are suggesting to me that the -8 engine is a better engine than the -12. DidI understand this correctly?I guess the -8 engine could be lighter, therefore has a better hp to weight ratio.The -8 is preferred because it is lighter than the -12 and less complicated. Internally,the two engines are similar, but the electrical accessories, wiringand battery adds a lot of weight and reduces engine power output a bit becausethe mechanical drag of the accessories eat up a couple of horsepower. Also,within the Cub and Aeronca groups, there is a certain feeling that the -8 is better.Most of the guys who think the -8 is better really don't know why, itis really just what they have "heard". The -8 is also a more historically accurateengine for the more perfect restorations.However, it is all a point of view. If you want electrics, then the -12 is morevaluable. If your preference is simple and light, then the -8 is a better engine.Basically, they are both 85 hp engines, the -12 is about 5 lbs heavier,plus the added weight of the generator, starter, battery, battery box, wiring,etc which adds another 30-35 lbs or so the airframe.I split the difference by building a -12 minus electrics, which is an approvedinstallation. My engine weighs about 5 lbs more than a -8, but I do have theoption of installing electrics at a later time. I probably won't as I don't mindhand propping my engine. Maybe in 20 years I won't, but that is a way offyet.If you are not on the lists, join the Fearless Aeronca Aviator list and the NationalAeronca Association discussion. These two groups will have a ton of informationon the pros and cons of the -8 vs the -12 installation in terms of impacton aircraft performance.HarryRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: I wish it could fly!

[matronics]

Original Posted By: "K5YAC"
Gary, you should have donned a santa suit and sat on top of the truck with reins.The pic could have been titled "Go Rudolf,,,,GO"Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I wish it could fly!

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Piet2112
Hi Curt,Looking good!.....bet you made the official 'airplane noises'?? Mark StanleyJapan-----Original Message-----

[matronics]

Original Posted By: "Piet2112"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I wish it could fly!Curt, I have a picture of me doing the same thing when my fuselage looked like yours. It was quite a thrill to sit in the pilot's seat for the first time and make airplane noises. Just take the remainder of the build process a day at time, celebrate the completion of each component and one day you'll be flying your Piet to Brodhead. It will happen!Matt Paxton________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I wish it could fly!

[matronics]

Original Posted By: "aerocarjake"
Jack, It's a long fuselage built out of spruce, ash, aircraft grade birch plywood andT-88. It is weighing in right at 50 lbs without the plywood sides which weighabout 5 lbs each.Curt MerdanFlower Mound, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_ ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I wish it could fly!

[matronics]

Original Posted By: "K5YAC"
Thanks Curt...... My steel tube was 43 pounds when I first weighed it but I havebeen adding fittings, shoulder harness supports and other structure so we maybe pretty close. Terry tells me his is 47 with the basic gear parts and tailwheelbut his does not have the seats in it at this point..... Sure is hard tocompare apples to apples... --------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I wish it could fly!

[matronics]

Original Posted By: "tdudley(at)umn.edu"
I think everyone does it... it's mandatory.--------Mark ChouinardWings, Center Section and Empannage framed up - Working on FuselageRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/fuse ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: I wish it could fly!