1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

[AeroCapture]

Hello All,

In going through the paperwork I received with the purchase of one of my Taylorcraft fuselages, I found these copies of letters sent from the factory to the original owner of the aircraft. As I am getting ready to do exactly what was being discussed in the correspondence, I can only wish that I could pay the "rather expensive and not practical" 1950 prices...

- Lyle

[PA1195]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

Thanks Lyle for the paperwork. This should receive proper storage. I wonder how they determined the changes those many years ago?

Forrest Barber and others may know. It's a sad testament to a lack of Taylorcraft continuity for reasons I've never understood.

Gary

[Ragwing nut]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

letter was written by Gilberti, who held the original STC for converting to 85 hp. That STC is now owned by Terry Bowden. Some of those changes was incorporated in the postwar airplanes, others was not added until 48-49 when they built the BC12-D-4-85.

[LostnSpace]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

Glad my PMI didn't see the line # 7 about no 90 HP allowed, when he did the field approval for the 90 HP, gary Merry Christmas

[PA1195]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

Well that was then and now we have the C-85 Stroker mod. Makes a C-85 into a C-90 with the same displacement and most of the parts. Keeps the C-85 rpm limits at rated 2575. With a C-90 cam and lifter bodies it can add a little valve lift to breathe. Source the right propeller and it's a good setup. Just run the main tank at 3 gallons unusable at high AOA and full power climbs.

Gary

[N96337]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

I like it that he called "Lana" Kurtzer "madam".... hahha

[PA1195]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

I saw that and wondered too. It's to the attention of Lana but maybe his office folks did the corresponding back when. Took a year from the first letter to the second reply. Wonder what the major change to the lower cowl was?

Edit: The 135 pilot that parks next to me took his multi-sea from that service in a Widgeon. Later flew Geese and others for Weber in Ketchikan.

Gary

[N96337]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

I'd say the lip on the bottom and maybe the louvers on the side of the cowl?
John

[Ragwing nut]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

I'd say the lip on the bottom and maybe the louvers on the side of the cowl?
John

Louvers was already on the 65 cowl. I think its an extended lip on the bottom of the cowl to help create a low pressure area for better cooling. I will have to look but I think there is a lip you have to add when doing the gilberti/harer/bowden stc.

[PA1195]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

My DWG. G-156 Rev. A shows the rear cowl extensions required for the -4 longer mount and a lower cowl lip. Material for the lip is specified but the dimensions aren't. Mine is removable (on - summer/off - winter) and is 1 3/4" wide from cowl bottom to lip bottom. That removable lip option plus a seasonal cover over the front cooling air to lower sump opening comprise a cold weather adaptation.

Gary

[N96337]

Re: 1950 Factory correspondence on 65hp to 85hp upgrade.

Louvers was already on the 65 cowl. I think its an extended lip on the bottom of the cowl to help create a low pressure area for better cooling. I will have to look but I think there is a lip you have to add when doing the gilberti/harer/bowden stc.

I've got 2 factory cowls, only a few serial numbers apart from '46...one with and one without louvers....???? I think it's more like my friend that worked there says, they used whatever was handy to get it out the door?
John