Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

That is why you write a letter and ask for the regulation that they are denying you your reqested change....they will back down quick from that. Tim

I have, and got some things through, but should not have to...

[astjp2]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

That is why you write a letter and ask for the regulation that they are denying you your reqested change....they will back down quick from that. Tim

Here is where I have a big issue with FAA guidelines. 8900.1 is in house guideline POLICY NOT REGULATION. Regulation is what I have to abide by, policy isn't rule. I understand the inspectors need to have a guideline to follow so they know how to do their job correctly, but more than once I have had a MIDO and or FSDO inspector I could not do something because of policy, not because it any viiolated regulation. In fact on several occassions I proved the changes i wanted were well wiithin CFR regulations, but did not matter. It would piss me off to no end and they knew about it too.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

That is... 10% over the original horsepower of the airplane model. i.e... a BC12D originally 65 hp is eligible for a major alteration for up to 71.5 horsepower withoout an STC. Dano, if I am not mistaken, your 337 was approved quite a few years ago. Currently the FAA Order (8900.1) job aid requires an STC to go beyond 71.5 hp.

Here is where I have a big issue with FAA guidelines. 8900.1 is in house guideline POLICY NOT REGULATION. Regulation is what I have to abide by, policy isn't rule. I understand the inspectors need to have a guideline to follow so they know how to do their job correctly, but more than once I have had a MIDO and or FSDO inspector I could not do something because of policy, not because it any viiolated regulation. In fact on several occassions I proved the changes i wanted were well wiithin CFR regulations, but did not matter. It would piss me off to no end and they knew about it too.

[barnstmr]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

....FAA allows up to 10% hp increase without field approval or further STC.... Just have your mechanic fill out the 337 to that effect. I had provided a copy of mine in the tech docs section on this site.

That is... 10% over the original horsepower of the airplane model. i.e... a BC12D originally 65 hp is eligible for a major alteration for up to 71.5 horsepower withoout an STC. Dano, if I am not mistaken, your 337 was approved quite a few years ago. Currently the FAA Order (8900.1) job aid requires an STC to go beyond 71.5 hp.

[astjp2]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

A 337 is a form to document a field approval, a major alteration or a major repair. You have to do something to get it approved...by someone....

The C90 is the best...the C85 is harder to come by...the stroker is the way to go to solve crank availability issue (not cheap though). The O200 is so readily available It is also a good choice . Just pay Terry to write up the approval if it makes sense based on cost. Remember, you can buy the 85 hp STC from him and buy a C90 , fill out a 337 for the change....FAA allows up to 10% hp increase without field approval or further STC.... Just have your mechanic fill out the 337 to that effect. I had provided a copy of mine in the tech docs section on this site.

[tim]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

ya thats my problem now is getting an engine for the plane only thing that would not cost much is a running o200 out of my dads 150 its getting a o-320e2d in the next few years but i am looking to get the most hp in the cart will look for a c-90 thanks

but if i could a turbo prop cart would be wicked

[Dano"T"]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

The C90 is the best...the C85 is harder to come by...the stroker is the way to go to solve crank availability issue (not cheap though). The O200 is so readily available It is also a good choice . Just pay Terry to write up the approval if it makes sense based on cost. Remember, you can buy the 85 hp STC from him and buy a C90 , fill out a 337 for the change....FAA allows up to 10% hp increase without field approval or further STC.... Just have your mechanic fill out the 337 to that effect. I had provided a copy of mine in the tech docs section on this site.

[astjp2]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

Or a long flat prop like the Borer prop. Tim

Realistically you are limiting (de-rating) by limiting rpms to whatever equates to 85 hp...not many O-200's make full rpms anyway due to prop choice, etc.....it's not easy to get full 2750 rpms on takeoff out of an O200. Besides....I've flown an O200 powered ship and it feels not quite as snappy as my 85-8.... And even less than my C90-12f. Do the de-rate and you'll have your engine upgrade. An O200 needs a short prop to spin up full HP especially on Takeoff. Others may have different experience....just sharing mine for what it's worth.

[Jim Herpst]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

The 0-200 is a definite upgrade over a A-65 or the like. Dano "T" is correct about the 85 though. Torque flys airplanes and the 85 gives that in spades. The 90 is better IMOH but we got a man using both so" Your Mileage may vary".

Now in pricing an 85 one will see the value also !! Getting a wee bit scarce particulary with good 85 crankshaft. The stroker upgrade with the 0-200 crank solves that I suppose plus even more power...again with lower RPM than an 0-200!!

[Dano"T"]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

Realistically you are limiting (de-rating) by limiting rpms to whatever equates to 85 hp...not many O-200's make full rpms anyway due to prop choice, etc.....it's not easy to get full 2750 rpms on takeoff out of an O200. Besides....I've flown an O200 powered ship and it feels not quite as snappy as my 85-8.... And even less than my C90-12f. Do the de-rate and you'll have your engine upgrade. An O200 needs a short prop to spin up full HP especially on Takeoff. Others may have different experience....just sharing mine for what it's worth.

[tim]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

yes thanks terry but how long till we get full power from the o-200?

[barnstmr]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

Dennis,
You have 2 options for max wt. Within LSA.

1. Engine mods only, remain at 1200 max
2. Engine mod + wing mods= 1280 max

[N95334]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

Terry, this sound very exciting to put a Cont O-200 in my Taylorcraft. But would not like to increase the gross weight to keep it LSA. Is that possible?
Since your in TX and I am Florida how would the work?

[barnstmr]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

BY THE WAY - For those wishing to install an O-200 or C90, I can help. I have issued DER approvals for this on several Taylorcrafts as a piggy-back on top of the SA1-210 STC. To do this, we have to limit the RPM so as to de-rate the engine back to 85 horsepower. This has been satisfactory for many. Cost is the STC price $400 plus DER approval paperwork and a "deviation" spec. drawing for $250. The gross weight increase paperwork adds another $150. Total is $800 for all.

[barnstmr]

Re: Putting a Cont engine O-200 100HP in Taylorcraft

Also the inlet on the stromberg NA_S3 for a c90 and the inlet on the Marvel-Schebler for a 0200 are 1/4 NPT so what good does all the 3/8 fittings do up stream from the carburator do?

Without going into all the details, it DOES make more difference than you would think... it is a fluid dynamics (flow) issue. The "losses" in flow along the full length of a fluid line increase exponentially in proportion to a reduction in diameter. So when you open up the diameter of lines in the system... the efficiency of the flow through the system goes WAY UP. Think of the losses as restrictions. The one small restriction at the carburetor opening will indeed have some loss, but not nearly as much as if all of the lines and hoses were small.