When installing an 0200 what modification might be better...modification to the orginal or modification of the Cessna150 s. One would immediately think the orginal cowling differences but asking advice from someone with experience..
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Baffling question
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by astjp2 View PostNeed to extend the side baffles back if using the taylorcraft sides...front baffle needs modified seal to clear nose bowl, trim the top to clear cowling...engine moves forward 5/8"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ragwing nut View Post
I used the mount adapters on the one I installed so the engine sat in the same place. Used original baffling, any baffling needs fitted to seal correctly.
Thanks!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert Lees View PostBaffles "belong" to the airframe, not the engine. An 0-200 fitted to an Ercoupe or a Cub or a Luscombe or a C150 will differ because of the cowling shape & airflow.
When I fitted a C-85 to my 1946 Taylorcraft, I had to tweak the baffles a wee bit.
Rob
Comment
-
I have a set on my Clip Wing. Bought them from Ebay. Work great. Cub guys had problems cracking engine mounts using 0200 lord mounts. Cessna 150 mount is a full ring not four legs sticking out. The adapters make the mount rigid to the case like the 65's.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Woody View PostI have a set on my Clip Wing. Bought them from Ebay. Work great. Cub guys had problems cracking engine mounts using 0200 lord mounts. Cessna 150 mount is a full ring not four legs sticking out. The adapters make the mount rigid to the case like the 65's.
Comment
Comment