Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BC12D to O-200?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I needed the baggage area to function for my dog hence the choice for a long mount. The C-85 Stroker (C-90 eq) was worth every dime, and now Terry has more DER approvals for C-90 and O200. The secret is allowing whatever engine is installed to move air efficiently via a long prop. I have a Field Approved (also Sensenich app) M76AK-2-40. For the O-200 the F-19 had a 1B90 74" McCauley. Today I'd use one of these> https://www.sensenich.com/shop/aircr...tol-propeller/. Good luck with your project. I hope the OP finds a F-19.

    Gary
    N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by PA1195 View Post
      I needed the baggage area to function for my dog hence the choice for a long mount. The C-85 Stroker (C-90 eq) was worth every dime, and now Terry has more DER approvals for C-90 and O200. The secret is allowing whatever engine is installed to move air efficiently via a long prop. I have a Field Approved (also Sensenich app) M76AK-2-40. For the O-200 the F-19 had a 1B90 74" McCauley. Today I'd use one of these> https://www.sensenich.com/shop/aircr...tol-propeller/. Good luck with your project. I hope the OP finds a F-19.

      Gary
      Thank you Gary. I have a 1B90 McCauley Clip Tip 74 /47 which for the 0200 I am thinking to re pitch to a 42. Probably should try it as is first. Thinking it is too much pitch.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jim Herpst View Post

        Thank you Gary. I have a 1B90 McCauley Clip Tip 74 /47 which for the 0200 I am thinking to re pitch to a 42. Probably should try it as is first. Thinking it is too much pitch.
        The F-19 TCDS 1A9 lists that prop driven by an O-200 at 74/43. Later in F-19 production they (the Ferris owners) were required for some odd reason to meet 14 CFR part 36 noise limitations. They issued restrictions to max normal op power 2500 rpm with that prop, but I don't see an associated pitch change just an easy to achieve rpm limit.

        Personally I'd want to see a minumum static rpm of 2400 on a Standard day or the corrected value for density altitude, and then rated rpm of 2750 0 to +50 in cruise for best takeoff. More pitch and fewer rpms WFO for all around cruise for a fly to a burger operations.

        On non-conventional gear like skis or especially floats power is King. The added drag limits cruise and ups fuel consumption anyway. So if you can't take off comfortably why then try to go fast? Pitch the propeller accordingly for the seasonal configuration.

        Gary
        Last edited by PA1195; 01-01-2023, 23:37.
        N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Weserb View Post
          Looking for a TCraft to do float instruction in, but hard to find F19s these days. Can you upgrade a BC12D to the 0-200 reasonably? Many thanks...
          Wes Erb
          Big Lake, AK
          Wes there is a F-19 sitting at Northland Aviation in Fairbanks w/o an engine. I don't know the owner or if it's down for overhaul or for sale. There was one here that moved to Healy a few years back, so maybe that's it?

          Gary
          N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

          Comment


          • #20
            Thank you all, Gents, really appreciate your insights. Sounds like these are rare finds, and likely outside the financial envelope to build one up from scratch. I’ll keep my ear to the ground though. I have found a few reasonably priced BC12D-85s in the lower 48 that I think would work well for wheels and ski instruction. I’m a little unsure if they would work well with two people and fuel on 1320s, but I do have 4000’ of lake to work with at home (AK48) so maybe. Thanks for the tip to call George, Gary, I’ll do that!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Weserb View Post
              Thank you all, Gents, really appreciate your insights. Sounds like these are rare finds, and likely outside the financial envelope to build one up from scratch. I'll keep my ear to the ground though. I have found a few reasonably priced BC12D-85s in the lower 48 that I think would work well for wheels and ski instruction. I'm a little unsure if they would work well with two people and fuel on 1320s, but I do have 400o' of lake to work with at home (AK48) so maybe. Thanks for the tip to call George, Gary, I'll do that!
              Steve at Airframe Alterations 907-474-8832 or Mark or Nathan at Chena Marina Air Service 907-479-8408 might know where George is or about a Taylorcraft for sale. Mine is at Lot 188 International Float Pond. Stop by anytime I'm around for a visit.

              I'd also consider a J-3/PA-11 as a trainer. Brown's Seaplane Base has a reputation with them.

              Gary
              N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

              Comment


              • #22
                Besta that O200 I believe is a C85 strocker

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Miguel View Post
                  Besta that O200 I believe is a C85 strocker
                  Nope.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Jim,
                    I have an 0200 on my clip wing tcraft with 7443. It will turn 2700 at cruise.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Thinking a 42 pitch to account for a longer wing. The 0200 does like to be tuned up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I ran 3400 on my cassutt. The racing guys turn 42-4300

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Wow. The 0200 is truly a great engine. I know the 85/90 Stories about more torque, C85/90 cam provides more hp at a lower rpm etc. In real life the 0200 is a great fit on the Taylorcraft

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            C-90 vs O-200 discussion> https://www.supercub.org/forum/showt...-torque-curves

                            Gary
                            N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PA1195 View Post
                              Yes have read that in that site many times. It is indeed beating a dead horse.!

                              Reading through all the BS the c90 and 0200 are both good choices. The 0200 will continue to develope HP past 2600 RPM where as the 90 will flatten out which makes sence.

                              Again the 0200 likes RPM. I favor i


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Unlike some other manufacturers (Piper, Cessna, Champion, Aircoupe, Luscombe, etc) I've wondered why Taylorcraft never installed the C-90? It was offered post-WWII but cost and availability may have driven the decision. Later, the O-200 was supported by Cessna's 150. For floatplane ops fitting a propeller capable of transferring torque is a challenge for both engines. I owned a Taylorcraft in 1974-5 with a fresh C-85. It had an unapproved Mac CF 75-35 propeller designed for an O-200. The performance was ok but not remarkable on floats and skis. Now I have another Taylorcraft with a C-85 Stroker and approved Sen 76AK-2-40. The performance is remarkable on floats and skis where overcoming drag early in the takeoff is critical. Cruise is secondary. I think an O-200 could be made to work well, but it would take an approval for the right propeller.

                                Gary
                                N36007 1941 BF12-65 STC'd as BC12D-4-85

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X