F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

[Robert Lees]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

Just a comment regarding the Harer STC & long mount:

If you go for the "equivalent of the Model 19" and 1500# gross weight & extended baggage, then you MUST use the long mount to get the c.g. forward.

Using a short mount, filling that big baggage compartment WILL put you out of the rearmost cg limit.

[VictorBravo]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

I got a field approval on a 0-200 with a short mount on a 1940 model a few years back and it worked real good. I then put a starter and B&C alt. on later, the guy really liked it. The engine had slick mags so you could pull them without moving the engine forward.

There was a 1940 Taylorcraft with an O-200 on Barnstormers once. The guy told me the local FAA would not certify it for the long mount O-200 unless he removed the pre-war trim system and put on the later tail surfaces with the conventional trim tab. He said the FAA was unhappy because you would not be able to trim the plane with that much noseweight using the flippers.

I don't remember all the details, but if anyone is thinking about an O-200/long mount/high gross upgrade on a pre-war airplane, you might think to research tis potential issue.

Bill

[jgerard]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

My F19 with out an electrical/vacuum system is 890lbs and with me and a full nose tank (max fwd CG) I am only 1" from the FWD CG limit. It makes it fly kinda nose heavy on approach regardless of trim setting.

[tim]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

well my tcraft is post war 48 and im using an 85 12 f and stc to an o200 and im also doing the model 19 stc to im also thinking about adding heel brakes to the right side to and i thinking about putting a tbi on my 85 to and make an stc to put a tbi sys on the so u would not have to go back with a carb lol like most texans always looking for more giddy up

[Pearson]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

I thought the 0-200 had a different kind of mount that wouldn't mate up to the original Taylorcraft mount. Did you make some kind of adapter?

[Ragwing nut]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

I thought the 0-200 had a different kind of mount that wouldn't mate up to the original Taylorcraft mount. Did you make some kind of adapter?

It does have a different mount and rubbers, but it dimensioanlly bolts up to the same mount.

Mike

[Ragwing nut]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

The '41 standard I am working on now, I changed the trim system over to a Deluxe setup which is the same as a BC-12D in the fuselage. If anybody is wanting to use post war tail feathers to convert, you will also have to change the vertical and rudder or none of the factory tail wires will work.

Mike

[wlas]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

The 0-0200 engine also is about 1 inch forward of the C-85, because of the lord mounts, so using the short mount you have to extend the cowl, I've had people tell me they didn't extend the cowl. The engine baffle will rub on the nose bowl and wear a hole in the corner.

[FlyingGourmet]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

IF you have an oil cooler installed on your O-200, and IF this oil cooler has proper airflow to and from the cooler, and IF your O-200 does not have the lower crankcase baffle... then you can cover the square hole under the prop.

If you leave the hole open and there is no lower crankcase baffle, then the airflow into this hole will OPPOSE the proper cooling air flow through the cylinders and you could damage your engine.

If you close off the hole and don't have a "Regular" oil cooler... you WILL damage your engine.

Gotta figure out what method of oil cooling your particular F-19 has and then make the cowlings work with it. Some O-200's do not have an oil cooler (Cessna 150) and some do.

Regaurding the "lower crankcase baffle," does anyone have a picture of this? I'm curious if I have the proper set-up.

[FlyingGourmet]

Re: F19 cowl vs. BC-12D cowl

Specifically, a picture of the proper baffleing for an 0-200 on a long mount, without a oil cooler, and having an opening under the prop, would be appreciated.