0 200 installation in BC12D-85

[Curtis]

Is there an stc to use a cont 0 200 with the short engine mount in a BC12D-85? I do not wish to install electrics.

[Guest]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

Go to the faa site (www.faa.gov) search for stc to find the stc library then search stc's for Taylorcraft.

[tim]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

not that i know of but if u have the non electric c85 just do the stc for the o200 crank rods and pistons just as eazy

[VictorBravo]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

The STC mentioned in this forum quite often does not specifically mention the O-200.

Crispy Critter in this forum has or is about to have an approval for it on a 337 form, so you should definitely contact him.

But as someone pointed out there is an approved STC to put in the O-200 crankshaft in the C-85, effectively creating an O-200 substitute. This would allow you to POSSIBLY do it cheaper than switching engines.

I've been told that the rear case on an O-200 is an inch thicker than an 85, meaning you will have less magneto clearance. You'd probably have to use the small mags (Slick) and then it would still be tight.

[astjp2]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

The Accy case is the same for the C-85-12 through the O-200 except the C90-8, the big difference is the lord mount on the C90-14 and the O-200. I have an O-200-8 that I am trying to get legal on a short mount Prewar. Good luck. Tim

[fearofpavement]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

The non-electric O-200 on our BC-12D has a short mount with some welded on spacers at both the firewall and the engine to mount area. It has the Slick mags. Does really great for take off but doesn't cruise any faster than a stock T-craft. I suppose with a different prop it may cruise better.

[crispy critter]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

Curtis,
I DO have approval for the 0200 on a short mount and the engine is mounted. I am only a few days from the first test flight. As for mag clearance. I used the Slick 4333's and have about 3 inches... the wires don't push against the firewall and they don't have to be pulled real tight for clearance but with some of the bigger mags you might have a problem.I'll try to get some pics sometime this week.
If you or anyone else would like more info feel free to email or call me. I have been having trouble with PM in this forum(sometimes I can read them and sometimes I can't) so you should email me just to be sure.

[VictorBravo]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

Just an aside, regarding the O-200 and C-85 issue:

A friend of mine bought the STC to put in the O-200 crankshaft in an 85 case. He got all the way to the point of having the freshly assembled engine on the airplane and was timing the mags... when he found out that the connecting rod end caps were interfering with and gouging the camshaft!!!

It turns out that you have to radius some part of the rod end caps down another .030 or something to clear the camshaft. There was apparently no mention of this interference issue in the STC instructions! Neither the originator of the STC or the current owner of it seems to make mention of it anywhere, although it is supposedly a known problem.

It does not invalidate or reduce the value of having an O-200 crank in your engine, and it should not prevent anyone from buying the STC, but it definitely needs to be dealt with before you put the engine back together with an O-200 crank in it!

Spread the word...

[Ragwing nut]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

Just an aside, regarding the O-200 and C-85 issue:

A friend of mine bought the STC to put in the O-200 crankshaft in an 85 case. He got all the way to the point of having the freshly assembled engine on the airplane and was timing the mags... when he found out that the connecting rod end caps were interfering with and gouging the camshaft!!!

It turns out that you have to radius some part of the rod end caps down another .030 or something to clear the camshaft. There was apparently no mention of this interference issue in the STC instructions! Neither the originator of the STC or the current owner of it seems to make mention of it anywhere, although it is supposedly a known problem.

It does not invalidate or reduce the value of having an O-200 crank in your engine, and it should not prevent anyone from buying the STC, but it definitely needs to be dealt with before you put the engine back together with an O-200 crank in it!

Spread the word...

When you use the C-90/O-200 crank, you are suppose to use the C90/O-200 rods as well to fix that problem you friend has. Also suppose to use 530348 O-200 pistons as well.

Mike

Mike

[NY86]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

The O200 rods and pistons are required to accomodate tye longer stroke of the crank. The problem with the cam is due to the cast cam of the C85 being bigger in diameter between the lobes than the forged cam of the C90/O200. Usually if you fuss with the position of the rod bolts and nuts you can get around it without any major surgery.

While the engine is running is not the best time to find out about it...

Also, most C85 cases have to be machined in the nose seal area to accomodate the different oil slinger on the late crank.

V-B, which STC did your friend use?

[VictorBravo]

Re: 0 200 installation in BC12D-85

I BELIEVE it was the one that was originally Don's Dream Machines, now owned by someone else.