Lust for POWER!

[flyguy]

Re: Lust for POWER!

That is exactly the procedure that I use with my engine when it is hot and it works 99% of the time.
Darryl

[DannyDot]

Re: Lust for POWER!

The problem with this engine isn't the first start, it's the next one after taxiing to the fuel pump, putting gas in, and then trying to start the engine again. It's terrible. The engine just floods, even with the fuel turned off.

I'm new to this airplane, so I hope after getting more time with it, perhaps I will have the same experience as you all. I'm still a little nervous about the hand starting. Don't want to get hurt, and don't want to lose all my flying buddies after they get sick of helping with a hand crank.

Sounds like it needs some work.

Thanks for the information.

Mike

Mine cranks while hot on the first pull. Throttle cracked and I do NOT turn it over before the first pull. The first pull is with the mags on.

[jCandlish]

Re: Lust for POWER!

(image of local aeronautical chart)

Oh.... let me re-adjust my recommendation a bit !

IMHO the vortex generators will still be a help and worth the effort. However, after seeing the chart I do think you also need one of those Don's Dream Machines C-85 / O-200 upgrades.

Given my improved understanding of the available options based upon this excellent thread, I'm gravitating towards a purpose built c-90/0-200 engine. Presently it appears that the best economy may be to purchase multiple engines and build the best possible high alt engine from those parts, and then resell the remainders. This will be a fall project, during the unflyable weather. That, and I've taken a substantial hit on struts (for nothing) this year.

Cheers
jCandlish
.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Lust for POWER!

(image of local aeronautical chart)

Oh.... let me re-adjust my recommendation a bit !

IMHO the vortex generators will still be a help and worth the effort. However, after seeing the chart I do think you also need one of those Don's Dream Machines C-85 / O-200 upgrades.

My understanding is that with the O-200 crankshaft in the C-85 case, with the correct pistons and rods, you will get about 97HP. I also was told there is one camshaft choice that will greatly increase the torque, and make more power to the propeller at a lower RPM. This saves gas as well as engine wear.

There definitely are several A-65 engines that have been upgraded to the larger crankshaft, and are making nearly 100 HP with no external changes to the engine. We have three or four airplanes here at my local airport with that modification. Perhaps something along those lines is an option, if your "regulatory environment" is unpleasant.

The best bolt-on choice from a mechanical point of view is probably the C-90, since it will go on the aircraft without requiring a new cowling or engine mount. However, as I have just recently lived through, there will be some minor changes you will have to make to the exhaust.

The 150HP conversion is likely problematic on more than one level. Your fuel burn will double from what you get now, meaning your range is now halved. You'll need a new engine mount, a new exhaust, a new cowling, new baffling, a battery mount in the tail to balance it... God knows what paperwork will be required in Europe for all that... and when you're all done your nice handling T-craft will handle like a freight truck. Yes it will leap over the Alps with a smile but you might sacrifice everything else to do it.

85-97 horsepower with the VG's should make the aircraft well capable of operating at 2500 to 3000 meter airfields. My 65HP pre-war aircraft flies in and out of a 1280 meter airfield (Tehachapi gliderport) with no problem solo, and with some care can do it with two on board.

[astjp2]

Re: Lust for POWER!

They were all done by FIELD APPROVALS, no STC here for the conversion. You can call Glen Alsworth in Port Alsworth Alaska and he might be able to help you get you an engine mount...Tim

[jCandlish]

Re: Lust for POWER!

Well you can always do an Alsworth conversion to a 150 lycoming....problem solved. Tim

I've searched and not found the 'Alsworth' conversion.

[astjp2]

Re: Lust for POWER!

Well you can always do an Alsworth conversion to a 150 lycoming....problem solved. Tim

[jCandlish]

Re: Lust for POWER!

Jcandlish, for whatever my bumble opinion is worth, I believe that your best possible modification for altitude, yielding both a little performance benefit and a larger safety margin, is the vortex generators. They're not particularly attractive, but you can't see them from inside the cockpit.

Hi Bill

I think vortex generators would be insufficent. Here is the chart around Sameden. To the northwest following the river valley Inn, is the village of Sent at 1800m, where my inlaws have a farm and there are landing possibilities, especially in winter.

more POWER please!

[VictorBravo]

Re: Lust for POWER!

I was told by an old timer that O-300's lack of fuel injection bosses yields about 4-5 HP in an O-200. He used to race Reno in F1 and that is one of the popular mods is to cut off and weld in a patch over where the fuel injection bosses used to be. You would have to get a field approval to install them, they were only approve for installation in 1 manual that I saw from the 1950's and continental has several revisions since that do not allow them to be used. You will also have to cut about 1/4" wedge from the end of the pipe for them to fit. Tim

The better way to do this is to simply weld the patch inside the normal 85 / O-200 elbow and grind it smooth. That way, the local FAA ramp-checker would have to be inside the !($*%^ engine to see it While you're at it, golf-ball the short side radius of the elbows with a Dremel tool, taper the intake runner tubes, turbulate the inboard third of the prop, etc. etc.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet a round of drinks that there ain't no 4-5 HP in those elbows, no way no how. If there was 1 or 2 horsepower, it would have been a lot, but this would have been at 4000+ RPM where there was some flow involved.

In IF-1, our organization's chief "engineer emeritus" calculated the approximate horsepower we all were getting, based on the engine rules and such. The vast majority of the horsepower over 100 was from the RPM increase only... because the HP/RPM curve dropped off rapidly his estimate was that at 4000 RPM we were still only making about 115-118HP.

Other minor modifications like screwing around with the cams (not much allowed), ram air intakes clocked to the prop blades, Total Seal auto racing piston rings, Dykes style rings that only created drag under compression, John's super hot magnetos, and on and on... were adding fractions of a horsepower here and there.

To the best knowledge of the best knowledged, there was nobody making an honest 130 or 135 horsepower. Plenty of people were talking about a lot of power, but it was nonsense.

If you happen to have your intake elbows off, and they happen to be welded up and smoothed out, then you're a little better off than before. But disassembling a flying airplane to get this little benefit is probably not a priority IMHO.

Jcandlish, for whatever my bumble opinion is worth, I believe that your best possible modification for altitude, yielding both a little performance benefit and a larger safety margin, is the vortex generators. They're not particularly attractive, but you can't see them from inside the cockpit.

[NY86]

Re: Lust for POWER!

John,
Have you measured the compression ratio of the C-85 pistons with a 0-200 ?

It was calculated. I could be wrong.

There is another thread on the REM37BY plugs. I just threw it in here as a joke... But, yeah, they stick into the combustion chamber a lot more. Along the same lines, if you have to relieve the pistons, maybe that accounts for the lower compression number.

[astjp2]

Re: Lust for POWER!

Tim:
Do the O300 intake elbows give a performance increase?

I was told by an old timer that O-300's lack of fuel injection bosses yields about 4-5 HP in an O-200. He used to race Reno in F1 and that is one of the popular mods is to cut off and weld in a patch over where the fuel injection bosses used to be. You would have to get a field approval to install them, they were only approve for installation in 1 manual that I saw from the 1950's and continental has several revisions since that do not allow them to be used. You will also have to cut about 1/4" wedge from the end of the pipe for them to fit. Tim

[gcgilpin]

Re: Lust for POWER!

... An O200 will sit about 1/2" farther forward. Don Swords has an STC'd bushing to convert it to the conical mounts that corrects this...

I didn't realize Don had an STC specifically for the conical insert bushing?

[gcgilpin]

Re: Lust for POWER!

Oh, yeah, don't mix C85 pistons, a C90 crank and REM37BY plugs...

Could you expand on this? Do you have first hand experience? How much longer are the electrodes on the REM37BY plugs than say regular cermamic or the REM40 plugs?

[gcgilpin]

Re: Lust for POWER!

... use the O-300 intake elbows and it looks like a 65 but perfroms like a 90. Tim

Tim:
Do the O300 intake elbows give a performance increase?

[wlas]

Re: Lust for POWER!

John,
Have you measured the compression ratio of the C-85 pistons with a 0-200 ? it wouldn't surprise me if it were 10:1, I know it sure props harder and likes avgas better than car gas.