Harer (Barber) STC update

[Larry Lyons]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

A humble suggestion: I like where this thread has gone and would love to see everything about the engine mods, hp delivered, case differences, etc., all put in to a new thread that could have a life of its own. Larry

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Bowers Fly Baby - Harry Fenton on Continental Engines

Modifying A-65 Engines to Accept O-200 cylinders
A list participant writes:
> I have a chance to pickup some decent o200 jugs and was wondering if a guy can bore the A65
> case and make the Cylinders and pistons work with the A65 crank. My research indicates that
> this should work with perhaps a custom piston pin bushing. I would balance the
> engine and operate at reasonable rpm's, say 2450 max 2200 cruise to keep torsion and vibration
> from twisting the smaller case. I would use standard pistons and CR. My purpose is to build a
> custom motor and utilize the engine I have to build a custom -8 configuration. I am an old
> hotrodder and Diesel mechanic by trade and would love to tackle this
[RJW Note - Harry has amended his answer since his original posting. I have changed the following based on his comments.]

1. Although I've never done it, the A-65 case could probably be bored to accept the O-200 jugs. The C-85/O-200 cylinders have a bigger bore than the A-65, the bolt pattern is the same. The cylinder holes in the A-65 case would have to be opened up to accept larger bore cylinders, but that could be done with little trouble.

2. Next, the C-85 crank and rods will drop right in and is the same throw as the A-65 crank. So with the C-85 jugs and C-85 crank, the A-65 could deliver basically C-85 performance.

3. The jury is still out on using O-200 lifters with the A-65 or C-85 cam, but I'm in the process of sorting this out.

4. However, before everyone runs out and starts hacking up their A-65, keep in mind that the C-85 case (until I'm proven wrong!) is a bit more robust. My best recommendation is that if one has a mixture of A-65 and C-85 parts lying around, then it would be possible to build an engine. However, I still wouldn't recommend purposely building a hybrid as there are plenty of C-85 or O-200 engines to be found that could accomplish the same end to the means in a more reliable manner.

5. As a point of interest, the Formula One air racers have used C-85 pistons in the O-200 for years for extra power. The C-85 piston pin bore is a bit lower in the piston, so with the longer O-200 crank throw the net result is a bit more compression which yields 15-20 more hp. Further to the Formula One mods, they are required to modify C-85-8 case with an extra case through stud and welded reinforcements to the case. The O-200 case is much beefier, has larger diameter through studs and more of them.

6. The best way to hop up the A-65 is to balance the internal engine parts and drop in high compression NFS pistons manufactured by Lycon Rebuilding. The pistons are expensive, but way less expensive and more reliable than extensive case mods. In terms of RPM, the A-65 turns a measly 2300 rpm, so spinning up to 2500-2700 will yield more hp with the high compression pistons.

7. Be aware, though, that the A-65 connecting rods are much less robust than the C-85 and O-200 connecting rods, so I would not run much past 2700 rpm if you want to maintain reliability. If you compare the A-65 and O-200 connecting rods you will see that the neck and crank end of the A-65 connecting rod is about 20% less beefy than the O-200. Any cylinder and compression mods will be limited by the strength of the connecting rod.

8. Having said that, I have an A-65 built which is hopped up and should produce around 100-105 hp. I beefed up the A-65 case by welding in some reinforcement plates around the cylinder base studs, welded a weak joint at the #3 bearing web, installed an extra through stud, re-indexed the cam to optimize the lift from 2300 rpm to provide more power at 2700 to 3000 rpm, ported and flowed the heads, installed 10.5:1 compression ratio pistons, align bored and dynamically balanced all of the reciprocating parts, and installed an Ellison throttle body.

I have not run this engine yet as the airplane it is destined for is still under construction, so I can't report if my work is best way to do things. If you simply drop in high compression pistons, balance the internals and run a couple hundred more rpm, you would probably achieve 90% of the same results and maintain an acceptable level of mechanical reliability.

August 2002

1. many years ago crop dusters flying cubs installed 85 cylinders on 65 cases for more power flying in the restricted category. Cases were bored and 85 parts installed.

2. It will not deliver identical performance without changing to the 85 camshaft as well. profile is different. Also you would need to change to an 85 spider. it has a larger bore than the 65. The lucombe 8c had a C-75-12 in it which was identical to the C-85-12 EXCEPT it had the smaller 65 spider on it. 10 hp loss just from the restricted spider

3. Cannot use the O-200 lifter bodies with a cast iron cam, wrong metalurgy. Also the cases will have to be machined to clear the enlarged lifter body at each web location.

4. C85 cases are lighter than A65 cases in that the webs are solid on a 65, an hollow on 85's. The 85/90/200 cases vary in casting thicknesses as well and also hollow

5. do not know formula 1 regs so i can't comment

6. two problems with turning up a 65. First is cam profile. It has a sharp lobe that when turned at higher rpms can cause valve float. bigger problem is the small exhaust valve stems. A80's were notorious for popping valve stems and they turned 2800 at takeoff. If I was ever to build a true a80 for someone, they would have to have the superior 65 cylinders that had the o200 heads on them

7. The 65 rods and 85 rods are the same, with one exception, piston oil squirt in the top of the rod cap. A75 alos has the oil squirt. Even the same casting. Early 90/200 rods are even the same cating as the 65 rods, but had the tops of the rod caps machined to clear the case and camshaft due to longer stroke. They did change the rod forging at a later date when they started making IO-360's. Later O-200's share the same rod, but the wrist pin bushings are different sizes.

8. Sounds like an engine with potential. I hope when you welded the cases they were done at temperature and then relieved in an oven after welding. if not, case will crack right where it was welded within a short time period, seen it happen. Watch for valve float if you used a 4546 cam. Many hotrod continental guys like the obsolete c90 cam. Makes gobs of torque.

[dmcneil]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Hey All,

Very interesting discussion on engines. A couple of minor points...

The lucombe 8c had a C-75-12 in it which was identical to the C-85-12 EXCEPT it had the smaller 65 spider on it. 10 hp loss just from the restricted spider

For the record, the Luscombe 8C had an A-75-8J (fuel injected) not the C-75. To convert a C-75 to a C-85 requires only a carburetor change. The spiders are the same.

There is at least one existing field approval for converting an A-65 to use C-85 cylinders and pistons. Here's a link to a copy of that field approval:

http://www.popav.com/337/8.pdf

It's a very straight forward mod. The engine legally stays an A-65 but the slightly larger bore gives you a larger displacement. One great advantage to this mod is the availability of new manufacture C-85 cylinders and pistons.

Dan

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Hey All,

Very interesting discussion on engines. A couple of minor points...

The lucombe 8c had a C-75-12 in it which was identical to the C-85-12 EXCEPT it had the smaller 65 spider on it. 10 hp loss just from the restricted spider

For the record, the Luscombe 8C had an A-75-8J (fuel injected) not the C-75. To convert a C-75 to a C-85 requires only a carburetor change. The spiders are the same.

There is at least one existing field approval for converting an A-65 to use C-85 cylinders and pistons. Here's a link to a copy of that field approval:

http://www.popav.com/337/8.pdf

It's a very straight forward mod. The engine legally stays an A-65 but the slightly larger bore gives you a larger displacement. One great advantage to this mod is the availability of new manufacture C-85 cylinders and pistons.

Dan

Then it was the 8D then. Also the Ercoupe used the c75-12 alot. My mistake, carb was a 65 carb then with 1-1/4" venturi instead of the larger 1-3/8" venturi on the 85's

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

The owners and operators of the B-series need the Harer STC or equivalent as a means to keep this fleet alive for years to come. I have a passionate belief in this. 4 years ago... the D-series fleet needed it worse. I don't even own a D model. I have a B. And I desparately want to upgrade to a C90. But... I am not made of money so... with the urging of others on this forum, I got involved in a project to help out the D-series problem... we got the D-series problem taken care of and I hope it has been helpful relief to the fleet. (When I say "we" I truly mean that there were several sincere people on this forum who provided information and other help get this thing done... John Collier, Dick Huish, Dick Fisher, Bill Berle and others... some who prefer not to be mentioned by name). Here is some history on the way it went.

When I got the STC for C85/C90/O200 in the D-series, I started with copies of almost a dozen 337's for C85/O200 field approvals, two one-time STC's, and 2 FAA letters that were similar to the one DanoT has. All of these were submitted with the initial application and I was told by the FAA (LA-ACO) that these would count for nothing toward a new STC certification because I did not have permission form the STC holder or 337 approval holder.

Subsequently, I contacted Mr. John Collier who was the holder a one-time STC for O200 installation. John gave me all of his data and a letter of permission to use it. The total # of pages for that STC was less than 30 as I recall. The FAA accepted that data for partial credit. Yet, they still required me to address every detail of all compliance issues. I ended up with a data package of reports, drawings, inspection records, and other administrative paperwork that stacks up over 2-inches tall.

In the end, the Collier data only saved me some of the legwork for fuel system verification, structures, and got me out of having to include a placard to prohibit spins. I still was required to go through the structural analysis again for the engine mount (for all the configurations). I still had to go through all of the electrical system reports, powerplant cooling requirements, propeller compatibility reports and static testing, engine controls drawings/inspections, and more...

My point to all of this is that today's FAA is nothing like it was back in the days of the Gilberti STC submittal. Even with permission... the FAA is still going to take you to task for showing compliance with all applicable regs. To obtain a new multiple STC these days takes a lot of time, much of which is spent teaching the young FAA engineers about the way compliance to the old CAR requirements applied to these old airplanes.

So now to the B-series problem.

I have considered going for a new stand-alone multiple STC for the B-series STC myself on my own. It is tough in my work to put aside paying customers that pay big $ to do DER work on more modern airplanes. But I enjoy Taylorcrafts enough that I may just do it. I have even talked with the LA ACO about taking credit for a lot of the work I did on the D-series. I think I can get there on the B- models with a reasonable amount of work. Yet I have not done this for a couple of reasons. For one thing,.. I feel that the Harer family deserves the shot at selling the rights to SAI-210. Secondly, I saw that Forrest and the foundation were saying they had a deal in the works to acquire it. I have no desire to undermine anything that the foundation wants to do. But after several months of nothing happening on that end, I contcted Bob Harer (the son) myself. He said that he had received a call from Forrest several months prior but there was no offer on the table and no contact in many months. So I made an offer. He said he would get back to me. Then over eight months passed and I could never reach Bob. And then one day about 2 months ago he called me out of the blue and said he had talked it over with his mother and they were going to accept my offer. We started email and phone dialog and drafted up papers talked with NY-ACO and everything seemed to be in place for the deal to happen. Then all discussions went cold. Then recently this thread started back up and such is that. I am confused about whats going on.

I have kept this under my hat out of consideration for the Harer's to negotiate with others. I made it clear to Bob that I do not intend to undermine anything Forrest or the Foundation is doing. I offered what I could afford and what I felt was reasonable. I told Bob if someone else had a better deal on the table that I would harbor no ill feelings over any decision to sell to another person.

The reason I am now saying all of this in a public forum is because I want to publicly state that I will do whatever I can to help the foundation or anyone else to bring the Harer STC (SAI-210) back into availability. Or if it is time to do something else, I am here to help. To me it would be a shame for this thing to fade from the scene. But at some point it may be time to move on. I think most people on this form would agree with me on that. I have no belief that holding the rights to this STC would make any of us any richer. My motivation in all this is to keep my 6 kids in shoes and hopefully have enough left to someday convert my BC12D to an O200. I have no personal intent to get rich over this thing or to feed my ego... I just simply enjoy Taylorcrafts and hope to do everything I can to keep them flying. As a DER and as the holder of a similar STC, I believe I have all of the resources in place that I could keep the STC going for many years to come and could develop some useful upgrades to the STC over time to make it best fit the needs of the fleet. I think thats what we all want and need. So... maybe it is time to get on with something new?

this is a

first off hell ya i for one want an 0200 also it should be said to the harers that they work with the foundation or we will make the stc obsolete with a new one

one thing i would like to see is fuel injection i found a company that makes one for the 0200 this would be cool to have

oh and barnstmr if there is any thing i could do to help let me know my friend bob has half a airframe one could rig up a fwf o200 with if you want to

[Pearson]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Personaly if i were going to apply for paperwork to do any engine on the Taylorcraft BC12D it would be for a 100 hp continental. They manufacture brand new ones today, so parts are readily available. The 85 is a thing of the past and getting scarce as are some of the parts. The 100 hp is factory made and is very dependable and mechanics can get all specs readily available from Teledyne. Just my thoughts. Marv

I agree with Marv. My personal opinion is that the Harer STC is worth very little as it is. It allows the use of an engine that is very difficult to find or get parts for. It is extremely ambiguous due to the lack of written instructions. And now it is unavailable for anyone to use.


Somehow I missed Terry Bowden's post about his attempts to buy the STC from the Harer family. Thanks to Tim quoting it, I had a chance to read it.

Someone else had previously mentioned the Harer family not realizing the liability factor of owning an STC. My question is this; would there be less chance of someone being successful in a liability law suit against an STC holder if the holder happened to be a non-profit entity, such as the Taylorcraft Foundation? Do we have any lawyers on the forum? Or is that part of the reason the Foundation hasn't purchased the STC, due to the liability concerns.

I think that no matter who ends up owning the Harer STC, or if Terry or someone else develops a new one similar to it, there need to be improvements in the choice of engines and the quality of the instructions.

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

well i had some time to think about a new stc i would want a 1500lb gw or more and yes an 0200 /0235 also could do the stc to bump it up to 125hp /0290 really i want up to 160 hp really would want some thing like a f22 in fact could call it a model 22 stc

[akndrifter]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

While an 0320 would be really cool, they make the airplane very nose heavy. And it is getting real hard to find 0290 parts. A hydrolic brake engine, combo would be the cats meow. I would also love to upgrade to a 1500gw. Maybe even a heavy(er) duty landing gear (for skis) would be the icing on the cake!

[Dano"T"]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

It's my understanding that an O-200 or C90 powererd T-Craft will out perform one with an O-290....I think I read that on supercub.org

[fearofpavement]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I fly a BC12D that had a one time STC applied to it in 1995. It uses a non electric O-200. It flies great and exhibits no strange characteristics. Cruise is probably not much different than a 65 but it sure gets off the ground expeditiously.

[barnstmr]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I fly a BC12D that had a one time STC applied to it in 1995. It uses a non electric O-200. It flies great and exhibits no strange characteristics. Cruise is probably not much different than a 65 but it sure gets off the ground expeditiously.

Cool - Which prop do you have?

[fearofpavement]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Cool - Which prop do you have?

Guess I should know that since I do the annuals on the plane but I don't have a clue. It's a metal Sensenich. I expect you wanted more details than that but I don't have the logs here...

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

terry, sent you a pm couple days ago.

My Deluxe with the F-19 conversion ran a 74-43 and I never really liked it as I had to push the rpm up to keep it "on step". Otherwise flew great, just needed little more pitch. Due to its weight, it was not really that much faster than a lighter burd. about 115 if I pushed it. However I REALLY liked our F-21. Only downside to it was the staight stacks that made talking on the radio pointless. Full power it would run 125 easy. Loved the extra power as well.

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

While an 0320 would be really cool, they make the airplane very nose heavy. And it is getting real hard to find 0290 parts. A hydrolic brake engine, combo would be the cats meow. I would also love to upgrade to a 1500gw. Maybe even a heavy(er) duty landing gear (for skis) would be the icing on the cake!

ok but i still would like an 0200 or an 0235 then

but on a side note my dad has a c150 and i have talked him in to going up to a 150hp stc for it i have an old engine from a friend so now we have have a 0200 for the taylorcraft i just need a new stc for it

[VictorBravo]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Isn't the O-235 and O-290 almost as heavy as the O-320? I think the real problem is mounting any of the engines further forward. It puts more loads on the engine mount and causes balance problems.

Although safe but not yet fully legal, I submit to the group that there are options that would greatly resolve this problem in the long term.

My old friend Klaus Savier (Light Speed Engineering) manufactures an electronic ignition system that would provide many many big advantages for a Taylorcraft if and when it is allowed on a certified aircraft. No more magneto to firewall clearance problems. No more safety concerns hand starting. Far less physical difficulty hand starting. Far more reliability hand starting. Significant performance/economy gains. Less weight than magnetos.

Klaus' system has won the CAFE races numerous times, as well as other speed races. Klaus has done thousands of hours of flight and ground testing. His unit works and works well, with greater service reliability than a magneto, fewer failure modes, and no moving components, bearings, points, etc.

As Klaus put it to me once... "Over the last 50 years, the family car has doubled its horsepower AND doubled its gas mileage at the same time. Not much has changed on the big moving parts inside an engine... it's the electronic ignition system that has made this possible more than any one single thing. And you very rarely have an ignition system failure in your car while driving. Matter of fact, if you had a backup electronic ignition and a second set of spark plugs in your car the operational reliability would be statistically just about 100% perfect"

Most importantly, along with the newer small starters and alternators an electronic ignition would allow the O-200 and other engines to be mounted on the existing short T-craft mount with far less problems.

The FAA reportedly encouraged Klaus to certify the ignition system, but the liability issue was more than he wanted to deal with.

You know, I think I just talked myself into going experimental when I finally get to the basket case '46 hanging in my shop!