Engines for BL-65

[matsuthunder200]

I started out with a 46 bc12d with a A75 cont motor.. When the motor was run out i found a deal on a cont 90-8 non elect used the same motor mount same cowling. did all the mods for the f-19 upgrade.when the ai did the paperwork he wrote that he deveated from the stc and it was all approved by the faa.. Now it is a 46-bc12d empty weaght of 800 lbs and a 1500 lb gross wt. With the new rule on feild approvals im not shure if you can still do it that way but you might check in to it..

[David Price]

HEAD'S UP!
Fuel valves under dash. Make sure that they are secure.
Found that while turning the 90*valve ,on and off, there was enough play in the line, that the cable had worn thru the fuel line. Check thoes mounts and lines>


"LOVE AIR"

[Robert Lees]

Jason:
If there is an STC for the O-200 installation in a Taylorcraft, I would like to see it, not to install, but to prove the FAA (or whoever) wrong, because it is not listed. I have, however, seen 337’s for the installation of an 0-200.
Also, the fuel line diameter from the wing tanks has no real bearing on the engine, as long as fuel is replenished faster than the fuselage tank feeds the engine at at cruise power settings (i.e. straight & level) since this is the condition when the fuselage tank is replenished.
The requirement for larger fuel lines for greater horsepower engines only really applies when the consumption of the engine exceeds the delivery capacity of the fuel lines at 150% of max fuel consumption and in the climb attitude. (UK CAA and US FAA regulations apply). In other words, it applies between the fuselage tank and the carburettor.

Kevin:
No bushings are welded…they are fibre bushings inserted in to the front wood spar butts; and to my knowledge no weight is required in the tail (unless, of course, you refer to the Taylorcraft Brick).

David:
I think you would need a Continental mount if you have a Lycoming.

Carl:
I agree with your opinion on the valves…my A-65-powered machines have been converted to panel valves.

Chet:
A pleasure to meet you again at Brodhead, hope all is well.

To All:
With regard to a certain STC available in the USA for the BC12D-85 and Model 19 mods, after review of these drawings, my opinion is that the STC cannot in fact be complied with, because the as-drawn components and assemblies will not all physically fit. No reflection upon the current STC holder, but rather the FAA must have been blind on the day they approved this STC. Perhaps the rules were more relaxed then, and did not require physical inspection of the aircraft against the STC requirements.
I am amazed that a self-respecting A&P/IA (whatever) could approve the individual incorporation of this STC to the letter without questioning the approval with the FAA and/or issuing a 337 for variations to it. Where’s the legal issues there, then?

Those who have actually tried fitting this STC will know what I am talking about.

Just IMHO

[jgerard]

I had posted this info a while back on this forum...

STC Number:
SA5028NM

This certificate issued to:
Dutton William A

STC Holder's Address:
15156 Rancho Vicente Road
Ramona CA 92065
United States

Description of the Type Design Change:
Installation of a Continental O-200-A engine, McCauley 1A101/DCM propeller, and associated installation components. Limited to installation on serial number 7274 only.

Application Date:
06/19/1989

Status:
Issued, 02/08/1991

Responsible Office:
ANM-100L Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office Tel: (562) 627-5200

TC Number -- Make -- Model:
A-696 -- Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC -- BC12-D

Hope this helps?

Jason
N43643

[David Tunno]

Going back to the Lycoming 0-145 issue for a moment. From what I am hearing, although the engine is less desirable in some respects, a good running, low-time engine would be quite valuable to someone who wants or needs it. For example, are the Money Mites limited to that engine? I might be able to sell the Lyc. for about what a Cont. would cost. Sound reasonable?