[f-AA] Champ on Floats

[Rob McDonald]

Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse discussing the C-90 upgrade.

My real objective is to eventually put my Champ on floats. Right now it
is essentially a stock 7AC with the A-65. I am interested in accessing
smaller lakes, so I want to upgrade to the best engine for the job. The
easy upgrades appear to be the C-85, C-85/O-200 or possibly just going
to an O-200.

Can those of you who have flown Champs or Chiefs on floats comment? Is
the C-85 adequate? Is an O-200 significantly better?

Rob

_______________________________________________
Aeronca mailing list
Aer...@westmont.edu
http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca

[Ian Harvie]

Rob, according to Don Sward whose forum I attended at Oshkosh this year,
the C85 with O 200 pistons etc is a better engine than the O 200.

Ian

[Rob McDonald]

Did he specify how it is better? I'm interested in climb performance.

Rob

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 22:00 +1000, Ian Harvie wrote:
> Rob, according to Don Sward whose forum I attended at Oshkosh this year,
> the C85 with O 200 pistons etc is a better engine than the O 200.
>
> Ian

_______________________________________________

[cbrx...@aol.com]

Check out his web site or give him a call. 

He will do a complete engine....or sell just parts. He holds the STC for the O-200 Crank
You can even google "dons dream machines" and find some good info in some forums.


http://www.donsdreammachines.com

Sal Capra
Lakeland FL

[Cy Galley]

Remember the wing AD NEEDS to be done at every annual on over 90 HP. So
the C85 with the O200 crank relieves one of the constant re-inspection
requirement.

With that said, a good annual includes a good spar inspection. The AD is
just some more government over control.

The spar should be completely inspected immediately after any time the wing
hits the ground. Cutting off the fabric over the spar attach point,
inspection, and replacing the fabric is a good idea if you flip the plane or
have wing tip strike.

Might cost your a ween end or two of flying but what is your life worth?

Cy Galley; Editor - Aeronca Aviator
Supporting Aeroncas every day
www.aeronca.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob McDonald" <r...@sunrisetechnical.ca>

[j...@joea.com]

Several threads on Don's engines on the NAA bulletin board.

Smoother, more power and just a easier engine to fly and more grins per mile.

Have not had one person who did the "Dons" conversion who was not extremely happy with
it on the bulletin board. Take a look over there and search for "Dons" and you will come up
with a lot of info on this.

Joe A

[Richard Holcombe]

I have the C-90, am happy with it and believe it to be the best engine in the series. More torque swinging a biger prop than the O-200. I would love to here from anyone who actually has hands on experience to compare C-85, C-90, C-85/O-200, and O-200. There must be a bunch of pros/cons here.

richard

[j...@joea.com]

If you want personal experiences, they are waiting for you on the NAA bulletin board.

Joe A

[Rob McDonald]

Hi Richard,

A friend had a C-90 in his Cessna 140 and replaced it with an O-200.
Unfortunately he sold the C-90 and prop before he was flying again. He
found that he had better climb performance before the swap. (both
engines were in good shape and performing to spec).

It was his experience that made me think of going to the C-90.

Rob

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 10:39 -0700, Richard Holcombe wrote:
> I have the C-90, am happy with it and believe it to be the best engine
> in the series. More torque swinging a biger prop than the O-200. I
> would love to here from anyone who actually has hands on experience to
> compare C-85, C-90, C-85/O-200, and O-200. There must be a bunch of
> pros/cons here.
> richard

_______________________________________________

[Rob McDonald]

Hi Sal,

I met one Champ owner with that conversion. He loved it, but there were
reasons to take anything this fellow said with a grain of salt, so it
wasn't much of a recommendation.

Rob

[Rob McDonald]

We are in full agreement here Cy. I want that spar inspection every
year.

Rob

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:08 -0500, Cy Galley wrote:
> Remember the wing AD NEEDS to be done at every annual on over 90 HP. So
> the C85 with the O200 crank relieves one of the constant re-inspection
> requirement.
>
> With that said, a good annual includes a good spar inspection. The AD is
> just some more government over control.
>
> The spar should be completely inspected immediately after any time the wing
> hits the ground. Cutting off the fabric over the spar attach point,
> inspection, and replacing the fabric is a good idea if you flip the plane or
> have wing tip strike.
>
> Might cost your a ween end or two of flying but what is your life worth?
>
> Cy Galley; Editor - Aeronca Aviator
> Supporting Aeroncas every day
> www.aeronca.org

[Rob McDonald]

Thanks Joe, I will do that.

Rob

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 08:05 -0700, j...@joea.com wrote:
> Several threads on Don's engines on the NAA bulletin board.
>
> Smoother, more power and just a easier engine to fly and more grins per mile.
>
> Have not had one person who did the "Dons" conversion who was not extremely happy with
> it on the bulletin board. Take a look over there and search for "Dons" and you will come up
> with a lot of info on this.
>
> Joe A

[Rob McDonald]

Done.

On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 07:56 +1000, Ian Harvie wrote:
> Rob, a lot of people have said what I was going to. I have the CD of the
> forum, may be I can send you a copy. Send me your snail mail address and
> I'll get it off to you.
> Basically it remains a C-85 so you don't have the spar AD but there were
> a lot of figures quoted for torque and HP which are superior to the
> O-200 if you run it like an O-200 but if you use the C-85 max RPM etc it
> gives about 97 HP (from memory) I think they checked it out up to 115 HP
> on a dynamometer.

[Tom Holmes]

Richard, lots of that kind of thing on Don's Dream Machines website. Tom --- On Thu, 9/24/09, Richard Holcombe <rhawley...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Richard Holcombe <rhawley...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [f-AA] Champ on Floats

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[Thomas DeWinter]

I'm no expert by any means.  But I think the difference is the diameter of the prop. My neighbor has an O-200 on his Cessna140.  And man does that prop look short!  And it really doesn't have the git up and go that I would expect.  I think that the O-200 was basically used on the C-150 with a nosewheel and thus limited the prop length.  So the approved propellers for the O-200 my be limited to some of those shorter approved propellers.  While the C-85 and C-90 were mostly on taildraggers and probably had more approved longer propellers.

I think that others made a decent case that a C-85 with the O-200 STC may offer the best combination you are looking for.  Most report that this STC produces more power than the stock C-85.  However this may be anecdotal since most people are comparing their tired run out C-85 probably which is not putting out full horse power prior to the overhaul.  With a brand new rebuild with the C-85/O-200 parts installed and developing full horsepower.

Also the awesome point about the REQUIRED annual spar AD compliance with C-90 or above.  A C-85 with the O-200 STC is still a C-85 from what I understa

---

From: Rob McDonald <r...@sunrisetechnical.ca>
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:51:00 PM

Subject: Re: [f-AA] Champ on Floats

[Fred Steadman]

Our 7EC, 4377C had (has) an 0200.   The takeoff procedure was (is) something like, advance throttle, raise tail ... .   If there were (are) other steps beyond that nobody ever gets to execute them because, just that fast, the whole airplane is flying.   And BTW, it climbs nicely and as near as I can remember cruised (cruises) at about 105.

I use the past tense as I'm no longer in the plane, and haven't flown it since they had it recovered and repainted.   It may be lighter now and hop off the ground even quicker.

Compared to the 7EC, every 150/152 I've ever flown was a real ground lover.   I've heard the same is true of 120's and 140's but I don't know for sure.   I did fly a 140 once, but don't remember much about it.

Fred Steadman

200 Lark Court

Irving, TX   75062

214 762 6376

fst...@mac.com

Fred Steadman

200 Lark Court

Irving, TX   75062

214 762 6376

fst...@mac.com

[Gord Gilpin]

C85 is adequate (especially if you're alone).  But when you're heavy you'll use alot of lake.  The C90 or O200 will make a substantial difference in performance.  If you're buying an engine anyway don't bother with the C85, go with the C90 if you can find one otherwise the O200 will work well. 

Focus on keeping it light.  If you don't need it (ie starter), don't install it.

C85 / O200 conversion will perform very much like a C90.  Excellent engine.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rob McDonald <r...@sunrisetechnical.ca>

To: Aeronca <aer...@westmont.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:20:52 AM
Subject: [f-AA] Champ on Floats

Rob

__________________________________________________________________
The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

[Travis Gregory]

My C-85 has been experiencing popping and belching (afterfire) around 1,100 rpm's. Following the advice of Cy and I think Richard, while un cowled to install the new exhaust, I got a 1/8th inch plug with a pipe thread, thanks Lowe's, and disconnected the primer and replaced it with the plug. Started the airplane and everything was smooth in all rpm ranges. Evidently the Lunkenheimer primer is allowing extra fuel to be drawn into the intake. I've known it was too rich for a long time.

 

Okay, so far so bad. Thanks guys for putting me on to this. Now, does anyone rebuild these primers? I've seen a lot of Champs and Chiefs with Essex primers. I'd like to stay with the original Lunkenheimer but not at the cost of a sick engine. Advice? New packing took care of a weep a few months ago but evidently something is leaking farther back in the primer. Of course I'll check to see if it is installed so that it locks properly as Ian has suggested but I don't think that is the issue.

 

Thank you,

 

travis

---

[Plain Carl]

There are two ball check valves in the lLuke and they can clog or varnish.  Should be a small set screw on each side that seats the balls.  Carefully undo the screws and soak the parts in carb cleaner.  There may be a fiber washer under the tube connectors and the o rings inside that should be removed before soaking.

 

PC

---

From: Travis Gregory <nc4...@yahoo.com>
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:16:55 PM
Subject: [f-AA] Lunkenheimer questions

[Travis Gregory]

Thank you Carl. Is there a replacement for the fiber washer? Are the O rings, what ever will work?

 

travis

---

From: Plain Carl <cham...@sbcglobal.net>
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:34:03 PM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Lunkenheimer questions

[Plain Carl]

Both are common hardware items that can be found at a well stocked PMA-NAPA store.  If the brass screws have not been removed in some time it may be necessary to soak the whole thing in Kroil or some other good mouse milk.  If they are stiill tight try a gunsmith screwdriver.

 

PC

---

From: Travis Gregory <nc4...@yahoo.com>
To: aer...@westmont.edu

Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:43:51 PM

Subject: Re: [f-AA] Lunkenheimer questions

[Travis Gregory]

LOL! We happen to have a PMA-NAPA store nearby.

 

Thanks,

 

travis

---

From: Plain Carl <cham...@sbcglobal.net>
To: aer...@westmont.edu

Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 8:06:23 PM

[Tom Holmes]

Travis' National Airplane Parts Association. Tom --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Travis Gregory <nc4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[joer...@suddenlink.net]

I've had 2 Lunkenheimers apart. One had O-rings, the other didn't. The pin on the end of the plunger is spring loaded. When I unscrewed the nut with the two flat spots I found some crud and corrosion in the spring area behind the pin. Watch how this comes apart as my spring was smaller on one end and looked like it should only go one way. Also the check balls were spring loaded with the tiniest little delicate springs that seem to be brass. These springs also had collected some crud and corrosion. One of these check valve springs had deteriorated and fell into pieces when it came out. I have had no luck finding a replacement spring. This same primer had the brass locking pin worn to a nub. It was not holding the plunger in and locked every time. If the plunger and pin are not properly seated to seal the fuel passages, gravity and suction can let fuel through the check valves. 1 hour with the primer slightly ajar had fuel dripping out the bottom of the carb. The fuel valve wa

s off, the gascolator was still dry after servicing, and the float bowl was mostly empty after being flushed. Not every drip is from a poor float needle/seat. I'm sure this was the cause of some heavy fuel consumption. After drying out, most all of the corrosion appeared to be white dust from aluminum oxidation probably from inside the fuel tank. For a packing I tried the white teflon stuff as it was all that was available local. If it gets gooey I have a candle wick to impregnate with Fuel Lube and use as packing. jrh

_______________________________________________

[Rob McDonald]

Hi Gord,

I often fly with a passenger, and sometimes with baggage too. I would
also like to have the option of flying in to smaller lakes, hence my
concern for the best power option.

I don't mind skipping the starter, but then I would have to look into a
"seaplane" door to be able to hand prop when on floats. To make life
more difficult my Champ is certified, not "amateur built", so everything
I do needs to have paperwork that will please Transport Canada.

Rob

On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 15:07 -0700, Gord Gilpin wrote:
> C85 is adequate (especially if you're alone). But when you're heavy you'll use a lot of lake. The C90 or O200 will make a substantial difference in performance. If you're buying an engine anyway don't bother with the C85, go with the C90 if you can find one otherwise the O200 will work well.
>
> Focus on keeping it light. If you don't need it (i.e. starter), don't install it.

>
> C85 / O200 conversion will perform very much like a C90. Excellent engine.

[Plain Carl]

I replaced the Lunken checkball springs with ones from HO gauge model railroad trucks.  Works just fine.  Think that Kadee coupler springs would work as well.

 

PC

---

From: "joer...@suddenlink.net" <joer...@suddenlink.net>
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Cc: Travis Gregory <nc4...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 8:36:56 AM

Subject: Re: [f-AA] Lunkenheimer questions

[Travis Gregory]

Thanks Carl,

 

I just printed that off. But, it seems I was wrong, again. After installing the new H & W exhaust, I reconnected the primer line as a test of the hypothesis. Operation was smooth in all rpm's. I have a hard time beliveing that a new exhaust could make that much difference but the evidence seems clear. I am most eager to fly, to be sure but while it was a gorgeous day here (probably the last short sleeve day we'll have) the wind was gusting 30+ knots and not down the runway that is open. Discretion trumps even burning curiosity when one reaches geezer status.

 

travis

---

From: Plain Carl <cham...@sbcglobal.net>
To: aer...@westmont.edu

Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:52:58 PM

Subject: Re: [f-AA] Lunkenheimer questions

[G WILKEN]

Oh, my, Carl! I just can't help but wonder how many other folks here know what a Kadee coupler is:) I do, as I had another life in model trains - but N scale.

Keep the faith.

ginny

All stunts performed without a net!

---

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:52:58 -0700
From: cham...@sbcglobal.net
To: aer...@westmont.edu

Subject: Re: [f-AA] Lunkenheimer questions

[joer...@suddenlink.net]

Thanks Carl, I had a Lionel train when I was a kid. I never played with HO. I'm off to the hobby shop tomorrow AM. jrh

---- Plain Carl <cham...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I replaced the Lunken checkball springs with ones from HO gauge model railroad trucks.  Works just fine.  Think that Kadee coupler springs would work as well.

PC

_______________________________________________