Continental A-80
Nicholas A. Stolley
Continental A-80. I can't find much information about the engine. Anyone on
the list have much experience with it? I have heard it revs fairly high, and
along with that has been compared with the likes of a hand grenade. This
particular engine has about 150 hours on it since major overhaul in 1970.
I've also been told it is the same thing as an A-65 but with new pistons,
rings, and timing.
Any input is really appreciated, because the airplane behind the engine is
as eager and fun-loving as I am, and I would love to be its owner.
-Nick Stolley
Roy Smith, CFI
> I recently came across an airplane for sale with a very rare engine- A
> Continental A-80. I can't find much information about the engine. Anyone on
> the list have much experience with it? I have heard it revs fairly high, and
> along with that has been compared with the likes of a hand grenade. This
> particular engine has about 150 hours on it since major overhaul in 1970.
I know nothing about that particular engine, but in general, engines don't
like to sit idle for long amounts of time. Your engine has averaged 5
hours a year over the past 30 years. Unless it was specifically prepared
for long-term storage, you may have a rust-filled boat anchor on your hands.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith
atmosphere of compression. It has a few internal differences, like special
exhaust valves, beefier wristpins, and rod-ends drilled to splash more oil
on the cylinder walls. The oversize jets in the carb are the same as with
the A-75, IIRC, and the venturi is bigger, but you get the extra horsepower
from more gas, better breathing, higher compression, and revving it up to
about 2600 rpm.
It's not that rare. It's just a modified A-65.
And whoever compared it with a hand-grenade should be examined for
hyperbole. I knew of an A-65 with Chevy pistons in it and a few other mods
bumping it up to 100 hp. The cub it was in didn't go much faster due to the
drag, but it climbed like a leopard.
If the engine was pickled and kept dry, I might trust it, but not without
tearing it down and taking a look. The last one I saw that had sat that
long had rusted so much at the crank bearings that the crank had to be
turned and some of the cylinders had rusted out of tolerance.
"Nicholas A. Stolley" <airpl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Qnwj6.180$mv4...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Philippe Vessaire
> from more gas, better breathing, higher compression, and revving it
> up to about 2600 rpm.
>
> It's not that rare. It's just a modified A-65.
> And whoever compared it with a hand-grenade should be examined for
> hyperbole. I knew of an A-65 with Chevy pistons in it and a few other
> mods bumping it up to 100 hp. The cub it was in didn't go much
> faster due to the drag, but it climbed like a leopard.
But what about more oil on cylinders like A75-80? Only new pistons or
more machine work for bigger rod end drill an other stuff like this? It
would be great to have more power for mountain airfieds. Do you know
the compression ratio for 100 hp and the rpm ?
If you take the parts catalog for A65-A80, you have a lot of news
stuff needed to upgrade A65 to A80.
--
Minicab F-PRAZ (A65)
Philippe Vessaire
vessaire.philippe@___No_Spam___free.fr
highflyer
The A series Continentals are derivatives of the A-65. The most common
upgrade of the A-65 was the A-75. The A-75 has a small hole in the
rod caps to spray a bit of oil into the opposite cylinder bore and has
the exhaust valves upgraded to stellite. They get the 75 HP by turning
it just a bit faster. The A-65 puts out 65 ponies at 2400 RPM. The
A-75 cranks up to, I believe, 2700.
What you actually get depends on your prop. If you can only turn 2400,
it will put out 65 HP even if it IS an A-75. I always upgraded my
A-65's
to A-75, but didn't change the prop. The better lubrication and tougher
exhaust valve merely gave me a bit more durable A-65. Sure didn't hurt
anything! :-)
I don't know what an A-80 is, but I certainly wouldn't liken it to a
hand grenade. None of those engines work as hard as a Lycoming O-320!
The C series of little Continentals does have some advantages. Their
accessory case allows a few more options, and some even have electrical
systems! :-) I know you can get a reasonably priced STC to use an
O-200 crank in a C-85. Crankshafts for some of the older engines are
getting a tad scarce. Also, finding a good set of A series cylinders
was hard for a while, until folks started making new ones.
If it looks good, go for it. If the engine hatches you can always
bolt on an O-200 out of a wrecked C-150!
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
David Magaw
and I have been trying to decide what to do with our BC-12D T-cart that has
an A-65 (now off the aircraft) which needs rebuilding because of way to low
compressions in two cylinders. Is there an STC to put a O-200 on a T-cart?
We have gone from "let's just rebuild the A-65" to considering upgrades.
Cost seems about the same which ever way. Any comments or recommendations?
Dave
Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith
"David Magaw" <dma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:jWak6.7330$Yl1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I have been watching this thread with a lot of interest because my partner
> and I have been trying to decide what to do with our BC-12D T-cart that
has
> an A-65 (now off the aircraft) which needs rebuilding because of way to
low
> compressions in two cylinders. Is there an STC to put a O-200 on a
T-cart?
I've seen BC-12D's with O-200's. The cowl must be altered, and it looks
like hell.
A few decades ago some T-Crafts were made with O-200's in them, but they
were modified from the original BC-12D.
> We have gone from "let's just rebuild the A-65" to considering upgrades.
> Cost seems about the same which ever way. Any comments or
recommendations?
I wouldn't do anything except maybe go to A-75 which requires a shorter prop
and higher rpm's, and probably some expensive parts. If you have a nice 72
inch wooden prop like a Sensenich 72-42 (climb) or 72-44 (cruise), then why
not just rebuild the A-65 to specs and stay with it. It's what that 36 foot
wing was built for.
>
> Dave
>
>
JD Lawson
model 19 (C-85-12F) or F19 (O-200). Factory parts (for the airframe) are
difficult or impossible to find, so you will have to manufacture a fair
number of the parts yourself. Depending on where you start from (mods that
have already been made and engine/prop condition), it can be expensive
($1,000-$15,000) to do the complete conversion. I live in desert/mountain
country so the increased power for climb performance was definitely worth
the cost in my case.
BC, BC12D;
T.C. A-696
STC: SA1-210
Conversion of Taylorcraft Model BC or Model BC12D to the equivalent of
aircraft models BC12D85 and BC12D-4-85 or Model 19.
Reissued 12/15/93. NE-NY
Charles R. Harer
105 Valley View Drive
Jersey Shore, PA 17740
(570) 398-1364
Hope this helps.
JD
"David Magaw" <dma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:jWak6.7330$Yl1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Rob McDonald
<Qnwj6.180$mv4...@newsfeed.slurp.net>:
>I recently came across an airplane for sale with a very rare engine- A
>Continental A-80. I can't find much information about the engine.
The Continental A-65, A-75, and A-80 are all the same engine with minor
modifications. The big difference is putting a different prop on so that it
can rev faster to generate more HP. Othed mods involved drilling some
parts, (con rods?), for improved lubrication, and I believe that the A-80
had a larger carburetor venturi.
The A-65 and A-75 are good engines, but I have heard that the A-80 tended
to be short lived. I have heard that it is rare because Continental
discontinued for this reason. Sorry but I can't provide any references to
back this up.
It would seem to me that you could convert it back to an A-75 and trade 5hp
for longer life and less noise.
What is the airplane?
Rob
highflyer
The later model T-Carts came from the factory with an O-200. I think,
but can't say for sure offhand, that they were on the same Type
Certificate.
If they were, upgrading to the O-200 may not be too difficult. If they
were not, then the STC is required.
It costs very little to upgrade an jA-65 to an A-75, particularly if
you
have to buy new exhaust valves anyway! :-) However, if you use the same
prop, the Sensenich 72-42 or 72-44, you will not get the higher RPM and
it will just run as a better lubricated, longer lived A-65. Definately
worth doing in my opinion.
When you get into the O-200 you also get into an electrical system and
all kinds of other heavy stuff, and it will get expensive and the
airplane
will not fly as nicely afterward, in my opinion.
But then, I happen to LIKE the A-65! :-)
Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith
"Rob McDonald" <nos...@block.com> wrote in message
news:904E5CF78rj...@216.183.128.12...
I have several sets of pistons, including A-80 pistons. They are noticeably
higher (by a millimeter or so) than the A-75 pistons. IIRC, the skirt area
is larger too.
I agree with Highflyer that the A-65 owners should stay with 65 or 75 horses
and have the rods drilled at the piston ends and chamfered to splash more
oil on the cylinder walls for longer cylinder life. I like the smaller
pistons with the hollowed-out skirts and one less compression ring. They
are lighter and make less friction and therefore are easier on the bearings
on both ends.
Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith
It would be interesting to know, since I have a friend on the high desert
(4600 ft.) who wants to upgrade. IIRC, you can do it more easily and less
expensively with an 85 than a 100 h.p. O-200.
I have forgotten some of the T-Craft lore, but as I recall the "F" in the
F-19 stands for Charles and Dorothy Feris, who at one time owned the T-Craft
certificate and manufactured them with O-200's from the 60's to the 80's.
In Alliance, Ohio.
Look at this condensed history of these fixed-wing angels:
http://www.aerofiles.com/_taylor.html
Wonderful little airplanes.
"JD Lawson" <jdla...@ridgenet.net> wrote in message
news:96u0r3$k6j$1...@delphi.ridgenet.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3A913606...@alt.net...
>
> The A series Continentals are derivatives of the A-65.
>
Actually, the A series Continentals (except for the A40) are derivatives of
the A50.
>
> The most common upgrade of the A-65 was the A-75. The A-75 has a
> small hole in the rod caps to spray a bit of oil into the opposite
cylinder
> bore and has the exhaust valves upgraded to stellite. They get the 75
> HP by turning it just a bit faster. The A-65 puts out 65 ponies at 2400
> RPM. The A-75 cranks up to, I believe, 2700.
>
The A50 produced it's rated horsepower at 1900 RPM, the A65 at 2300 RPM, the
A75 at 2600 RPM and the A80 at 2700 RPM. These were all basically the same
engine. The last in the A series, the Continental A100, was essentially 1
1/2 A65s. It had six A type cylinders and produced 100 HP at 2350 RPM.
Nicholas A. Stolley
Rob and all of the other responders, thanks for the responses.
The airplane is a Baby Lakes. I need to do some checking to see if they will
go down to 65hp, if they do (and if I buy the airplane), I may get a bigger
prop, or simply limit the engine to full power for a minute after take off.
Also, for the group; Now that I know the A-80 is essentially the same as the
other A model Continentals, what can I expect to pay for parts? Such as what
will a new cylinder cost me? Pushrod, valves, and all of the other potential
expensive things that happen to engines. Again, your help is really
appreciated.
-Nick Stolley
Cy Galley
Biggest difference in the rated rpm as listed in the Continental A-series
manual. There was even an A-50.
At 1900 rpm you get 50 HP with a 5.4 C.R
At 2300 rpm you get 65 HP with a 6.3 C.R.
At 2600 rpm you get 75 HP with a 6.3 C.R.
At 2700 rpm you get 80 HP with a 7.55 C.R.
The spark is advanced a bit. To get the added compression the A-80 uses
taller 5 ring pistons. The manual says that A-75 and A-80 were no longer in
production in 1948 being replaced with the C-75 and C-85 which uses larger
cylinders
Now there are a few changes that already have been listed like drilling the
rods to squirt oil. This is recommended for all the above engines.
"Larry Smith" <Larry Sm...@home.NScom> wrote in message
news:cVyk6.306112$iy3.64...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
highflyer
You are quite right. There were three small four cylinder opposed
engines
that came out following the success of the Continental A-40.
Continental came out with the A-50, Lycoming came out with the O-145,
and Franklin came out with their little four, don't remember the
designation. Both the Lycoming and the Franklin produced their power
at higher RPM's than the little Continental. With the sudden growth
in small two place airplanes that took place after 1938, all of the
manufacturer's wanted more horsepower. All three engines were upgraded
to 65 horsepower. Most of the manufacturer's in those days certified
for all three engines and gave you your choice. For example, T-Craft
had the BC-65 with a Continental engine, the BL-65 with the Lycoming
engine, and the BF-65 with the Franklin.
Because the Continental produced its 65 horses at a lower RPM, it also
produced more thrust from the same power at the airspeeds used by the
little airplanes that used these engines. As a result, pilots soon
discovered that the Continental had "bigger" horses than the others
and became the favored engine. :-)
Franklin rather shot themselves in the foot when they were purchased
by Republic Aviation and directed to supply their big six in quantity
for the SeaBee that was going to revolutionize private aviation. AS
a result, production fell off on the little four and the manufacturer's
quickly substituted Lycomings and Franklins.
Lycoming lucked out by being in Williamsport, PA, just a few miles down
the road from the Piper factory in Lock Haven. As a result, after
using huge piles of A-65 Continentals in the "Cub" series, they went
toward the bigger Lycoming O-290 for their four place airplanes.
Since then Piper has used a LOT of Lycoming engines!
Cessna stayed with Continental through the O-200 for the 150 series and
the O-300 for the 170/172 series until Cessna was purchased by the
same company that owned Lycoming. Then Cessna put the O-320 series
Lycoming into the 172 and replaced the perky O-200 with the heavier
Lycoming O-235 in the, now, C-152.
Continentals big seller was their big six, that was used in the Navion
and the Bonanza and the Cessna 180. This started life as the E-175 and
grew to change when they went to displacement identification to become
the O-470 series.
The O-200, O-300, and O-470 from Continental earned a reputation for
being about as reliable as a hammer!
Meanwhile Lycoming built a six based on the O-290, the O-435. When
the O-290 was redesigned as the O-320 the corresponding six became
the O-480. Lycoming did not do well with their six until they made
the big four, the O-360, whose six cylinder counterpart became the
O-540.
Meanwhile, Franklin went bankrupt again and some of their engineers
purchased the company. They designed a nice series of engines all
built around the same cylinder in 2, 4, and 6 cylinder models.
Unfortunately the only manufacturer who bought their engine was the
American Champion company, who built a slightly updated Aeronca
Champ using the two cylinder Franklin engine. Unfortunately, the
two cylinder engines have some serious vibration problems and the
rather shaky 60 HP Franklin twin did not prove very successful.
The switched to Lycoming power to the Champions, now Citabria.
Franklin did sell their family of engines to homebuilders in a kit
form! Great idea, but it didn't keep the company alive and they
eventually sold out to PZL in Poland, who are still manufactureing
the Franklin engines based on this design from the late fifties
that came out of the Franklin factory in Syracuse, New York.
Charles K. Scott
"Nicholas A. Stolley" <airpl...@aol.com> writes:
>
> The airplane is a Baby Lakes. I need to do some checking to see if they will
> go down to 65hp, if they do (and if I buy the airplane), I may get a bigger
> prop, or simply limit the engine to full power for a minute after take off.
You may want to think about getting a prop with a pitch that is more
coarse rather than getting a prop that is bigger. Keeps your ground
clearance in good shape.
Corky Scott
Smith@home.nscom Larry Smith
"Cy Galley" <cga...@qcbc.org> wrote in message
news:96vga...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> The A-65, A-75 and the A-80 have the same case, crank and cylinders.
> Biggest difference in the rated rpm as listed in the Continental A-series
> manual. There was even an A-50.
> At 1900 rpm you get 50 HP with a 5.4 C.R
> At 2300 rpm you get 65 HP with a 6.3 C.R.
> At 2600 rpm you get 75 HP with a 6.3 C.R.
> At 2700 rpm you get 80 HP with a 7.55 C.R.
>
> The spark is advanced a bit.
The timing is staggered, i. e., advanced for one set of plugs to something
like 32 degrees btdc and retarded to something like 28 or 29 degrees btdc on
the other set, IIRC. The A-65 has both mags synchronized, I think at 30
degrees btdc. I should rely on the old factory manual Red Hunnicutt gimme,
but it's out the road.
This is all very interesting and sacred history of these engines which have
withstood the tests of time.
[...]
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> You are quite right. There were three small four cylinder opposed
> engines that came out following the success of the Continental A-40.
>
> Continental came out with the A-50, Lycoming came out with the
> O-145, and Franklin came out with their little four, don't remember the
> designation.
>
Franklin 4AC150.
>
> Both the Lycoming and the Franklin produced their power at higher
> RPM's than the little Continental.
>
The Lycoming O-145 displaced 145 cu. in. and produced 50 HP at 2300 RPM.
The Franklin 4AC150 displaced 150 cu. in. and produced 50 HP at 2150 RPM.
The Continental A50 displaced 171 cu. in. and produced 50 HP at 1900 RPM.
Dave Lyjak
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
> > Both the Lycoming and the Franklin produced their power at higher
> > RPM's than the little Continental.
> >
>
> The Lycoming O-145 displaced 145 cu. in. and produced 50 HP at 2300 RPM.
> The Franklin 4AC150 displaced 150 cu. in. and produced 50 HP at 2150 RPM.
> The Continental A50 displaced 171 cu. in. and produced 50 HP at 1900 RPM.
No substitute for cubic inches eh?
--
Dave Lyjak
Steven P. McNicoll
"Dave Lyjak" <d...@issl.atl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:3A9A8D7A...@issl.atl.hp.com...
>
>
> No substitute for cubic inches eh?
>
Pretty much.