c-90 cam in 0-200 engine
c-90 cam in 0-200 engine
I know this is an old subject. I need a new engine in my champ and chose an 0-200 to build for it. does the c-90 cam actually move the o-200 power to the 2500 rpm range ? Does anybody know for sure ? Is it worth the hassle ? thanks
-
- Posts: 2589
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 18:49
- Location: San Martin, California
- Contact:
Re: c-90 cam in 0-200 engine
I don't think it would be worth the hassle. You could make up any losses by lightening up the airframe.
There are three cams available for the C90, p/n 530788 35 deg overlap, I believe, and the 531076 & 531146, 24 deg overlap. The later require a slightly different hydraulic unit for a 3 to 6 second bleed down rate. I'm not sure if the FAA will allow any mismatching of parts without TCM approval.
Paul
There are three cams available for the C90, p/n 530788 35 deg overlap, I believe, and the 531076 & 531146, 24 deg overlap. The later require a slightly different hydraulic unit for a 3 to 6 second bleed down rate. I'm not sure if the FAA will allow any mismatching of parts without TCM approval.
Paul
Mailing Adress : Paul Agaliotis 2060 E. San Martin, San Martin,Calif. 95046
Re: c-90 cam in 0-200 engine
For your info: I have the 0200 in my L16A (basically a military Champ) with the Buzz Wagner STC. I think it performs pretty well considering it wound up weighing about 950# when I finished which doesn't leave you a lot of room when the gross is 1300#. Technically I could go to 1350# because I have the no bounce gear but decided to keep it at 1300# for light sport purposes. Just doing the STC seems to add a lot of weight as you need additional fuel so the tanks added around 18#, metal prop, Cessna or Halon-Wilson exhaust, etc. I also opted for a battery starting system, Sky-Tec starter, new .032 ribs, heavier leading edge, Lexan greenhouse..you get the idea it all adds up. I was hoping for around #900 but no luck so if you can find some way to lighten it up you'll obviously increase the useful load.
Now I'm a pretty light guy at 160# soaking wet and I mostly fly alone so the extra weight is not a problem. Put someone else in and I look at the amount of fuel I'm carrying.
Anyway, I though the 0200 was a good match and the installation wasn't that bad either. I have a information sheet I wrote up after I competed the conversion if you decided to go that route.
Mike
Now I'm a pretty light guy at 160# soaking wet and I mostly fly alone so the extra weight is not a problem. Put someone else in and I look at the amount of fuel I'm carrying.
Anyway, I though the 0200 was a good match and the installation wasn't that bad either. I have a information sheet I wrote up after I competed the conversion if you decided to go that route.
Mike
-
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 20:18
- Location: Georgia GA10/OPN
- Contact:
Re: c-90 cam in 0-200 engine
Do you have the big tail?
Keep the pointed end forward--
The dirty side down.....
And the blue skies on top....
The dirty side down.....
And the blue skies on top....
Re: c-90 cam in 0-200 engine
Grumps, yep....also a big tail although the Wagner STC 'recommends but does not require" the big tail for "spin recovery" (their words). Overall I find it a pretty good conversion although it leans toward 'nose heavy' CG even with a 24 battery behind the rear seat. At least parts are still available for the 0200 while they seems to drying up for other engine like the C85 cams, A65 cylinders, etc.
Mike
Mike