C-85, C-90, 0-200 HP at Cruise, At Max, Fuel Burn Comparison

[Windknot]

This has been beat to death in the past, but in a bunch of different posts, and as far as I remember, never all at once.....none of which I ever remembered to bookmark.

So, kind of what I'm looking for is an all-in-one spot for the following information.

What is the horsepower at cruise, at full throttle (and their associated RPM's) and the Fuel Burn in gallons/hour?

C-85- Straight

C-85 Stroked with 0-200 Crank etc

C-90 Straight

C-90 Stroked (is there one?)

0-200 Straight Per MikeB - 6+ Gal/Hr at 2500 RPM

Basically what I'm looking for is a one-stop spot for the information listed above to make the best decision about which powerplant options I consider while looking for a Champ to carry my Beefy (250#) self, fuel, and occasionally a passenger.

I THOUGHT I remembered reading somewhere there was one particular engine that had the best cruise hp and fuel consumption - I thought it was either the 85 stroker or the 90 straight. But cannot find it no matter where I look.

Help is always appreciated.

Sean

[Nathan K. Hammond]

The best source of info will be the Continental manual. Towards the back will be power curves for the C75/85/90 and O-200.

http://www.pj260.com/Continental/O-200%20Manual.pdf

You'll have to interpolate for Super-85 data; mine is just a tad shallow of the C90 curve.

You heard right; the C90 is probably the best of the 4, with the Super-85 very close. Followed by the C85 and then the O-200.

Honestly, you'll be happy with any of them. More important than horsepower is empty weight. A heavy airplane will fly like a dog, regardless of hp. Before the Super-85, I ran an A-65 and it did fine. Routinely it would 'hypothetically' be loaded well over gross and preform okay. Climb out was a little slow, but it could clear a 50' tree in 2000' during the summer heat.

nkh

[MikeB]

I have the 0200 in my L16 (7BCM). While I don't have a lot of hours on it yet, I'd guess I'm running somewhere in the 6+ GPH range. The plane is on the heavy side at 955# and doesn't leave a lot for useful load but I usually fly alone and I only weigh about 160# myself so it's not too much of an issue. I could have made the plane lighter but wanted a starter and battery, interior and the 'greenhouse' is heavier than fabric, etc. Anything you throw up and it comes down will add weight. Right now I've been running the engine close to 2500 RPM which accounts for the fuel burn but I can lean it out and I can run it a bit slower or around 24-2450. I'm guessing my speed is somewhere between 90-95 @2500. With the Wagner STC you're pretty limited on prop options. I'm using a McCauley 69 X 50 which is supposed to be a cruise prop but I could use a little more length or more bite. Take off performance is 'awesome' compared to my Champ with the 65. One other note: the 0200 falls under the spar AD which needs a more through inspection every annual.

My first choice would have been a Super 85 but $$$$$ and I already had the 0200.

MikeB

[Windknot]

I have the 0200 in my L16 (7BCM). While I don't have a lot of hours on it yet, I'd guess I'm running somewhere in the 6+ GPH range. The plane is on the heavy side at 955# and doesn't leave a lot for useful load but I usually fly alone and I only weigh about 160# myself so it's not too much of an issue. I could have made the plane lighter but wanted a starter and battery, interior and the 'greenhouse' is heavier than fabric, etc. Anything you throw up and it comes down will add weight. Right now I've been running the engine close to 2500 RPM which accounts for the fuel burn but I can lean it out and I can run it a bit slower or around 24-2450. I'm guessing my speed is somewhere between 90-95 @2500. With the Wagner STC you're pretty limited on prop options. I'm using a McCauley 69 X 50 which is supposed to be a cruise prop but I could use a little more length or more bite. Take off performance is 'awesome' compared to my Champ with the 65. One other note: the 0200 falls under the spar AD which needs a more through inspection every annual.

My first choice would have been a Super 85 but $$$$$ and I already had the 0200.

MikeB

Thanks MikeB!!! I've added/Edited my original post to include your data. 955# EW? Zoinks that's a beast!! - I should have mentioned that I am aware of the weight issues associated w/0-200, and have pretty much disregarded it as an option for me personally, but thought that I should include it for further reference for anyone looking at the difference in engines.

[rkittine]

I have the C-85-12 Stroker (0-200 Parts) in my Chief and love it. I have a C-90-8 in my 7CCM and like it a lot. My C-90 is getting closer and closer to overhaul time, so I called Don at Don's Dream Machine, who did my C-85 conversion and he told me to stick with the C-90. 95 Take Off HP, under the 100 for the Wind Inspection port AD, though I still bore scope the wing each annual, and lots of low end torque. In about 200 hours of flight time, my average fuel burn is 4.7 gallons per hour.

Don said that the 0-200 had more limitations on props, 105 Ft Pounds of torque less than the C-90 and lower HP at normal high cruise setting.

He will be overhauling my C-90 when the time comes.

Hope the fuel burn number helps. I have a climb / seaplane prop on the plane. Doesn't cruise very fast, but sure climbs, even with 2 200+ Pound Guys on board.

Ciao - Robert

[MikeB]

Regarding the 0200, I don't believe it's that much heavier (overall) than a C85 but a starting system will add about 35 pounds, even with the Sky-tec starter. Then you add the 150 exhaust system, metal prop, extra fuel tanks required (18#). I don't have a charging system though and mine is covered with Superflite 6 so that's a bit heavier than other systems. Also have all new .032 ribs and .024 leading edge which adds weight. My friends L16, C85 with the original Delco starter, 12 amp generator and Concord battery weighed in at around 945#. Using the Oddessy (spelling?) battery would save some weight as the Concord is about 24#.

Not to hi-jack the thread but it would be interesting to see how much some of the others with conversion engines weigh overall. Which reminds me: I was looking at a nice Champ at Oshkosh a few years ago which had a C85 engine, extra fuel tanks, full interior, HW exhaust and a fairly heavy cover system. The tag on the prop said the EW was 770#.....hmmmmm!!
Mike

[Windknot]

Not to hi-jack the thread but it would be interesting to see how much some of the others with conversion engines weigh overall. Which reminds me: I was looking at a nice Champ at Oshkosh a few years ago which had a C85 engine, extra fuel tanks, full interior, HW exhaust and a fairly heavy cover system. The tag on the prop said the EW was 770#.....hmmmmm!!
Mike

Funny.....I am/was looking at a champ right now with a C-90 that they've shown me an A&P Signed W&B stating that the EW on it is 774# - and that was supposedly after the CCM conversion!!!!

Then there is the crumpled tail that I saw in an old photo of the plane (Thank God for cached old photos on the internet) . I asked about the crumple and was met with "what crumple, we dont have no crumple" to which I replied...."well lemmie show you" and produced a copy of the photo for their perusal.......and now come to find out the BELIEVE a tube was replace in the back.

Why cant people just be upright and honest right from the start? Heck....if they would have been honest, the old tail damage wouldn't have bothered me....but now how the heck can I trust that they're telling me the truth on anything?

Now I'm hijacking my own thread!!

[Windknot]

The best source of info will be the Continental manual. Towards the back will be power curves for the C75/85/90 and O-200.

http://www.pj260.com/Continental/O-200%20Manual.pdf

You'll have to interpolate for Super-85 data; mine is just a tad shallow of the C90 curve.

You heard right; the C90 is probably the best of the 4, with the Super-85 very close. Followed by the C85 and then the O-200.

Honestly, you'll be happy with any of them. More important than horsepower is empty weight. A heavy airplane will fly like a dog, regardless of hp. Before the Super-85, I ran an A-65 and it did fine. Routinely it would 'hypothetically' be loaded well over gross and preform okay. Climb out was a little slow, but it could clear a 50' tree in 2000' during the summer heat.

nkh

I've heard the Stroker gives about 92hp - what is your gallon burn that you've experienced (on average)?

[rkittine]

My 7CCM has a C-90-8, so there is no starter or battery and no accessory case. This engine is lighter than a C-85-12 or an 0-200. With the Hanson Wilson Exhaust, new Airtex interior, a panel well beyond the original, headliner, side panels, carpet, vortex generators, metal prop, larkge back seat, Antenna, 5.5 gallon ing tank and wheel covers, I had the plane weighted and it is 858 pounds, empty. The larger displacement cylinders have less metal and I am told (though the Continental Specs do not seem to confirm that) reduce the engine weight by 6 pounds, where the C-85 stroker, is Stroked with the 0-200 Crank, Rods and Pistons to get more displacement.

[jc pacquin]

My Champ had an 85hp with new milinium cylinders, starter, transponder, transceiver, wheel pants and a scott tailwheel. It also had a new McCauley prop which I think was a 72-44. (I think) In any event it got out well but not like a Citabria 150 or a Super cub. I was never really worried about fuel burn as it was so much better than the Stearman or the Mooney that I was happy to just fly it low and slow. It did 85 or 90.( your not going to go fast no matter what you do!)The interior fabric had all been removed down to the metal which had been sprayed white in a professional manner. New headliner, off white. Black upholstered seats done well and a black panel. Floor was marine plywood natural with many coats of poly. Kick plates also. In conversation with Bill Pancake who I respect alot, he mentioned that he personally thought that the Don Swords 85 conversion was the way to go above all others as it would give closer to a true 100 hp than the others including an 0200. The prop is very important so you want to spec it carefully and of course METAL is the best for maximum performance. If you have just the one 13 gallon tank this will save weight but limit your range. I had only the one tank but wished I'd had a wing tank or two. It was a great little airplane, easy to fly, easier to land, a lot of fun. I weigh 195 and was usually alone although my wife went along some @ 110 lbs. and it didn't seem to make much difference. This airplane is now in Texas, Cubby Green and white. I sold it but if I still had it I would do the Don Swords conversion., Best regards, Jim P.

[Nathan K. Hammond]

On my super-85 with a Mac CM71/46

2575 - 6 gph
2300 - 5.2 gph
2150 - 4.5 gph

They typically dyno in the 97hp range, and if you hotrod it, things only get better. I'm told if you port/polish, Venturi the spider, and put 85 rods and pistons in, you'll see around 115hp. More if you go with Lycon's high compression pistons. All while the dataplate says C-85 which is a benefit to Aeronca folks.

nkh