Welcome to the Culver Aircraft Forum
Culver Cadet Section => Documentation => : Scott Crosby January 06, 2012, 06:45:22 AM
-
I'm still deciding whether to keep my project's Franklin or go with a Continental. If I make the change - how tough would it be to get an O-200 approved? Parts are plentiful and relatively cheap and the 100hp would be a big plus. Anyone have any experience with a Cadet and an O-200? What do you guys think?
Scott
-
I don't know of any Cadets with an O200 engine that aren't licensed experimental. The process of getting a field approval is probably not worth the effort. It may not even be possible today.
An alternative to consider would be a C85 with the O200 crank, rods and pistons. If you'll check the FAA file for my project Cadet, N29392, the first approved 337 in the file is for that modification. I'm sure there is some power increase with this mod.
I know where there is a Don's Dream Machines overhauled C85 with this mod. The owner also has a new Sensenich prop to go with it. It's still in the crate and the owner wants to sell it.
-
I'm doing the Franklin 90 because it came with the plane. Lots of people look for the 100 crank to go in the C85. Don's dream machine wants more than $20,000 for one which is too much for me. Guess I'll fly with the Franklin and keep looking for something better. It is my understanding that a C-100 would make it experimental and once that change is made, I'm told, you never get it back in certification.
-
N29288 s/n 157 has an O-200 installed. There was a magazine article written about it about 10 years ago. The FAA registry list it as a standard airworthiness in the normal catigory. Susan Dusenbury - owner, Stoneville, NC
-
I've just added the FAA airworthiness file for N29288, to the culvercadet.com website. I'm not sure I understand exactly what they did to get the FAA to issue a standard airworthiness certificate. It had been continuously licensed Experimental R & D between 1944 and 1986. At that point it received a standard airworthiness certificate with no supporting documentation shown in the file. The FAA Airworthiness documents are missing from the file prior to 1944. Take a look and see what you think.
The original bill of sale was signed by Knight Culver.
-
Bill, I finally has a few minutes to look over 29288s records and it looks to me like this...
1. It was first an LCA with a C-75 installed.
2. It was converted to a Franklin 90 "for testing" and for a limited time... at that time they may have listed the changes made -ie- needed to return it back to previous un-modifided condition.
3. It was kept experimental by anual extension for a loooong time!
4. One of the last 337 repaired it & returned it to an LCA (apparently with application for and FAA conformity inspection to return to standard airworthiness).
5. A short (items A B C D E F) 337 by Susan installed the O200 << AFTER >> it was back in Standard Airworthiness, indicating that the O200 install had nothing to do with the experimental status!
-
I guess the question is; would it be possible to get another O200 installation approved by referring to this 337 as previously approved data?
-
Bill, Good question given today's tightning approach to "acceptable data" for a 337. The 337 for the O200 install is very short on information or back-up/supporting data. It would almost certainly not be accepted by your local FSDO today. Of course if an IA signed it off the copy, today, is sent directly to the OK City files so the local FSDO dosen't look at it... but if they had a reason to look (not too likely but still possible), the IA (and you) would almost certainly be paid a visit. I predict that this 'noose' is just going to continue to tighten up as time goes on.
The rather time honored 'piggy-back' 337 aproach is a real gray area. My copy of FAA-G-8082-19 (IA Information Guide) lists 19 items as possible forms of approved data. The only 337 related ones are: #5. "...337 whici has been used for multiple identical aircraft (only by the original modifier)." and #6. "...(any) 337 dated before Oct.1, 1955." Today it is VERY DIFFICULT to get the local inspectors out to do a field approval of a 337. They will recomend that you get an approved engineer (DER) to approve your data which seems to be their desired method. Last time I used a DER his fee was $500.
See next post...
-
My N34875 (sn 284) was modified from an LFA, using an STC to mount a C-90 Continental with 1A90-CF prop. The STC was done by Aircraft Engineering & Development Co. of Hayward, CA and signed off on a 337 dated 3/26/63. Their work included modifying and proof loading the engine mount, foel flow testing and temp. experimential status for flight testing of cooling. There are about 20 pages of (very hard to read) data in the file.
It flew for a little more then 600 hrs before (?) disassembly for repair.. which is it's current state.
Unfortunantly the STC approval page clearly states that..."no other modifications are to be approved solely by reference to this STC or the submitted data."
-
I also would like to put an 0-200 on my LCA 75. After doing some research, I might just forget it and sell my core and buy a C-75 that it was built for. Lately, I have been thinking simpler is better and do not want to deal with the approval process. I am probably even going to leave off the electrical system to avoid a transponder and ADS-B. You didn't need it in '41. Before I give up on the 0-200 idea I will visit with my FSDO and a few other sources to confirm the amount of effort it will take. I am about a year out from needing to make a decision.
-
I think that there might be another way to go with an O-200 in a round about way but legally. Don Sword of Don's Dream Machines not only has an STC for using an O-200 crank, rods and pistons in a C-85 - he also has an STC for using an O-200 case to replace a C-85 case. He did say that you must use a C-85 data plate on the replacement 0-200 case. So, if I am understanding Don correctly, the only C-85 parts used would be the cam and lifters and cylinder assemblies. And, several in my area are using new 0-200 cylinder assemblies like from Superior on their C-85's.
Seems like a pretty easy way to go and the engine remains legally a C-85.
What do you think?
-
I think I've found another Cadet with an O-200. I'll know tomorrow.
-
Bill - I'm told that N281W has an 0-200. Any info on that one?
Thanks,
Scott
-
The FAA Registry indicates a C90. Check out this article on N281W: http://www.aahs-online.org/members/newsletters/fl_175.pdf (http://www.aahs-online.org/members/newsletters/fl_175.pdf)
-
In addition to my N34875, N29288 and N281W I searched the registry and found the following (reported) engine mods:
N41701 Lyc O-290 !!
N34791 C-90
N29396 IO-200 !!
N34890 O-200
N20949 O-200-D (experimental / in a museum)
-
I've just posted the airworthiness records for Cadet N29396. It has an O-200 installation performed under a one-time STC. Prior to that it had an O-290 Lycoming.
-
I am the prior owner of N281W (AKA NC20926) C-90 in that bird for certain.... I knew of a cadet being built by Paul Harper back in the 70's with and O-200. Don't know if it was ever completed of flew. The O-200 required the cowl line to be altered with a definite break between the dash glare shield and the top like of the cowl. not aesthetically pleasing. I'm certain if there was a way of installing that didn't later the lines, Paul would have tried to do this.
Tom Low
(son of Larry Low)
-
Tom's post reminded me... Everyone who is thinking of changing engines from Frank. to Cont. remember that the cowling is shorter by about 1-2 inches for the Franklin. Also, the Cont. O-200 has different rubber mounts and different size mount bolts... thus requires a new mount. If you plan to go that route you might make the new mount just the right amount shorter so as to reduce the work on the cowling. Some Continental engine mounts had a cross tube blocking the space for the starter. If you plan to mount an engine with starter check for that. Many mounts have been modified by now but maybe not all.
-
Hi Cadet Pilots. Bill Poynter asked if I had Drawings for the 0-200 engine mount and if it would match the wood fuselage, Yes to all. The Cadet STF is a certified home built and you
may be able to apply this to alteration certifacation. I also have compleat drawings for the 0-200 baffle cooling. Check with Bill for further progress. Neal