The death of the A-65?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
You can grind an A-65 to .010 under, then again to .020 under--- and
get bearings for them. There are a few cranks left around. I just
removed a crankshaft from a C-85 for replacement with an O-200
crankshaft. You can use a C-85 crank in the A-65.

As soon as they get so scarce it makes the investment worth it, ECI or
Superior or somebody will start making cranks. As easy as it is to
tool up nowadays with all these computer-controlled machine shops, I
don't understand why A-65's, A-75's, and A-80's are not being
manufactured. They are great engines, much more dependable and
torquier than their competitors like the R and the J. And they turn
at reasonable RPM's for good prop aesthetics and good prop efficiency.
AND --- they will sip mogas at 4 gallons per hour.

If they are so great why aren't they used in gensets and irrrigation
pumps and welders?

If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
sprocket and not a crankshaft.

Brett, you come up with some amazing solutions. Exactly what engine would
you use?

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...


If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
sprocket and not a crankshaft.

Brett, you come up with some amazing solutions. Exactly what engine would
you use?

A Chevy with the transmission still attached? The only shortcoming (besides
weight) is you have to trim the airplane such that you to need only right
rudder since your left foot will be busy on the clutch.

:-}
--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
You can grind an A-65 to .010 under, then again to .020 under--- and
get bearings for them. There are a few cranks left around. I just
removed a crankshaft from a C-85 for replacement with an O-200
crankshaft. You can use a C-85 crank in the A-65.

As soon as they get so scarce it makes the investment worth it, ECI or
Superior or somebody will start making cranks. As easy as it is to
tool up nowadays with all these computer-controlled machine shops, I
don't understand why A-65's, A-75's, and A-80's are not being
manufactured. They are great engines, much more dependable and
torquier than their competitors like the R and the J. And they turn
at reasonable RPM's for good prop aesthetics and good prop efficiency.
AND --- they will sip mogas at 4 gallons per hour.

If they are so great why aren't they used in gensets and irrrigation
pumps and welders?

If you were going to reproduce a Continental engine it should be the
C-85, and the primary market would be restored antiques, which means a
type certificated engine. If I were going to build a homebuilt I would
use an engine I can get parts at Pep Boys for it. With a geared prop
drive that means if I put the plane on its nose, I replace a prop and
sprocket and not a crankshaft.

Brett, you come up with some amazing solutions. Exactly what engine would
you use?

On a homebuilt? Depends on the size and design goals, but I understand
the Suzuki is working out pretty well for some of the small fry, as is
the Subaru.

If money wasn't an issue I'd be looking at the Thielert TAE125 or the
Deltahawk diesel, but if money wasn't an issue I'd buy a production
aircraft. Just me, personally.