GarandOwner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 96
I am in need of this forum's sage wisdom:
I am about to do an engine swap on my Cub (1938 non-electric, no wing tank, wood spar). I have an A75 on it currently, I was having cylinder issues, sent them off to be overhauled, and 3 out of 4 cylinders were rejected due to cracks. New Superiors aren’t an option because they didn’t include the A75 in their STC. It's already difficult to find serviceable or overhauled cylinders, so rather than sink more money into the A75 I’m going to “upgrade”. The obvious choices are: C85 Stroker, C90 or O-200.
There are a bunch of threads on here about putting an O-200 on a J-3, and I've heard the anecdotal "O-200 is a bad choice for a Cub" from more than a few folks, but haven't been able to get a good reasoning behind "why" it would be a bad choice. Is it because you can’t harness the full 100HP? (e.g. why pay for HP you can’t legally use)
In a perfect world I would go the C85 Stroker, but now I have reservations.
Here is my concern:
The C85’s and C90’s I’ve seen on the market have all sat for 4+ years, (according to the logbooks I’ve been sent, they weren’t pickled). So if I go that route it's a gamble if they have a serviceable crankshaft or camshaft. For the stroker I'd be installing a new crank, but if the cam is rejected, I’d be in the same boat I’m in now – airplane down due to lack of parts. I'm also thinking about sustainability since I plan on keeping the Cub to pass to my kids in the (far distant) future.
So, to me, if I’m going to spend the money it seems the safer/smarter route would be to go O-200 (keeping it non-electric without the generator/starter/vacuum pump), since parts readily available.
So back to my original question: Is the O-200 a poor choice for the Cub, or is it just that in a perfect world, where supply isn't an issue, the C85 or C90 would be a better choice.
All opinions welcome.
I am about to do an engine swap on my Cub (1938 non-electric, no wing tank, wood spar). I have an A75 on it currently, I was having cylinder issues, sent them off to be overhauled, and 3 out of 4 cylinders were rejected due to cracks. New Superiors aren’t an option because they didn’t include the A75 in their STC. It's already difficult to find serviceable or overhauled cylinders, so rather than sink more money into the A75 I’m going to “upgrade”. The obvious choices are: C85 Stroker, C90 or O-200.
There are a bunch of threads on here about putting an O-200 on a J-3, and I've heard the anecdotal "O-200 is a bad choice for a Cub" from more than a few folks, but haven't been able to get a good reasoning behind "why" it would be a bad choice. Is it because you can’t harness the full 100HP? (e.g. why pay for HP you can’t legally use)
In a perfect world I would go the C85 Stroker, but now I have reservations.
Here is my concern:
The C85’s and C90’s I’ve seen on the market have all sat for 4+ years, (according to the logbooks I’ve been sent, they weren’t pickled). So if I go that route it's a gamble if they have a serviceable crankshaft or camshaft. For the stroker I'd be installing a new crank, but if the cam is rejected, I’d be in the same boat I’m in now – airplane down due to lack of parts. I'm also thinking about sustainability since I plan on keeping the Cub to pass to my kids in the (far distant) future.
So, to me, if I’m going to spend the money it seems the safer/smarter route would be to go O-200 (keeping it non-electric without the generator/starter/vacuum pump), since parts readily available.
So back to my original question: Is the O-200 a poor choice for the Cub, or is it just that in a perfect world, where supply isn't an issue, the C85 or C90 would be a better choice.
All opinions welcome.