Bret Ludwig wrote:
Scott wrote:
Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
welder.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Actually I'm having you on. Continentals were used in many military
gensets and GPUs. There was a flat twin using C-85 jugs that was
produced in large numbers for a dedicated Army radio genset giving B+
and heater voltages for a specific transmitter truck and a O-470
derivative used in a genset used by MASH units. Lycs were used in lots
of ground ramp applications and in an airdroppable rescue boat. They
were all pains in the ass and Uncle Sugar got rid of them forthwith.
Liquid cooled en-bloc engines were far more reliable and that's why
split crankcases and bolt on one piece jugs left general purpose engine
design circa 1925 or so.

Ever seen a Rotax 912?


Why do you say the C-85 should be reproduced rather than the A-65? Lots
of restored "antiques" used the A-65...Luscombe, Aeronca, Taylorcraft,
Piper, etc.

If you were "going to build a homebuilt" as you say, which indicates to
me you haven't or aren't planning to build a homebuilt, why are you
hanging around a homebuilt newsgroup, offering advice on something you
have no experience with? Ever fly behind an A-65 (or in front of one if
it's a pusher)?

I think I soloed behind a 75 that started out as a 65. I worked in
FBO's and once for about three weeks in the Cessna Pawnee Ave. plant. I
quit because I literally couldn't take the heat-there was no A/C and it
was August in Wichita. Wichita was the most depressing piece of ****
fundamentalist-ridden town I have ever lived in my life, besides, no
one flies. 90% of the production staff not only weren't pilots, they
had never been up in the plane they built and had no desire to do so.

Most of the aircraft with 65s originally later got upgrades and many
got electrical systems and engins with generator and starter pads. Then
people got stupid and tore out the wiring, and reconverted them to the
original configuration so they lost lights and radios and could fly
around like an ultralight. If the airframe is certificated or STC'd to
take the 85 you are dumb to forfeit the additional horsepower, unless
you have a source for cheap "white gas" the 65 would burn and the later
ones wouldn't. As you know the 65, 75, 85 and up are largely the same
engine. I think the 65 has lower compression pistons.

A-65 and A-75 have the same compression ratio: 6.3:1. A-75 has drilled
rods and a few more simple mods. It turns faster, which theoretically
gives 10 more HP -- at 2600 RPM. If you use a 72CK42 prop from an
A-65 on an A-75, all it will do is deliver 65 HP @ 2300 rpm at sea
level. It won't do 75 HP.

Some airplanes are really best off with this engine, but designing a
new one around one today is no more sensible than using an OX-5,

I'm kinda wondering how much you know about these great little engines
because they are quite modern and deliver great power for their
vintage, with hydraulic lifters, superb reliability, and plenty of
power output for their size and weight. A-65's never had starters,
except on the A-65-12, which is a very rare Mooney MIte engine, and
nearly impossible to find any more. Not that it hasn't been done but
I have never heard of converting an A-65 to an electric starter.
You'd have to find a rear case for it, and they are rare as hen's
teeth.

Got a photo?

C-85's are low compression too, and will burn mogas. So will C-90's,
O-200's, and O-300's. None of them make more than about 7 atmospheres
of compression, meaning they are 80 octane engines, suitable for
regular mogas and a little additive to keep the valve seats lubed.