The death of the A-65?

As I understand it, you can grind a scored shaft once and install
oversized bearings, but that's the limit of grinding, then you need a
replacement.

I believe I"ve seen (sometime in the distant past) cranks offered for
sale, but I may be mistaken. Are they getting hard to find?

As the A-65 is no longer made, what does this mean for the fleet of
A-65 owners? Do they swap it out for an engine that is still
supported? - Mike

Michael Horowitz wrote:


As the A-65 is no longer made, what does this mean for the fleet of
A-65 owners? Do they swap it out for an engine that is still
supported? - Mike

For my minicab, I just consider to find a C90-8F in place of my A65...

With more work, I may install a Jabiru (2200 or 3300)

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

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.

Somewhere I read that an O-200 crank fits the A-65 series. Would
someone here know about that? Or was that a C-90 that it fit?

Dan

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.

"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.

Because they're TOO GOOD to waste them in a genset, irrigation pump or
welder.

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)?

Scott


Bret Ludwig wrote:




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.

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.


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.

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, or a
Gnome-Rhone rotary radial, or even the pretty reliable six cylinder
Ranger. Do you drive a Model A flathead four powered car to work every
day?

Are the airboat guys still running these Continentals?