Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: O235-c to o-235-c1, what's it take?

  1. #1
    txfirefighter628's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Brownwood, TX
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    O235-c to o-235-c1, what's it take?

    What parts are different between a c and c1 o235? Is it legal to upgrade a c to a c1 on a certified pa-12? Does it require a STC or just a 337?

  2. #2
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click on the pdf symbol for the TC data sheet. Both the 0235-C and C1 are approved in a PA-12. Notice item 103 alternate engine.
    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...1?OpenDocument
    N1PA

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Upper Peninsula of Michigan
    Posts
    407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does that make it 115 HP by allowing higher rpm?

  4. #4
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Gervae View Post
    Does that make it 115 HP by allowing higher rpm?
    This is the TC for the engine http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...9?OpenDocument Click on the pdf.

    The -C engine is not listed anymore. The -C1 is rated at 115 hp @ 2800 rpm.

    The problem with this is that if you have a prop which allows you to turn 115 hp for take off and climb, your cruise speed will suffer tremendously. You would probably want to limit your cruise rpm to the 2400 rpm range which would mean that your manifold pressure would be very low. Low fuel burn and low speed.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 04-09-2015 at 05:01 AM.
    N1PA

  5. #5
    evroosevelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wilsonville, AL
    Posts
    149
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had read a Lycoming bulletin years ago and as I remember it said you had to change the camshaft and the Carb. I will see if I can find the bulletin.
    EV

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    don
    Posts
    699
    Post Thanks / Like
    Had a C for awhile and then a C1. Same plane and prop. No noticable performance difference.

  7. #7
    txfirefighter628's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Brownwood, TX
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like
    Found this in a O-235 manual
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	263 
Size:	309.8 KB 
ID:	20050

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by don d View Post
    Had a C for awhile and then a C1. Same plane and prop. No noticable performance difference.
    Wow!!!! So going from the 100hp C to the 108/115hp C1 made no discernible difference?!! This is really hot news to me, as I'm struggling with what to do engine wise, I have a C and debating whether to go to a C1 conversion or the whole hog to a 320

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by txfirefighter628 View Post
    Found this in a O-235 manual
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	263 
Size:	309.8 KB 
ID:	20050
    I thought the big difference between the C and other models was the number of piston rings and possibly the cylinders? There's certainly a massive difference in the cost of C piston rings vs the other models?

  10. #10
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Phil,
    For lots of reasons; simply make the switch to the 0320.
    No matter which 0235 series engine you run there is simply NO comparision in performance. No matter how you try to justify it ; resale, potential amount of buyers, cost to repair, parts availablity, slight fuel savings. None of
    them including your just going to fly light on fuel with no passengers are all hopeless theorys.
    Install a 0320 in your PA12 and unlock its true potential.
    A 0235 PA12 is a very underpowered airplane with any kind of a load........ And will only get more n more expensive to work on.

  11. #11
    windy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    632
    Post Thanks / Like
    My PA-12 had an O-235-C1 when I bought it. It was a total dog. I had to circle to get to pattern altitude that first summer in Utah, with 7,500 density altitude. Upgraded to a 150 hp O-320 and later to an O-360 and never looked back.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  12. #12
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with Windy. Except my -12 is 160 HP O-320. It had the straight O-235 (100 HP) when I bought it. Just fine for local flightseeing at sea level and cool temps. But if you want performance and aren't wedded to the original setup, look for an opportunity to get the O-320 (or more).
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  13. #13
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,348
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by windy View Post
    My PA-12 had an O-235-C1 when I bought it. It was a total dog. I had to circle to get to pattern altitude that first summer in Utah, with 7,500 density altitude. Upgraded to a 150 hp O-320 and later to an O-360 and never looked back.
    That would be expected when operating at the elevations of Utah. At 7,500 feet you would have had only a maximum of 75 hp available, more likely less. A loaded PA-12 is no ball of fire at sea level.
    N1PA
    Thanks Brandsman thanked for this post

  14. #14
    n40ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    910
    Post Thanks / Like
    I could not agree more with reply #10(and others). My experience with a J5A-75 at sea level indeed confirms that the type needs more ponies for sure. I wouldn't put another dime into a O235 . Same with the O290 in my Spezio, if one cylinder dies it would be cost effective to machine the cases/convert to a O320. (You could even make a O235 bigger but of coarse not an option for a certified aircraft)

    I'd be looking for a bigger engine !

    Jack

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had the O-235 C1 in my J-5/PA-12 hybrid until it ended up on its nose and the guy doing the shockload wanted a kings ransom to put it back together. It was so much cheaper to buy an O-320 B1B and get it overhauled. With the Borer prop, Stoddard short engine mount, PA-18 tail feathers that went with the change it did end up costing about $10 000 more than simply repairing the O-235 would have cost but the new engine was “0” time (the repaired 235 would not have been zero time) and the aircraft is transformed from quite nice to wonderful! Go O-320 for sure


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    'There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty".
    Margaret Thatcher
    Likes windy liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. O200 or O235
    By Aussie Scout in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 07-11-2014, 04:42 PM
  2. O235
    By don d in forum Super Cub Sick Bay
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 05:06 PM
  3. Low RPM O235-C2C-Help
    By superchamp in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-17-2005, 01:49 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •