C-85 vs c-90

[68Papa]

I'm replying. Send me your E-mail and I'll send a PFD that describes the 1420 floats and a flight test.

Gary

Done - thanks Gary.

[BC12D-4-85]

Got it all and sent the Baumann PDF. Don't let the floats go. Opinion.

Gary

[TurboBeaver]

For what ever it's worth around Maine an 11 with a 90hp was considered to have 15 more HP than an 85........ We had one in our family from 1959 till 1990, it was common in Maine to take a 18 gal Cub tank, and saw it into "two" 9 gal tanks ( for converting TWO Cubs)to add to the right side for a total of 27 gals. Ours had this mod, it gets placarded " for level flight only".I flew it to Alaska from Me with only a magnetic compass, and a handheld radio in 1983, that extra 2 hrs made ALL the difference on fuel!
N5575H; it's in Eagle River last I checked. It is a fantastic performer, 829 actual weight on 25-11-4's. With a C-150 seaplane prop, in the late 1980's it was commonly flown with 8 bags of grain (80lbs ea) plus full fuel; from Palmer to Alexander Lk Lodge. Thats a fact. A 90hp is a different animal than an the 85hp. When you really need it the longer stroke and that low end torque is the answer. All things equal if the 85 HP was $60k and the 90 HP was $70 k , I would pay it to have the 90..... Having flown many T-craft and Champs with 85hp as well as Cubs they all feel the same to me.......... Ditto with a standard 0-200, I recently sold an experimental Champ with an 0-200 that was a nice outfit, but even with extended wings and scout tips it wasn't in business with my uncle's 90 HP Champ.....(CCM).
A non electric 18/95 is actually the way I would lean today
However with all that said, IF you are never going to fly floats, all done Moose hunting, live at sea level, normally fly around with 10 gals of fuel than an 85/11 will work fine.
Especially if your under 6' and weigh less than 180lbs.....
Sure hope this has NOT offend all the 85hp guys, or 6'-4" fellas but this was my mileage so yours may very????
Good Luck with your purchase.
E

[tempdoug]

https://www.facebook.com/commerce/li...are_attachment

[WWhunter]

I can't open the FB attachment that tempdoug posted, but there's a PA18-105 listed on FB. If I recall, it's located in Alaska.

[mvivion]

You're alright Gary! My dad and sister live in Fairbanks. I will have to come visit you when I'm in town..

Baumanns are the best floats for those airplanes by a country mile! I sure wouldn't pass the combination. As Gary noted, buy em both, and decide what to do with the floats. But, a nice 11 on Baumann floats.....that would be a sweet combination.......and in Alaska, as in Float Country???

Yes!

MTV

[68Papa]

At this point I am going to pass on the -11 with the C-85. I am trying to get a pre-by on the -11 with Baumann floats and C-90 in Oregon. With all the input on those floats, I will most likely take the cub with those floats if the pre-buy looks good. I would still hold out for a non electric 18-95 if a good one came along, but I doubt I will loose any sleep by purchasing the -11.

[Dan Gervae]

I’ll tell you my side by side experience: I owners 2 Taylorcraft BC12D …one with an 85…the other with a 90…I thought it was similar to the difference between my 65 hp and 85 hp Tcraft’s when I bought the 90…..it was that much better. On Baumanns…the 1420 are almost a foot longer than the 1500s the 1500s are identical to EDO 1320 except 1” wider and 1.5” deeper giving the added buoyancy. Bud Baumann said the 1420s were great but had a tendency to drag the tails on takeoff…easily solved by rotating to one float…1500s were an improvement and for that platform the best overall. 1420s are a close second only because of added capacity for 21st century fat boys�� everyone has been chasing 1320s because they hit the nail way back in the late 30s with the gold standard in small floats.

[Crash, Jr.]

That's a great point and the purpose of my original question. "Is the C-85 a deal breaker"? If I talk the Alaska guys, I'm told to wait and get the C-90 - that I won't be happy with the 85. And although nobody that has responded here is saying it in those direct terms, that is what I'm hearing - "get the C-90".

All good info!! Appreciated!!

I've never been unhappy with my C85. More power would be nice but it's better to be light and know how to fly your plane. The C85 is a great little motor too.

[68Papa]

I've never been unhappy with my C85. More power would be nice but it's better to be light and know how to fly your plane. The C85 is a great little motor too.

The -11 with the C-85 is "brand spankin new", built by an A&P that has a very good reputation. That cub is in a bone stock configuration, full electric and weighs 855. My concern is I bring a cub like that to Alaska, put cub gear, 3200 tail wheel and 26" of 29" light weight Airstreaks, now that little -11 with the C-85 is most likely over 900lbs.. Now would I regret not having the C-90 PA-11 with no electric and weighs 830??

It's tough to be in Alaska and trying to purchase a Cub in the lower 48. Would really be tough if it wasn't for this forum!

[BC12D-4-85]

Performance = lowest wing (#/sq ft) and power loading (#/hp)

Gary

[JP]

Hmmmm. Time for the 1320s in the backyard to take a trip to Tennessee. Head's up.

[Douten]

Best combo I've found on my c-90 powered pa-11's is Baumann 1500A amphibs they perform as good as the EDO 1320's but more buoyancy and it's nice to have the plane in the hanger at night. ( story guy I know it's almost impossible to find a set but if you do don't let them get away).

[Dan Gervae]

I looked high and low for 1500A Baumanns…I have a set of straight but wanted my experimental 11 to be on amphibs for the reason Douten cites. I settled for a set of Mead which are nice…same weight but made of carbon fiber/Kevlar ….hydraulic instead of mechanical gear actuation which didn’t thrill me…I wired them to have a backup battery source with a 5 lb battery in my baggage which I felt was worth the weight for piece of mind. Water performance is good and they are very nicely built. I saw a set a few weeks ago on Barnstormers if anyone is looking…maybe the guy still has them?. I’m glad I found a set of amphibs that worked for me, but I am still in love with Baumanns. I had planned to find a C90 for my plane but got a good deal on an O200 and went that route. I don’t know if it’s better or worse…I only know it spins my 76-36 Catto higher static than my C90….I tried it. I’ve always heard that the C90 has more torque a lower rpm… but this experiment me…because thrust is thrust and 100 rpm more static would equal more thrust? I think? there are volumes of discussion on here about that but I won’t go to deep into that…search the forum. I love both and my 11 is a hoot to fly and I (like Douten) love having it in the hangar at night. Not many in this class can beat Douten’s 11 from what I’ve seen so he has the setup to mimic for sure.

[Crash, Jr.]

The -11 with the C-85 is "brand spankin new", built by an A&P that has a very good reputation. That cub is in a bone stock configuration, full electric and weighs 855. My concern is I bring a cub like that to Alaska, put cub gear, 3200 tail wheel and 26" of 29" light weight Airstreaks, now that little -11 with the C-85 is most likely over 900lbs.. Now would I regret not having the C-90 PA-11 with no electric and weighs 830??

It's tough to be in Alaska and trying to purchase a Cub in the lower 48. Would really be tough if it wasn't for this forum!

Please don't do any of those mods except perhaps the tailwheel. -18 tail feathers and gear are just useless weight on a PA-11. You can go a surprising number of places on 29" Airstreaks with everything else fairly stock.

That being said, if the C90 one comes with Baumann 1500's thats worth it's weight in gold alone. I'd hold out for the cub with Baumanns. I'm just saying don't get hung up on 5hp difference. Both the C90 and the C85 are great engines with the real difference being who's flying it and how much extra crap they've hung on the airframe.

[NoFlaps]

"Edit: When I had my PA-11 N333GP my needs were to fly a 200 mile roundtrip plus winds to a remote camp. The dog could go but not the wife and dog without refueling. That's reality.

Did your 11 have the C-90? What were you burning per hour?? Typically can you get 5 gallons an hour or is it less than that?

Refresh my failing memory, what's the GW of a PA18-95, 1550??

1500 lbs



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

[mvivion]

Please don't do any of those mods except perhaps the tailwheel. -18 tail feathers and gear are just useless weight on a PA-11. You can go a surprising number of places on 29" Airstreaks with everything else fairly stock.

That being said, if the C90 one comes with Baumann 1500's thats worth it's weight in gold alone. I'd hold out for the cub with Baumanns. I'm just saying don't get hung up on 5hp difference. Both the C90 and the C85 are great engines with the real difference being who's flying it and how much extra crap they've hung on the airframe.

When I had my 11, I had to do some research for the mechanic to sign off the Airstreaks on it…..Airframes requires “Heavy Duty Gear” for those tires (26 in my case). A little research showed Piper used same gear on the PA-18 as on the 11. Mechanic said “I guess that qualifies as heavy duty.

Dont increase the weight any more than you have to and your stock gear will serve well.

But, an 11 with full electric? There’s some weight I’d lose.

MTV

[68Papa]

The -11 I'm considering has the C90-8 / no electric.. A very light PA18-95 has come across my radar, and also has the C90-8. Decisions, decisions, decisions....... Tailwheel and Airstreaks would be the only mod to either plane.

[Crash, Jr.]

Both good planes with the "best" engine. The -8 has no provisions for adding an electric starter or generator so you're married to hand propping which isn't a bad thing at all on small engines. Saves some weight out of the accessory case.

For me it would be the PA18-95 if the weight is comparable to the -11. There aren't many PA-18-95's around and the gross weight increase is nice. Plus it's compatible with more STC's out there. Same story applies though, it's got to be light.

[General]

That's a great point and the purpose of my original question. "Is the C-85 a deal breaker"? If I talk the Alaska guys, I'm told to wait and get the C-90 - that I won't be happy with the 85. And although nobody that has responded here is saying it in those direct terms, that is what I'm hearing - "get the C-90".

All good info!! Appreciated!!

Couple of thoughts. I have a C90-8F with a metal prop on my Cub and I love it. Buddy of mine has a C85 stroker with an emag on his C120. Its as capable as my C90. Both planes are capable of hauling two fat guys and fuel.

My C90-8F is on a J5A Cub. I can load two fats, a full tank, and a tool kit and fly just fine with a little extra fuel consumption.

The PA-11 is going to fly great with a C90 or a C85. If you want more from the C85 down the road, make it a stroker when you overhaul it. You'll enjoy throwing hours on it that much more if you know you are stroking it when it gets to that time for it.

I also suggest you look at J5 Cubs. They are wider, legal for three, and easy to modify. I fly mine all the time, but it's getting new Dakota wings with 24 gallon tanks in each wing, a baby bushwheel, belly pod, etc. Why the changes? I decided I wanted aluminum spars, and I wanted to haul fuel in the wing and not in the bags (I have a special need for hauling fuel to an island for mowing). The J5 will also get you more GW. 1450 lbs at about the same empty as a PA-11.