Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store


No announcement yet.

"C" Case vs O-200 Dimensions

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "C" Case vs O-200 Dimensions

    I have been offered the use of a Continental "C" crankcase and two cylinders to use when making the engine cowling. I think the "C" case will fit the O-200 engine mount but will need spacers to make the case long enough to use as a dummy for the cowling. How about some advise on this. Thanks. Rolly

  • #2
    Yes, I used a C-85 case. Stinger
    You do not have permission to view this gallery.
    This gallery has 3 photos.


    • #3
      Great fotos Stinger! Did the "C" case work without spacers? If not, what size were they? Rolly


      • #4
        Rolly, The case dimensions for the c-85 and 0-200 are the same. I made steel spacers only to take the place of rubber mounts for welding. Stinger


        • #5
          Thanks for the info/ Rolly


          • #6
            Resurrecting an old thread since i’m going through a similar analysis. I want to be able to use either a C85 or O-200 in my LSA. I have both engines and did some measurements. the cases are not identical. doing a rough stack up, the O-200 prop flange will be about about 1/2” further forwarded compared to the C85. the castings are different but most of the difference is in the motor mount ears. the c85 uses the conical mount whereas the O-200 uses the more conventional (and expensive) mount. I will do a more precise measurement soon, but the plan is to position the cowl for the longer O-200 engine, then make spacers as needed between the C85 soft mounts and the engine mount in the plane.

            I’ll report back with numbers and pics once i do the detailed stack up. I bought both rubber sets for the two mounts and have to research how much to compress them for a good measurement.


            • #7
              I built my mount and cowling and other "engine connections" using a C-90 core motor but ended up using an 0-200. I tried mounting it with the Lord mounts that came with the 0-200 but it moved the motor forward enough I would have had issues with nose bowl clearance. I turned up some adapters for the 0-200 to use the cone mounting rubbers of the C-90 and all has been fine now for a couple hundred hours.. I have a lathe so made my own adapters but at the time(and they still might be) one could buy them on E-bay.

              Other changes were on the P leads for the Bendix mags that came with the C-90 to the Slick mags on the 0-200. The mixture connection to the carb also changed(I think the C-90 had a Stromberg while the 0-200 has a MS carb)
              Last edited by BTAZ; 12-10-2023, 12:35 PM.


              • #8
                IMG_0365.jpg IMG_0364.jpg
                follow up with data: the c85 with conical mounts will put the prop rearward 5/8” compared to the O-200.

                I will make spacers if i install the c85. these pics are the o-200 with mount. notice the backset from rear face of block.
                Last edited by arborite; 12-10-2023, 06:20 PM.


                • #9
                  these are the c85 pics. note thinner bushing and mount flush with rear block face.