Re: F-24 WITH 220 CONT? Fairchild Flyer 12/90

[dcasali]

'Here is the text of an article published in the Dec 1990 Fairchild Flyer
on the topic of 220 Conversions. I presume John Berendt wrote it.

TECHNICAL TOPICS
PRO?S AND CON?S OF THE 220 CONT CONVERSION FOR THE 24?s

We?ve all heard about the Jacob?s conversion for the F24 but there?s not
much information about the 220 Continental conversion. Walt Hedrick of
Littleton, Colorado has the specs and has passed them on to us in the
following:


"The 220 makes the 24 a good performer here at our alt. in
Denver where the density alt. can be 9,000 to 10,000 feet
during the summer, take off and climb is much better but
cruise isn?t a lot faster. I cruise at 125 mph true with 1800
rpm which is normal cruise for the Cont. ? a little faster at
1850. I am only 3 or 4 mph faster than my old Ranger 24 with a
Beech electric prop. Fuel consumption is 12 gal./hr. overall.

Cowling is a problem. I have a Waco Cabin Cont. cowl which
fits very good, a Cessna UC 78 Jacobs cowl will work but is a
little large and a Waco UPF cowl fits good. You have make your
own accessory cowl.

The engine mount is FAA approved and mfg. by Serv-Aero at
Salinas, CA. The mount is short and there is very little room
in the accessory section.

John Bergeson of Mt. Pleasant, Mich. got the original 337
approval for my 24 in 1973. Will enclose a copy for you to
have in the club -this will be a big help for anyone getting
approval but any installation would be up to the local FAA
office for final approval.

You will notice there is 22 lbs. of lead in the tail and even
then the c.g. is close to the forward limit. The 220 with a
Hamilton-Standard prop is much heavier than a Warner eng. and
prop. This winter I hope to move the battery from the firewall
to the fuselage and get rid of some of the tail ballast. I
have also installed a PT-19 tail strut with a Beech stagger
wing fork which has elminated the tail wheel shimmy which goes
with the 24?s.

The bad part of a Cont. 24 is the weigh and low payload. I
have a full IFR panel and a couple of radios and my empty wt.
is 2,070 lbs. so with full tanks you have a single place
airplane. To my knowledge, now one has tried to get a higher
gross. It would be a real hassle to get it through the FAA.
The airplane flies good with a load of passengers.

I have the auto fuel STC from Petersen at Minden, NE, guess I
was the first to get approval for the 24. I mix some 100 oct.
with the auto fuel, the radials need some lead for the valve
seats."

The original specifications for the F24W46 with the Warner 165D engine
are as follows:

Empty weight 1651 lbs.

* useful load 911 lbs.
* payload with 40 gal. fuel 472 lbs.
* payload with 60 gal. fuel 353 lbs.
* baggage allowed to 140 lbs

The gross weight of the ship was 2562 lbs. In the case of the
Continental conversion, 400 lbs was lost from the useful load. It would
be very interesting to see if the FAA would go along with the higher
gross weight. Our thanks to Walt Hedrick for the information.




-- Dan Casali, Publisher
Lost River Press
Box 1286 Ketchum, ID 83340
208.726.5120


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]'