Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:18 AM - Re: Torque tube bearings? (Phillips, Jack)
2. 05:02 AM - (chris cummins)
3. 05:10 AM - Re: Prop (Phillips, Jack)
4. 05:12 AM - Re: (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
5. 05:17 AM - Re: Re: Prop (owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Prop (Ed G.)
7. 06:36 AM - Re: Torque tube bearings? (Ed G.)
8. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: Prop (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
9. 07:02 AM - 65 hp props (Michael D Cuy)
10. 08:27 AM - Re: 65 hp props (Steve Ruse)
11. 12:05 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Steve Eldredge)
12. 12:22 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Isablcorky@aol.com)
13. 12:38 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Steve Eldredge)
14. 01:30 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Isablcorky@aol.com)
15. 01:42 PM - Re: group photo at Brodhead with Javier (Ken Anderson)
16. 02:58 PM - Re: Re: (Rcaprd@aol.com)
17. 05:51 PM - Re: 65 hp props (walt evans)
18. 06:37 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Graham Hansen)
19. 07:03 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Textor, Jack)
20. 07:49 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Steve Ruse)
21. 08:06 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Rcaprd@aol.com)
22. 08:12 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Rcaprd@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Torque tube bearings? |
Ditto for me. I used ball bearing pulleys, but no ball bearings on the
torque tube.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Torque tube bearings?
In a message dated 8/15/2005 8:55:14 PM Central Standard Time,
wbeevans@verizon.net writes:
I'd like a few
> opinions pro/con of doing it Bernard's way, vs ball bearings
Ben,
I did mine the plans method, too. They are simple to build,
inexpensive, light weight, and work just fine. Use 2 drops of oil,
twice a year.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40 or 42.
Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
Chris Cummins
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Chris,
I've got a new Sensenich 72 x 40, which is supposed to be a climb prop
for an A65. I get about 2000 rpm static out of it, and cannot get it to
the redline (2300 RPM) in level flight with full throttle. I also have
a St. Croix which was supposedly made for a Pietenpol and it is a 74 x
36. I haven't tried it yet, but intend to do so shortly. I am not
impressed with my plane's ability to climb on a hot day with a heavy
load.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
cummins
Subject:
What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or 42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
Chris Cummins
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The word I have is 42 p and 72 length gives 2150 rpm 70 -71 mph at
cruise 85-87 tops.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
cummins
Subject:
What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or 42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
Chris Cummins
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm looking for anyone who is using an 80 hp Franklin to see what wooden
prop they chose for their operations.So far I havn't had a good
response.I have info on an 85 hp using a 72X43 but not sure if this is
good for my app.Thanks.
________________________________
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Prop
Chris,
I've got a new Sensenich 72 x 40, which is supposed to be a climb prop
for an A65. I get about 2000 rpm static out of it, and cannot get it to
the redline (2300 RPM) in level flight with full throttle. I also have
a St. Croix which was supposedly made for a Pietenpol and it is a 74 x
36. I haven't tried it yet, but intend to do so shortly. I am not
impressed with my plane's ability to climb on a hot day with a heavy
load.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
cummins
Subject:
What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or 42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
Chris Cummins
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
I have a 80 hp Franklin which is now a 75hp because I needed new pistons and
couldn't find 7:1 compression replacements. I had to go with 6.3:1 which
drops it to 75 hp. It's not in the air yet but I just bought my prop from
Tennessee props. They recomended a 72 X 42. Since the engine is similar in
displacement to the Continental A65 it makes sence to me that they would be
the same..The Franklin puts out 65hp at about the same rpm as the
Continental but is 75 or 80 hp at 2500 rpm depending on the compression
ratio..Sensenich recomended a 72X43 but their price was out of my budget
zone..I decide it would be better to error on the low side than to try to
swing too much prop for the engine. The tennessee prop has a fairly wide
blade so maybe that's where the difference is between the two
recomendations..Like I said I haven't flown it yet but did do my
homework..Ed Grentzer
>From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: Prop
>Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:16:40 -0400
>
>I'm looking for anyone who is using an 80 hp Franklin to see what wooden
>prop they chose for their operations.So far I havn't had a good
>response.I have info on an 85 hp using a 72X43 but not sure if this is
>good for my app.Thanks.
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Phillips, Jack
>Sent: August 16, 2005 8:10 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Prop
>
>
>Chris,
>
>
>I've got a new Sensenich 72 x 40, which is supposed to be a climb prop
>for an A65. I get about 2000 rpm static out of it, and cannot get it to
>the redline (2300 RPM) in level flight with full throttle. I also have
>a St. Croix which was supposedly made for a Pietenpol and it is a 74 x
>36. I haven't tried it yet, but intend to do so shortly. I am not
>impressed with my plane's ability to climb on a hot day with a heavy
>load.
>
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>NX899JP
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
>cummins
>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:02 AM
>To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
>Subject:
>
>
>What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
>or 42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
>
>Chris Cummins
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Torque tube bearings? |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
Hi Ben..If you're building your control tube to plans useing 1020 or mild
steel all is cool..But if your're useing 4130 there is one welding author
who says you shouldn't braze 4130 because it can cause it to split..He
recomends welding it instead..I learned this after brazing mine with no
problems and I've talked to guys who have flying Piets with brazed 4130..But
"THEY" say you shouldn't as it can weaken the metal...Ed Grentzer
>From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet@bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Torque tube bearings?
>Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:16:31 -0400
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Ben Charvet <bcharvet@bellsouth.net>
>
>Hi All,
>
>I'm in the process of fabricating my control sticks and torque tube. I was
>planning to build them to the plans using bearings made of 1 inch tubing
>that I have reamed to be a smooth fit on the 7/8 in torque tube. I've
>noticed several web sites with pictures where the builder has used
>ball-bearings in manufactured bearing carriers for the mount of both the
>torque tube and the bellcrank for the elevator. I'd like a few opinions
>pro/con of doing it Bernard's way, vs ball bearings, and also an idea where
>the ball bearings could be purchased. Thanks in advance for the input.
>
>Ben Charvet
>Mims, Fl
>
>Wing ribs built, fuselage sides joined
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: harvey.rule@bell.ca
Thanks very much for the return info Ed,I appreciate it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G.
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: Prop
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
I have a 80 hp Franklin which is now a 75hp because I needed new pistons
and
couldn't find 7:1 compression replacements. I had to go with 6.3:1 which
drops it to 75 hp. It's not in the air yet but I just bought my prop
from
Tennessee props. They recomended a 72 X 42. Since the engine is similar
in
displacement to the Continental A65 it makes sence to me that they would
be
the same..The Franklin puts out 65hp at about the same rpm as the
Continental but is 75 or 80 hp at 2500 rpm depending on the compression
ratio..Sensenich recomended a 72X43 but their price was out of my budget
zone..I decide it would be better to error on the low side than to try
to
swing too much prop for the engine. The tennessee prop has a fairly wide
blade so maybe that's where the difference is between the two
recomendations..Like I said I haven't flown it yet but did do my
homework..Ed Grentzer
>From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: Prop
>Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:16:40 -0400
>
>I'm looking for anyone who is using an 80 hp Franklin to see what
wooden
>prop they chose for their operations.So far I havn't had a good
>response.I have info on an 85 hp using a 72X43 but not sure if this is
>good for my app.Thanks.
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Phillips, Jack
>Sent: August 16, 2005 8:10 AM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Prop
>
>
>Chris,
>
>
>I've got a new Sensenich 72 x 40, which is supposed to be a climb prop
>for an A65. I get about 2000 rpm static out of it, and cannot get it
to
>the redline (2300 RPM) in level flight with full throttle. I also have
>a St. Croix which was supposedly made for a Pietenpol and it is a 74 x
>36. I haven't tried it yet, but intend to do so shortly. I am not
>impressed with my plane's ability to climb on a hot day with a heavy
>load.
>
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>NX899JP
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
>cummins
>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:02 AM
>To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
>Subject:
>
>
>What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
>or 42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
>
>Chris Cummins
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Chris- I use a wood 72-42 and it gives good climb performance and about a
72 mph cruise speed at 2150 rpm.
Mike C.
At 05:01 AM 8/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40 or
>42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
>Chris Cummins
>
>__________________________________________________
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
I have two props for my A-75. One is a 68x38, the other is a 68x40. I get
about 3,350rpm static with the 68x40, and about 50 more with the 68x38. The
68x40 gives me about 70mph in cruise (~2,500rpm), the 68x38 gives me about
65mph.
Solo climb is fair even on a hot day, maybe 400fpm. With two people it
drops to
probably 200-250. I don't have a VSI, so those are estimated numbers.
Takeoff
is very short, particularly with a headwind of anything more than 8-10mph.
Steve Ruse
N6383J - Dallas, TX & Norman, OK
Quoting Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>:
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
> <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Chris- I use a wood 72-42 and it gives good climb performance and about a
> 72 mph cruise speed at 2150 rpm.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> At 05:01 AM 8/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>> What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a
>> 40 or 42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
>> Chris Cummins
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Eldredge" <steve@byu.edu>
I carved my own 72-42 using aa a pattern what was left of a Sensenich on
my A-65. I now get 80 mph and slightly longer takeoff rolls. I think
it is really performing like a 72-44.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Chris- I use a wood 72-42 and it gives good climb performance and about
a
72 mph cruise speed at 2150 rpm.
Mike C.
At 05:01 AM 8/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or
>42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
>Chris Cummins
>
>__________________________________________________
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Mr. Steve,
I had an A-65 Pietenpol and the only way I could have seen 80MPH was to have
had someone pushing, flying straight down and just lieing about it. Would
appreciate if you would pass your secret around to those of us suffering from a
bad case of the slows. Could be this 220 ft density altitude.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Corky,
I could be lying about it, I've had to repent of things I've said in
ignorance before....
In any case I was flying at 74 mph with the sensenich, and now I'm
indicating 80 in cruise with full throttle. I think I checked it with
the GPS once. In either case, slow is slow, and 6 mph is usually chewed
up with winds anyway. Autos on the freeway still pass me by. I am
flying at 5-7000' regularly. Our field elevation is 4500'. Maybe my
true airspeed is getting a boost being so close to the jet stream!
/Silly Nonsense/-o
Steve E
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Isablcorky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Mr. Steve,
I had an A-65 Pietenpol and the only way I could have seen 80MPH was to
have had someone pushing, flying straight down and just lieing about it.
Would appreciate if you would pass your secret around to those of us
suffering from a bad case of the slows. Could be this 220 ft density
altitude.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Do not archive
I was the one who would have to lie, not you.
Had a 66x48 McCauley metal prop at first. Had been cut off from a 72x48. We
saw no difference after we installed a wood Hegy 72x42.
Slow is slow but just think that you don't have so far to go when you head
home.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: group photo at Brodhead with Javier |
That would be me
ken anderson
I;m still going through about 400 emails since vacation right now 127 left to go
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: group photo at Brodhead with Javier
shoot--sorry Terry. I am embarrassed to say that I asked that gentleman his name
and recognized it from the list.
By the time I got home and downloaded the pics his name escaped me.
Mike C.
do not archive
At 04:16 PM 8/8/2005 -0400, you wrote:
Sorry, not me. That guy's a lot better looking than me. I still hope to make
my first broadhead fly-in next year.
Terry L. Bowden
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: group photo at Brodhead with Javier
Guys-- Can anyone put a name with the gent in the orange shirt ? I want to say
Terry Bowden but not sure. Sorry about that.
L-R are Ed Grentzer, Family or friend of Javier, Jim Markle, Javier, Jack Phillips,
John Hofman, and myself.
Mike C.
Attached Image: Bhead05GroupPhoto.jpg
[Image removed]
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 8/16/2005 7:13:59 AM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule@bell.ca writes:
The word I have is 42 p and 72 length gives 2150 rpm 70 -71 mph at cruise
85-87 tops.
That's about what I get from my homebuilt 72 X 42 prop, with Cont. A65
engine. I added aerodynamic fairings to the gear legs, and jury struts, and now
I
have to hold some forward stick pressure. I plan on removing the fixed trim
tabs on the flippers. The fairings helped clean up the parasite drag, a little
bit.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Mike and everyone.
For top speed, I've found that on the Piet the yaw is very critical. If the
ball is a little off and you step on it, you can just feel a big change in
speed. Also, at altitude if I push the stick forward slightly to get it
"on step" (don't know if that's a real term , or we made it up) it really
cranks.
You'd swear it was diving/losing altitude but it's not. It flattens the low
pressure arch over the wing and keeps you there.
Anyone else do this?
Going like a rocket in NJ :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Chris- I use a wood 72-42 and it gives good climb performance and about a
> 72 mph cruise speed at 2150 rpm.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> At 05:01 AM 8/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or
> >42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
> >Chris Cummins
> >
> >__________________________________________________
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I had a Continental A 65 engine in my Pietenpol for the first few years and then
installed a C 85 in order to have some reserve power on a hot day with a full
load.
The propeller used with the A 65 that gave the best results was a Sensenich 72CK42.
I could get about 2150 rpm static and cruised at the same revs. At this power
setting, it made about 74 mph in cruise and full throttle in level flight
would give about 2250 rpm (short of the rated 2300 rpm of the A 65) and perhaps
78 mph tops. The Pietenpol is a bit draggy; a cleaner a/c like the Taylorcraft
I once owned would top out at 95-100 mph at 2300 rpm with the same engine/propeller
combination, and cruise almost 90 mph at
2150 rpm.
Another propeller that gave similar results was a Flottorp 72A48 (the pitch numbers
for different makes vary). A Flottorp 72A46 was pretty good, but the cruise
dropped to about 70 mph at 2150 rpm. (If one cruised it at 2200 rpm, the cruise
speed increased to that of the 72CK42, but fuel economy suffered.)
A Sensenich 72CK44 was tried, but proved to be a bit too coarse pitch-wise and
the climb rate suffered accordingly.
With the A 65, the climb was never that good anyway, and in cruise with full load
it was often necessary to add whatever excess power that was available to just
maintain height! (The average elevation around here is about 2400' asl and
the density altitude can get up there on a hot summer day.)
Installing a C 85 made a huge difference to the overall performance of my Pietenpol--particularly
in the climb, but it still is no speedster at about 80 mph
with a 72x43 custom prop turning at 2300 rpm. However it is particularly nice
to have power in reserve--a feature lacking with only 65 hp.
A friend used a Warp Drive ground-adjustable propeller on his A 65-powered Pietenpol
for several years and said he was able to optimize its performance rather
easily. He broke the Warp Drive prop in a mishap and replaced it with a custom
wooden one on the C 85 he has since installed. (I suspect he didn't like the
appearance of the WD prop on the Piet, so didn't get new blades.)
The Warp Drive propeller is a viable option. Shawn Wolk from Manitoba, Canada has
one on his Pietenpol, and has reported his experience with it to this list.
Has anyone else tried one?
Graham Hansen
(Pietenpol CF-AUN in cool, cloudy Alberta, Canada)
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Walt,
Your are right-on-step! It worked well in my 140, usually increasing the speed
5 mph. Sometimes when it wasn't stepping I could just deploy the flaps a smidge
to get her going.
Jack Textor
________________________________
Mike and everyone.
For top speed, I've found that on the Piet the yaw is very critical. If the
ball is a little off and you step on it, you can just feel a big change in
speed. Also, at altitude if I push the stick forward slightly to get it
"on step" (don't know if that's a real term , or we made it up) it really
cranks.
You'd swear it was diving/losing altitude but it's not. It flattens the low
pressure arch over the wing and keeps you there.
Anyone else do this?
Going like a rocket in NJ :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Chris- I use a wood 72-42 and it gives good climb performance and about a
> 72 mph cruise speed at 2150 rpm.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> At 05:01 AM 8/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or
> >42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
> >Chris Cummins
> >
> >__________________________________________________
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com>
I've noticed that putting the nose down a little will increase speed without
losing altitude. I've dropped the nose a little before, watched the speed
go up and stay up (just a few MPH). I'll look at the altimeter after a few
minutes, expecting to have lost a couple hundred feet, but I haven't lost
any.
I'll have to play with the yaw as well. I have to hold right rudder in
climb, I need to add a little more trim tab to help keep my yaw down, I'm
not always on top of it as much as I could be.
Steve Ruse
N6383J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of walt
evans
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net>
Mike and everyone.
For top speed, I've found that on the Piet the yaw is very critical. If the
ball is a little off and you step on it, you can just feel a big change in
speed. Also, at altitude if I push the stick forward slightly to get it
"on step" (don't know if that's a real term , or we made it up) it really
cranks.
You'd swear it was diving/losing altitude but it's not. It flattens the low
pressure arch over the wing and keeps you there.
Anyone else do this?
Going like a rocket in NJ :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
>
> Chris- I use a wood 72-42 and it gives good climb performance and about a
> 72 mph cruise speed at 2150 rpm.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> At 05:01 AM 8/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >What pitch prop are you running with an A65 ? I am leaning towards a 40
or
> >42. Not sure which one will give me the RPM I desire.
> >Chris Cummins
> >
> >__________________________________________________
>
>
--
--
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 8/16/2005 7:52:20 PM Central Standard Time,
wbeevans@verizon.net writes:
Mike and everyone.
For top speed, I've found that on the Piet the yaw is very critical. If the
ball is a little off and you step on it, you can just feel a big change in
speed. Also, at altitude if I push the stick forward slightly to get it
"on step" (don't know if that's a real term , or we made it up) it really
cranks.
You'd swear it was diving/losing altitude but it's not. It flattens the low
pressure arch over the wing and keeps you there.
Anyone else do this?
Going like a rocket in NJ :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
Yes, I've found this to be true, too. Especially transitioning from climb to
cruise. I always leave full power in until cruise speed is reached, then
adjust power till no pressure is needed on the stick to maintain altitude. It
planes out at about 63 mph indicated, which is actually about 72 or 73 mph.
Some day I'll have to try to correct the ASI by adding an O-ring in front of the
static port on the pitot / static probe.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 8/16/2005 10:29:12 AM Central Standard Time,
steve@wotelectronics.com writes:
I have two props for my A-75. One is a 68x38, the other is a 68x40. I get
about 3,350rpm static with the 68x40, and about 50 more with the 68x38. The
68x40 gives me about 70mph in cruise (~2,500rpm), the 68x38 gives me about
65mph.
Steve,
Do you really get 3350 static rpm with those props ? That sounds very high
for these small engines. I know they really crank 'em up to race with, but it
shortens the life of the engine.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|