Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:44 AM - Re: 65 hp props (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
2. 05:24 AM - Re: 65 hp props (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
3. 05:39 AM - Re: group photo at Brodhead with Javier (Michael D Cuy)
4. 05:53 AM - Re: 65 hp props (James Dallas)
5. 05:59 AM - Wyoming Pietenpol for sale on ebay (Michael D Cuy)
6. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: 65 hp props ()
7. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: 65 hp props (Ed G.)
8. 09:25 AM - Captain Gantzer Smoke Oil news (Michael D Cuy)
9. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: 65 hp props (harvey.rule@bell.ca)
10. 01:12 PM - Re: 65 hp props (Harvey Rule)
11. 03:03 PM - Re: Pietenpol Propellers (Graham Hansen)
12. 03:27 PM - Re: Pietenpol Propellers (Ed G.)
13. 03:49 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Propellers ()
14. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol Propellers (Graham Hansen)
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 |
|
So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin
rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham
Hansen
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
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 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 |
|
Work proceeding slowly but surely.Jury struts are now installed and
braising wire lugs but I think I'll leave the braising wires till later
since I have to move in that area quite a bit yet,they would just get in
the way.I have to replace the plastic nylon tubing from the oil pressure
gauge since the AME said that if it ever melted then I would have oil
feeding a fire.Not a good situation.I have yet to reinstall the throttle
/rich,lean control to the left side.I also have to replace the gas shut
off valve and install an emergency shut off control.I have to cut that
part of the wing off over the rear cockpit and install a hinge for flop
over.I have to install a stirrup of some sort in order to get my
stealthy little bod in the plane.I seen some good examples on this web
and others.I havn't up my mind yet as to which method to use.I still
have to put leather on the horizontal stab leading edge for the cable
drag and I have to replace all the cones at the exit points for the rear
control cables.I have to make one up for the underside of the wing on
the right side as well since they are bigger than the other exit
cones.I'm not using the same size all around.The ones that Spruce sent
me where much smaller.I think they only have one size to fit all.Funny
things they are too ;you have to cut out the part where the cable goes.I
would have thought that part would already be cut out.I've gone around
the whole plane and touched up the painting where it needed it so it
looks real good now especially if your about 10 feet away from her.Even
using exactly the same colour ,it's mighty hard to match especially
since this plane has taken so long to build.Seat belts are all in and
looking good.The instrument panel is still hanging loose till I can get
that 1/8th copper tubing from Spruce.So as you can see,I'm making
progress but I need time to get at her.I'm taking some days off this
month and next hopefully I can finish before the snow flys.I don't have
skiis for her so she will sit till spring .The N3 Pup has aquired a
rebuilt 503 which has yet to be installed.I know what your thinking,the
guys lost it ,regressing from 4 stroke to 2 stroke but that is the only
solution I can see since the power to weight ratio is not condusive to
my needs.You do what you have to do.I also have yet to repair the bent
rods but the AME I'm working with seems to think that it's a piece of
cake and the rod can be rose welded in order to make it worthy. Lots of
work!I need to retire to get all this done but then I wouldn't have the
money coming in to get it done either.Delemas,delemas.If I can ge the
Peit done just before the snow flys then I may have time to get the N3
done and I'll fly that all winter since she is enclosed.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham
Hansen
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: group photo at Brodhead with Javier |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
KEN ! So sorry for the ID difficulty> Glad to hear you surfaced. Great
to meet you in person at Brodhead.
Mike C.
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 |
|
Steve, You will need a little Right Rudder in a climb. Trim for the speed at
which you will spend most of your time at--usually in cruise.
Jim Dallas
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Ruse<mailto:steve@wotelectronics.com>
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Steve Ruse" <steve@wotelectronics.com<mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of walt
evans
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:51 PM
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "walt evans" <wbeevans@verizon.net<mailto: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<mailto:Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>>
To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com<mailto:pietenpol-list@matronics.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy
<Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov<mailto: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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Wyoming Pietenpol for sale on ebay |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov>
just stumbled upon this in my semi-monthly search for Pietenpols on
ebay. Mike C. do not archive
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Pietenpol-Air-Camper_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63679QQitemZ4569340531QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
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: <sbobka@charter.net>
What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?
Chris
>
> From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
> Date: 2005/08/17 Wed AM 07:43:49 EDT
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>
> So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin
> rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham
> Hansen
> Sent: August 16, 2005 9:36 PM
> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>
>
>
> 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 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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
Franklin AC176s are 80 hp @ 2500
>From: <sbobka@charter.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:44:10 -0400
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <sbobka@charter.net>
>
>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?
>
>Chris
> >
> > From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
> > Date: 2005/08/17 Wed AM 07:43:49 EDT
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> >
> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin
> > rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham
> > Hansen
> > Sent: August 16, 2005 9:36 PM
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Captain Gantzer Smoke Oil news |
Guys--for give the slightly off-Piet post but the list has been dead anyway.
For all of us smokers out there, I was just reading some posts on the
International Coucil of Airshows discussion
groups and there is a new oil out there that is cheaper and doesn't mess up
the belly as bad as normal Texaco Canoupus #13.
The link is here: http://www.noco.com/NOCO-MSDS/Prime_BL_Series.htm It
is called NOCO BL50.
They claim it burns whiter too than regular smoke oil.
Another good post showed these oils as good smoke oils as
alternatives: Quoted from a post on those lists:
I like the Noco 50 but it's only up here in the NE USA usually. It's also a
lot cheaper.
Other types that you can use are:
TELLUS 10
CASTROL Brayco 460
Shell Carnae-15, Vitrea 22, or Vitrea 13
Chevron ISO 15
Skywrite 19
Exxon Telura 612 and 613
G&G 853
Stay away from 1010 MIL-L-6081. This is only good for jets. It's not
appropriate for civilian pilots and props.
-David Schultz Airshows LLC
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: harvey.rule@bell.ca
I don't have that info on me now,I'll have to get back to you with that
one,thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G.
Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
Franklin AC176s are 80 hp @ 2500
>From: <sbobka@charter.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:44:10 -0400
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <sbobka@charter.net>
>
>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?
>
>Chris
> >
> > From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
> > Date: 2005/08/17 Wed AM 07:43:49 EDT
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> >
> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp
Franklin
> > rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Graham
> > Hansen
> > Sent: August 16, 2005 9:36 PM
> > To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 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: Harvey Rule <harvey.rule@sympatico.ca>
dumb answer since if I had just read the letter correctly I would have
noticed the answer is right there!
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: harvey.rule@bell.ca
>
>I don't have that info on me now,I'll have to get back to you with that
>one,thanks.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G.
>Sent: August 17, 2005 12:21 PM
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Franklin AC176s are 80 hp @ 2500
>
>
>
>
>>From: <sbobka@charter.net>
>>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:44:10 -0400
>>
>>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <sbobka@charter.net>
>>
>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>>From: harvey.rule@bell.ca
>>>Date: 2005/08/17 Wed AM 07:43:49 EDT
>>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>>>
>>>So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp
>>>
>>>
>Franklin
>
>
>>>rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>
>>>
>Graham
>
>
>>>Hansen
>>>Sent: August 16, 2005 9:36 PM
>>>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Propellers |
Harvey,
It seems your Franklin engine is rated 80 hp at 2500 rpm. My Continental C 85 is
rated 85 hp at 2575 rpm, which makes them reasonably close.
I get about 2450 rpm full throttle static and about 2550 rpm in level flight, full
throttle. If the airplane were cleaner aerodynamically, I would exceed the
rated rpm of 2575 quite easily.
The propeller I am currently using is a Colin Walker 72x43 wooden prop. Unfortunately,
Colin Walker (of Surrey, British Columbia) has retired. However, there
is a rumour that somebody on Vancouver Island is going to take over his business.
Colin made excellent propellers for many years and, if this is true, it is
good news. I suspect that a 72x44 CW propeller would be just right for my airplane,
but the 72x43 I have is OK. (Remember, a "43 inch pitch" number on one
propeller may not match the same number on another make!)
Getting the optimum fixed pitch wooden propeller for your airplane is a gamble.
An aeronautical engineer friend said that usually a lot of different propellers
need to be tested to find the best one, but this isn't an option for most
of us. He also told me that Pietenpols don't do as well with certified production
props as with custom-built ones. Metal props can be re-pitched; wooden props
don't lend themselves to this kind of "tweaking". A ground-adjustable prop
(eg. Warp Drive) pretty-well eliminates the gamble factor, but some don't like
their appearance on a Pietenpol. You could go that route, as others have.
If you can borrow a Sensenich 72CK 42 or 72CK44 for trials, you would then get
an idea what prop you need for your particular airplane/engine combination. Either
of these should be reasonably close to your requirement--at least for testing.
Graham (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Propellers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Ed G." <flyboy_120@hotmail.com>
Borrowing a prop for a Franklin will probably be difficult. The AC 176
series Franklin's prop flange has a 4" X 6 X 3/8" bolt pattern..It is
fairly unique to this engine. Believe it or not they were in production
before Continental or Lycombing ( That's what I read anyway) so they don't
use a SAE pattern..I guess they just made one up that looked good on
paper...Ed Grentzer
>From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Propellers
>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:57:23 -0600
>
>Harvey,
>
>It seems your Franklin engine is rated 80 hp at 2500 rpm. My Continental C
>85 is rated 85 hp at 2575 rpm, which makes them reasonably close.
>
>I get about 2450 rpm full throttle static and about 2550 rpm in level
>flight, full throttle. If the airplane were cleaner aerodynamically, I
>would exceed the rated rpm of 2575 quite easily.
>
>The propeller I am currently using is a Colin Walker 72x43 wooden prop.
>Unfortunately, Colin Walker (of Surrey, British Columbia) has retired.
>However, there is a rumour that somebody on Vancouver Island is going to
>take over his business. Colin made excellent propellers for many years and,
>if this is true, it is good news. I suspect that a 72x44 CW propeller would
>be just right for my airplane, but the 72x43 I have is OK. (Remember, a "43
>inch pitch" number on one propeller may not match the same number on
>another make!)
>
>Getting the optimum fixed pitch wooden propeller for your airplane is a
>gamble. An aeronautical engineer friend said that usually a lot of
>different propellers need to be tested to find the best one, but this isn't
>an option for most of us. He also told me that Pietenpols don't do as well
>with certified production props as with custom-built ones. Metal props can
>be re-pitched; wooden props don't lend themselves to this kind of
>"tweaking". A ground-adjustable prop (eg. Warp Drive) pretty-well
>eliminates the gamble factor, but some don't like their appearance on a
>Pietenpol. You could go that route, as others have.
>
>If you can borrow a Sensenich 72CK 42 or 72CK44 for trials, you would then
>get an idea what prop you need for your particular airplane/engine
>combination. Either of these should be reasonably close to your
>requirement--at least for testing.
>
>Graham (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Propellers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: <sbobka@charter.net>
Graham,
The franklin will have a different bolt circle diameter so the props you mention
will not fit.
if he is doing a sensenich, it needs to be a W72F42
Chris
>
> From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
> Date: 2005/08/17 Wed PM 05:57:23 EDT
> To: <pietenpol-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Propellers
>
> Harvey,
>
> It seems your Franklin engine is rated 80 hp at 2500 rpm. My Continental C 85
is rated 85 hp at 2575 rpm, which makes them reasonably close.
>
> I get about 2450 rpm full throttle static and about 2550 rpm in level flight,
full throttle. If the airplane were cleaner aerodynamically, I would exceed the
rated rpm of 2575 quite easily.
>
> The propeller I am currently using is a Colin Walker 72x43 wooden prop. Unfortunately,
Colin Walker (of Surrey, British Columbia) has retired. However, there
is a rumour that somebody on Vancouver Island is going to take over his business.
Colin made excellent propellers for many years and, if this is true, it
is good news. I suspect that a 72x44 CW propeller would be just right for my
airplane, but the 72x43 I have is OK. (Remember, a "43 inch pitch" number on one
propeller may not match the same number on another make!)
>
> Getting the optimum fixed pitch wooden propeller for your airplane is a gamble.
An aeronautical engineer friend said that usually a lot of different propellers
need to be tested to find the best one, but this isn't an option for most
of us. He also told me that Pietenpols don't do as well with certified production
props as with custom-built ones. Metal props can be re-pitched; wooden props
don't lend themselves to this kind of "tweaking". A ground-adjustable prop
(eg. Warp Drive) pretty-well eliminates the gamble factor, but some don't like
their appearance on a Pietenpol. You could go that route, as others have.
>
> If you can borrow a Sensenich 72CK 42 or 72CK44 for trials, you would then get
an idea what prop you need for your particular airplane/engine combination.
Either of these should be reasonably close to your requirement--at least for testing.
>
> Graham (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Propellers |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Chris and Ed,
Harvey has an adapter on the Franklin which allows him to use the
Continental props. It had been machined for that purpose.
I saw it in May when I was at Ottawa and, at that time, a McCauley metal
prop (for a Continental) was fitted. His friend, an Aircraft Maintenance
Engineer (as I am), told him a wooden prop would be safer with that adapter.
I agree with his engineer.
Harvey bought his GN 1 in an advanced state of construction and all this
stuff was done by the builder.
It would be better if he could find a wooden Sensenich for the Franklin, but
I think that is not too likely. A custom-built prop to fit the Franklin
would, if he decides to go that route, allow him to ditch the adapter.
Graham
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! --
|