Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 10:02 PM - Re: MT vesus Sensenich Propeller Performance (923te)
2. 10:09 PM - Re: MT vesus Sensenich Propeller Performance (923te)
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: | Re: MT vesus Sensenich Propeller Performance |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net>
Gang,
I have been working on comparing the performance of the MT constant speed
propeller STC with the stock Sensenich 63 degree pitch propeller on my
Tiger. Due to the poor weather and other operational challenges I have NOT
completed flight testing but wanted to give at least one quantitative data
point that I have gained confidence in so others in the gang would have at
least some reference in evaluating the MT propeller STC.
I have been quite a skeptic from day one but the hard facts of the
performance data are beginning to win me over to the MT Prop. I would like
to do more flight testing but it appears the results will be similar to what
is below and will only give more confirmation. So many people have ask me
for information that I have decided to give this preliminary report based on
4000'DA.
Qualitatively speaking, the propeller has its advantages. It is much
quieter. (Still wanting to measure Decibels and compare) It is much
smoother. It has a very distinct sound while taxiing, very, very quiet. One
line guy ask me if I had a turbine:) It has more ground clearance which is
good for grass or gravel.
As of yet I have no hard quantitative comparison for climb rates but my
experience has been that it climbs significantly better perhaps 300 - 500
FPM on average. This is especially beneficial at high density altitudes
where I have flown from 5000 and 8000 MSL airports. It descends much faster
with the prop allowing high descent speeds while keeping the engine under
redline and keeping the engine temperature cooling at less than shock
cooling rates.
The reduced RPM of the MT prop for the same speed has the additional benefit
of reducing engine wear.
Quantitatively speaking, the MT yields essentially the same top speed and
fuel consumption as the Sensenich at 2700RPM. At a reduced RPM of 2500 the
MT yields higher speeds and at a reduced RPM of 2400 it yields a much higher
speed and lower fuel consumption.
I would like to express my gratitude to David Fletcher for donating
mechanics labor for changing out the props and for his direct moral support
in my pursuing these tests.
Propellers Compared
3-blade (electric) MTV-18-B/180-17
2-blade Sensenich 76EM8 510-0-63
Airframe 2002 Tiger AG5B Total Time 200 hours
Mods:
Powerflow exhaust
Ported & Polished cylinder work
EI Engine Scanner
EI Fuel Flow
MT versus Sensenich Propeller Performance Comparison
Table 1
2700 RPM
Density MT Prop Sens
Prop Sens minus MT
Altitude TAS RPM GPH TAS RPM
GPH TAS GPH
4000 141 2700 11.7 140.2
2700 12.2 -0.8 0.5
So at 2700 RPM the Sensenich is 0.8 kts slower and burning 0.5 gph more
fuel.
MT versus Sensenich Propeller Performance Comparison
Table 2
2500 RPM
Density MT Prop Sens Prop
Sens minus MT
Altitude TAS RPM GPH TAS RPM GPH
TAS GPH
4000 139 2490 10.9 124.2 2500
10.3 -14.8 -0.6
So at 2500 RPM the Sensenich is 14.8 kts slower and burning 0.6 gph less
fuel.
For economy cruise the MT performance at 4000DA, 2400 RPM loses about
another 5 kts and another 1.2 gph. Or it achieves a TAS of 134kts at 9.7 gph
The tables above were derived from extensive flight tests with multiple runs
with various courses usually at 90 degrees from each other. TAS derived per
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/phplinks/index.php?&PID=49
utilizing an excel spreadsheet developed by Doug Gray. The mixture was set
and allowed to stabilize at best power.
These findings are given only as educational material and should be
considered as applicabe only to Tiger N923TE. Your results may vary......
Your Fellow Grumman Enthusiast,
Ned
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: MT vesus Sensenich Propeller Performance |
--> TeamGrumman-List message posted by: "923te" <923te@cox.net>
Gang,
I have been working on comparing the performance of the MT constant speed
propeller STC with the stock Sensenich 63 degree pitch propeller on my
Tiger. Due to the poor weather and other operational challenges I have NOT
completed flight testing but wanted to give at least one quantitative data
point that I have gained confidence in so others in the gang would have at
least some reference in evaluating the MT propeller STC.
I have been quite a skeptic from day one but the hard facts of the
performance data are beginning to win me over to the MT Prop. I would like
to do more flight testing but it appears the results will be similar to what
is below and will only give more confirmation. So many people have ask me
for information that I have decided to give this preliminary report based on
4000'DA.
Qualitatively speaking, the propeller has its advantages. It is much
quieter. (Still wanting to measure Decibels and compare) It is much
smoother. It has a very distinct sound while taxiing, very, very quiet. One
line guy ask me if I had a turbine:) It has more ground clearance which is
good for grass or gravel.
As of yet I have no hard quantitative comparison for climb rates but my
experience has been that it climbs significantly better perhaps 300 - 500
FPM on average. This is especially beneficial at high density altitudes
where I have flown from 5000 and 8000 MSL airports. It descends much faster
with the prop allowing high descent speeds while keeping the engine under
redline and keeping the engine temperature cooling at less than shock
cooling rates.
The reduced RPM of the MT prop for the same speed has the additional benefit
of reducing engine wear.
Quantitatively speaking, the MT yields essentially the same top speed and
fuel consumption as the Sensenich at 2700RPM. At a reduced RPM of 2500 the
MT yields higher speeds and at a reduced RPM of 2400 it yields a much higher
speed and lower fuel consumption.
I would like to express my gratitude to David Fletcher for donating
mechanics labor for changing out the props and for his direct moral support
in my pursuing these tests.
Propellers Compared
3-blade (electric) MTV-18-B/180-17
2-blade Sensenich 76EM8 510-0-63
Airframe 2002 Tiger AG5B Total Time 200 hours
Mods:
Powerflow exhaust
Ported & Polished cylinder work
EI Engine Scanner
EI Fuel Flow
MT versus Sensenich Propeller Performance Comparison
Table 1
2700 RPM
Density MT Prop Sens
Prop Sens minus MT
Altitude TAS RPM GPH TAS RPM
GPH TAS GPH
4000 141 2700 11.7 140.2
2700 12.2 -0.8 0.5
So at 2700 RPM the Sensenich is 0.8 kts slower and burning 0.5 gph more
fuel.
MT versus Sensenich Propeller Performance Comparison
Table 2
2500 RPM
Density MT Prop Sens Prop
Sens minus MT
Altitude TAS RPM GPH TAS RPM GPH
TAS GPH
4000 139 2490 10.9 124.2 2500
10.3 -14.8 -0.6
So at 2500 RPM the Sensenich is 14.8 kts slower and burning 0.6 gph less
fuel.
For economy cruise the MT performance at 4000DA, 2400 RPM loses about
another 5 kts and another 1.2 gph. Or it achieves a TAS of 134kts at 9.7 gph
The tables above were derived from extensive flight tests with multiple runs
with various courses usually at 90 degrees from each other. TAS derived per
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/phplinks/index.php?&PID=49
utilizing an excel spreadsheet developed by Doug Gray. The mixture was set
and allowed to stabilize at best power.
These findings are given only as educational material and should be
considered as applicabe only to Tiger N923TE. Your results may vary......
Your Fellow Grumman Enthusiast,
Ned
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! --
|