Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:15 AM - Re: Sensenich Prop for sale (flyv35b)
2. 06:43 AM - 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (george.mueller@aurora.org)
3. 06:54 AM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (Hosler, John)
4. 07:22 AM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (Steve Roberts)
5. 07:56 AM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (flyv35b)
6. 09:12 AM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (Jeremy Williamson)
7. 09:43 AM - Re: Sensenich Prop for sale (teamgrumman@AOL.COM)
8. 09:55 AM - Re: Sensenich Prop for sale (flyv35b)
9. 10:13 AM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (flyv35b)
10. 10:43 AM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (teamgrumman@aol.com)
11. 01:21 PM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (WILLIAM KELLY)
12. 03:41 PM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (flyv35b)
13. 05:28 PM - Cowling Test (teamgrumman@AOL.COM)
14. 06:04 PM - Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman (Steve Roberts)
15. 07:05 PM - Re: Cowling Test (Don Curry)
16. 07:17 PM - Re: Cowling Test (flyv35b)
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: Sensenich Prop for sale |
> About 4 years ago I bought a perfectly good Sensenich prop from a Tiger
> owner who wanted a new prop instead of getting hers overhauled (it only
> had about 1000 hours on it). I had it overhauled by Stocktoon Propeller
> and they found one dimension near the prop hub with some corrosion and
> after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001 inches
> too small. They felt like it was still a good prop and I could use it if
> I wanted to.
How could you measure any blade dimension to that kind of accuracy,
especially on such a complex shaped surface that is continually changing
(except for possibly the thickness of the hub itself at the center where the
bolts go through! I doubt if you could repeat the measurement with that
kind of accuracy! Even if it could be done what difference would .001" make
in this situation? Sounds like they wanted to sell you a new prop.
Cliff
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
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: | 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp
conversion. What is the scoop on this conversion? How fast will the
airplane go? What is the range with and without aux tanks? I usually fly
by myself or with one person, so this setup seems to be a way to get speed
without a lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are with this
airplane.
George C. Mueller
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: | 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
A friend of mine had one. I would not recommend it. Minimal range,
gross weight is not increased so you have major weight restrictions AND
weight and balance is way off- nose heavy (very difficult to land).
The plane flies beautifully with the original engine.
John
________________________________
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
george.mueller@aurora.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp
conversion. What is the scoop on this conversion? How fast will the
airplane go? What is the range with and without aux tanks? I usually
fly by myself or with one person, so this setup seems to be a way to get
speed without a lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are
with this airplane.
George C. Mueller
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 |
|
| Subject: | 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
George=2C go for it=2C the O320 is the engine the two place should have had
all along (IMHO). You gain gross weight (depending on which STC you use).
Not all of them do. If your CG is fwd you can install a Skytech LW starter
and if you still are fwd CG relocate the battery to behind the baggage comp
artment. I used the AirModsNW STC and I get better than 1500 FPM climb flyi
ng alone with half tanks (16 gallons) I have the aux tanks in the wings. Ev
en at GW I get better climb than the stock engine did when I flew alone wit
h half tanks. Range is still more than 3 hours so my back and my bladder gi
ve out before I have too much air in those tanks to fly.
The only thing I would do differently would have been to buy a two place al
ready converted to the O320. So if anyone is thinking of buying a two place
fly both before you buy a two place with the stock engine.
Steve Roberts
AA1B - 641HY @ ILG
AYA Region 2 Director/Forum Admin
We shall not cease from exploration.
And at the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive were we started
And know the place for the first time - T. S. Eliot
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
From: george.mueller@aurora.org
I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp convers
ion. What is the scoop on this conversion? How fast will the airplane go?
What is the range with and without aux tanks? I usually fly by myself or
with one person=2C so this setup seems to be a way to get speed without a
lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are with this airplane.
George C. Mueller
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: | Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
George,
The trade offs are range and useful load. Speed is all over the board depe
nding on whether it is and AA-1 or AA-1A/B/C, has wheel and gear leg fairi
ngs, the prop pitch and a 150 or 160 hp engine.
The biggest question is what STC was used for the conversion as there are m
ain STC's that I am aware of (Fletchair's, Air Mods NW and Maynard Crosby).
The one Fletchair sells is the so-called Collier STC and has a severe RPM
restriction which would drastically reduce you top and even the cruise spe
ed. The Air Mods NW STC only permits the O-320-A & E series engines, which
are only 150 hp but has no RPM reduction (2700 rpm redline) and has a gros
s weight increase for takeoff only. This is an IMPORTANT consideration as
the bigger engine and heavier prop will result in less useful load. Maynar
d's STC allows 160 hp versions of the O-320 (B & D series) at full 2700 RPM
, for takeoff and initial climb at least.
There are some other considerations such as the AA-1C has a larger tail whi
ch is more effective and makes flairing a little easier. It also came stoc
k with an oil cooler and dynafocal engine mount and is the only model that
doesn't have any recurring AD Notes on the airframe. But all the O-320 con
versions should have and will need an oil cooler. Some will have the batte
ry located in the original location on the firewall and others will be eith
er in the baggage compartment or just behind it (not very good for service,
etc). Quite a few will have an extra 10 gal. of fuel or a very few have 2
0 gal extra. Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW and Gene Plazak at Dallas Metropl
ex Aviation can answer your questions about the aux tanks.
All these conversions will have a Sensenich 74DM6 or 7 prop, which can be r
educed from 74=22 to 72.5=22 as I recall. Prop pitches seem to vary from about
60=22 to 64=22 with the 60=22 pitch being a climb prop and used on slower planes
without wheel and gear fairings and a 64=22 pitch being used on a fast plane
with full gear fairings.
Some info based on my AA-1C which has a 63=22 pitch prop cut down from 74=22 di
ameter to 73=22: My top speed is 170 mph with the engine turning 2850 rpm do
wn low (only flown like this long enough to stabilize and get the data). A
t 10,000 ft or higher the full throttle rpm is still at least 2700 rpm. Th
e plane has full wheel fairings with the brake cover, leg and sump fairings
from an AA-5A/B. I think all these add about 10 mph or more. The plane n
eeds another inch or so of prop pitch to take advantage of the power and ma
ybe increase cruise speed a little but it climbs great at 2500 rpm and 100
kts. I've seen 1500 FPM by myself on a cool day! I've also flown it out o
f a 5000 ft altitude grass strip (3500 ft long) at full gross weight (1684
lb.) on a cool morning (40 F) and not had any problem. Useful load for tak
eoff is about 500 lb. so that leaves 368 lb for people and baggage. The CG
(with the battery on the firewall) is at the forward limit with no baggage
and just the pilot but there is PLENTY of elevator to flair and keep the n
osewheel off the ground for a long time after touchdown. And I can put jus
t about anything in the baggage it will hold without exceeding the aft CG l
imits. The other models have less CG range, so for several reasons I think
the AA-1C is the most desirable model.
A cruise speed at 8500 ft or higher is 155-160 mph if I push it to 2650-270
0 rpm. It is slightly faster than a Tiger and will outclimb one unless the
Tiger has only one person. Fuel consumption is between 7 and 8 gph up hig
h, leaned out, depending on power setting. Range is ABOUT 275 nm or possib
ly a bit more at reduced power settings. 10 gal aux tanks would increase t
his to nearly 450 nm. With A fuel flow instrument (instantaneous and tota
lizer) is almost mandatory for these planes to be able to safely get the mo
st range out of them as the fuel gauges bounce around a lot in turbulence a
nd you can't rely on them totally. You need to keep track with a watch and
based on experience with fuel flow at different power settings to assure a
dequate reserves. There is no published data for these conversions and pla
nes will vary a lot from one to another. You have to develop your own info
rmation. The 22 gal useable fuel capacity limit it's range and usefulness
for a longer distance cross country traveler and the 10 gal aux tanks will
help this a lot, but most likely not allow you to carry any baggage or mayb
e only one person with full tanks.
At any rate this is a good plane that performs far better than the original
and can be operated most anywhere with the extra power it has to overcome
the high induced drag from the short wings at takeoff speeds. Prices seem
to vary from around $25K to $40K depending on condition, engine time and av
ionics.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: george.mueller@aurora.org
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:32 AM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp conve
rsion. What is the scoop on this conversion=3F How fast will the airplane g
o=3F What is the range with and without aux tanks=3F I usually fly by myself
or with one person, so this setup seems to be a way to get speed without a
lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are with this airplane.
George C. Mueller
=5F-===========================================================
=5F-= - The TeamGrumman-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-List
=5F-
=5F-===========================================================
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-===========================================================
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-===========================================================
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
John,
The AA-1A with 160 hp conversion is a fine machine. They are not all fine
machines, it just depends on who did the conversion. Simply don't assume
that one conversion is as good as another. Have a GOOD inspection done on
it because unless you have significant experience with these aircraft, you
WILL NOT all the squawks on your own. I have one that I purchased about 5
years after the conversion was done. The range is about 2 hours with VFR
reserves. As with any plane, whether you make it to your destination
non-stop is a function of how far you are going, which direction the wind
blows. It's also a function of how long you can sit on a wooden seat until
your ass starts to hurt. Personally, for me, in the AA-1A the range just so
happens to coincide with time when my butt needs a break.
If you want to see some actual data, check out my most recent flights on
flightaware.com... http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9464L
The plane is nose-heavy, but not bad. Use a little trim. It's NOT hard to
land!! If you are close to St. Louis I'd be happy to show you what the
plane can do.
You mentioned trade-off's. ALL planes have trade-off's. You want aux tanks
on your 160hp AA-1A then you will probably be flying alone. Or maybe you
don't depending on the weight of you, your passenger and your comfort with
the performance of the aircraft. With aux tanks you can make the plane go 3
hrs instead of 2.
Bottom line is: you should inventory YOUR needs from the plane against what
it is the plane can provide. If a majority of your flights are less than 2
hrs and consist of you and 1 other person and bags, the AA1 could be for
you. Even if your flights are longer than that, determine how critical it is
to you to go non-stop. Also, keep in mind that it's possible to throttle
back and lean out the mixture and get the same performance as the original
airplane.
Jeremy
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Hosler, John <JHOSLER@epri.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine had one. I would not recommend it. Minimal range,
> gross weight is not increased so you have major weight restrictions AND
> weight and balance is way off- nose heavy (very difficult to land).
>
>
> The plane flies beautifully with the original engine.
>
>
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *
> george.mueller@aurora.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:32 AM
> *To:* teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
>
>
> I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp
> conversion. What is the scoop on this conversion? How fast will the
> airplane go? What is the range with and without aux tanks? I usually fly
> by myself or with one person, so this setup seems to be a way to get speed
> without a lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are with this
> airplane.
>
>
> George C. Mueller
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Jeremy
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: | Re: Sensenich Prop for sale |
The dimension was in the hub thickness. That's where the corrosion
was.
<<they found one dimension near the prop hub with some corrosion and
> after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001
inches
> too small. >>
-----Original Message-----
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 6:12 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Sensenich Prop for sale
<flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
> About 4 years ago I bought a perfectly good Sensenich prop from a
Tiger
> owner who wanted a new prop instead of getting hers overhauled (it
only
> had about 1000 hours on it). I had it overhauled by Stocktoon
Propeller
> and they found one dimension near the prop hub with some corrosion
and
> after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001
inches
> too small. They felt like it was still a good prop and I could use
it if
> I wanted to.
How could you measure any blade dimension to that kind of accuracy,
especially on such a complex shaped surface that is continually
changing
(except for possibly the thickness of the hub itself at the center
where the
bolts go through! I doubt if you could repeat the measurement with
that
kind of accuracy! Even if it could be done what difference would .001"
make
in t
his situation? Sounds like they wanted to sell you a new prop.
Cliff
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: | Re: Sensenich Prop for sale |
Maybe they sanded or ground off .005" or more material than they needed to
remove the corrosion!
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: <teamgrumman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Sensenich Prop for sale
>
> The dimension was in the hub thickness. That's where the corrosion was.
>
> <<they found one dimension near the prop hub with some corrosion and
>> after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001
> inches
>> too small. >>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 6:12 am
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Sensenich Prop for sale
>
>
>
>> About 4 years ago I bought a perfectly good Sensenich prop from a
> Tiger
>> owner who wanted a new prop instead of getting hers overhauled (it
> only
>> had about 1000 hours on it). I had it overhauled by Stocktoon
> Propeller
>> and they found one dimension near the prop hub with some corrosion
> and
>> after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001
> inches
>> too small. They felt like it was still a good prop and I could use
> it if
>> I wanted to.
>
>
> How could you measure any blade dimension to that kind of accuracy,
> especially on such a complex shaped surface that is continually changing
> (except for possibly the thickness of the hub itself at the center where
> the
> bolts go through! I doubt if you could repeat the measurement with that
> kind of accuracy! Even if it could be done what difference would .001"
> make
> in t
> his situation? Sounds like they wanted to sell you a new prop.
>
> Cliff
>
> --
> We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
>
> The Professional version does not have this message
>
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
So here you have a totally different opinion! Sounds like a bit of hearsay
info here.
BTW the range will NOT decrease if you slow down and fly at the same speed
as the original. Gross weight IS increased on all models (84 lb on the AA-
1C) with Air Mods NW STC. And that is more than the empty weight increases
. I've already discussed the CG and landing capability relative to the CG
and elevator control.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: Hosler, John
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:48 AM
Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
A friend of mine had one. I would not recommend it. Minimal range, gros
s weight is not increased so you have major weight restrictions AND weight
and balance is way off- nose heavy (very difficult to land).
The plane flies beautifully with the original engine.
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumm
an-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of george.mueller@aurora.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:32 AM
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp conve
rsion. What is the scoop on this conversion=3F How fast will the airplane g
o=3F What is the range with and without aux tanks=3F I usually fly by myself
or with one person, so this setup seems to be a way to get speed without a
lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are with this airplane.
George C. Mueller
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-Listhttp://forums.matronic
s.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-===========================================================
=5F-= - The TeamGrumman-List Email Forum -
=5F-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
=5F-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
=5F-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
=5F-= Photoshare, and much much more:
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=3FTeamGrumman-List
=5F-
=5F-===========================================================
=5F-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
=5F-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
=5F-
=5F-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
=5F-
=5F-===========================================================
=5F-= - List Contribution Web Site -
=5F-= Thank you for your generous support!
=5F-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
=5F-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=5F-===========================================================
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
Cliff, do you ever take this plane to fly-ins?
-----Original Message-----
From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 7:56 am
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
George,
The trade offs are range and useful load. Speed
is all over the board depending on whether it is and AA-1 or AA-1A/B/C,
has wheel and gear leg fairings, the prop pitch and a 150 or 160 hp
engine.
The biggest question is what STC was used for the
conversion as there are main STC's that I am aware of (Fletchair's, Air
Mods NW
and Maynard Crosby). The one Fletchair sells is the so-called Collier
STC
and has a severe RPM restriction which would drastically reduce you top
and even
the cruise speed. The Air Mods NW STC only permits the O-320-A & E
series engines, which are only 150 hp but has no RPM reduction (2700
rpm
redline) and has a gross weight increase for takeoff only. This is an
IMPORTANT consideration as the bigger engine and heavier prop will
result in
less useful load. Maynard's STC allows 160 hp versions of the O-320 (B
& D series)at full 2700 RPM, for takeoff and initial climb at
least.
There are some other considerations such as the AA-1C
has a larger tail which is more effective and makes flairing a little
easier. It also cam
e stock with an oil cooler and dynafocal engine
mount
and is the only model that doesn't have any recurring AD Notes on the
airframe. But all the O-320 conversions should have and will need an
oil
cooler. Some will have the battery located in the original location on
the
firewall and others will be either in the baggage compartment or just
behind it
(not very good for service, etc). Quite a few will have an extra 10
gal.
of fuel or a very few have 20 gal extra. Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW
and
Gene Plazak at Dallas Metroplex Aviation can answer your questions
about the aux
tanks.
All these conversions will have a Sensenich 74DM6 or 7
prop, which can be reduced from 74" to 72.5" as I recall. Prop pitches
seem to vary from about 60" to 64" with the 60" pitch being a climb
prop and
used on slower planes without wheel and gear fairings and a 64" pitch
being used
on a fast plane with full gear fairings.
Some info based on my AA-1C which has a 63" pitch prop
cut down from 74" diameter to 73": My top speed is 170 mph with the
engine
turning 2850 rpm down low (only flown like this long enough to
stabilize and get
the data). At 10,000 ft or higher the full throttle rpm is still at
least
2700 rpm. The plane has full wheel fairings with the brake cover, leg
and
sump fairings from an AA-5A/B. I think all these=2
0add about 10 mph or
more. The plane needs another inch or so of prop pitch to take
advantage
of the power and maybe increase cruise speed a little but it climbs
great at
2500 rpm and 100 kts. I've seen 1500 FPM by myself on a cool day!
I've also flown it out of a 5000 ft altitude grass strip (3500 ft
long)at
full gross weight (1684 lb.) on a cool morning (40 F) and not had any
problem. Useful load for takeoff is about 500 lb. so that leaves 368
lb
for people and baggage. The CG (with the battery on the firewall) is
at
the forward limit with no baggage and just the pilot but there is
PLENTY of
elevator to flair and keep the nosewheel off the ground for a long time
after
touchdown. And I can put just about anything in the baggage it will
hold
without exceeding the aft CG limits. The other models have less CG
range,
so for several reasons I think the AA-1C is the most desirable
model.
Acruise speed at 8500 ft or higher is 155-160
mph if I push it to 2650-2700 rpm. It is slightly faster than a Tiger
and
will outclimb one unless the Tiger has only one person. Fuel
consumption
is between 7 and 8 gph up high, leaned out, depending on power
setting.
Range is ABOUT275 nmor possibly a bit more at reduced power
settings. 10 gal aux tanks would increase this to nearly 450 nm.
With A fu
el flow instrument (instantaneous and totalizer) is almost
mandatory for these planes to be able to safely get the most range out
of them
as the fuel gauges bounce around a lot in turbulence and you can't rely
on them
totally. You need to keep track with a watch and based on experience
with
fuel flow at different power settings to assure adequate reserves.
There
is no published data for these conversions and planes will vary a lot
from one
to another. You have to develop your own information. The 22 gal
useable fuel capacity limit it's range and usefulness for a longer
distance
cross country traveler and the 10 gal aux tanks will help this a lot,
but most
likely not allow you to carry any baggage or maybe only one person with
full
tanks.
At any rate this is a good plane that performs far
better than the original and can be operated most anywhere with the
extra power
it has to overcome the high induced drag from the short wings at
takeoff
speeds. Prices seem to vary from around $25K to $40K depending on
condition, engine time and avionics.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From:
george.mueller@aurora.org
To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:32
AM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp
conversion for 2 place Grumman
I am considering purchasing a
two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp conversion. What is the scoop
on
this conversion? How fast will the airplane go? What is the range
with and without aux tanks? I usually fly by myself or with one
person,
so this setup seems to be a way to get speed without a lot of cost
but I am
wondering what the trade-offs are with this airplane.
George C. Mueller
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfersion does not have this message.
us support!
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: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
George,
Our AA1C/150hp is equipped with Ken Blackman's STC and aux tanks
providing the common 10 gallons of extra fuel (32 total). In spite of a
few acknowledged limitations in payload, I have never regretted
purchasing and flying this airplane. My wife and I are admittedly not
large people. I'm about 160lb. and she's about 125 lb., so the weight
of the occupants is important. With this in mind, flying solo with full
fuel at takeoff, I can climb to 13,000 ft+ for a 2:45 endurance and a
330 n.m. range. With my wife aboard, I can takeoff at the legal limit
of 1684 lb. with roughly 21 gallons of fuel and 60 pounds stuff in the
baggage area. This limits endurance and range to 1:45 and 210 n.m.
There is one caveat in the later scenario. The legal landing weight for
the AA1C is still 1600 lb. even with the approved takeoff weight
increase. That means that if you legally takeoff at 1684 lb., you have
to burn 84 lb. of fuel before you land. That's 14 gallons, or about
1:30 in the air. To avoid landing over the legal weight you therefore
have to fuel the airplane appropriately for the intended length of the
flight with two people aboard. I mention this only because it's what
the limitations say, in case you are a stickler in this kind of
situation. To elaborate a bit with a practical example, depending on
the empty weight of the airplane, you could load up with two average
people (say 170 lbs or more), put a moderate amount of baggage in the
cargo area, and be at or even over the maximum landing weight with no
fuel in the airplane. The "balance" portion of weight and balance is
also important with the big engine STC. The heavier engine and prop
will move the cg forward. In my case, which may be the extreme, I also
have a rare form of aux fuel tanks which are situated ahead of the wing
spar, whereas I think the majority of the aux tank installations are
behind the spar which makes a lot more sense. You won't see too many
installations like mine. They are field approved tanks, not STC'd, an
if there are a dozen of them out there I'd be surprised. So, with the
more likely aft aux fuel tanks, I would imagine that some of the forward
cg concerns would be alleviated. I suggest you do a few weight and
balance computations on any prospective AA1X with the big engine and
make sure they fall within the approved cg range for the types of
flights you intend.
As far as handling goes, I can't comment on the "AA1X" with the big
engine prior to the AA1C because the earlier models have the smaller
elevator. With the larger elevator of the AA1C I find no overly
objectionable issues with landing, as some have intimated, even with my
99.9% of the time forward cg condition. Yes, there is a slightly nose
heavy feel, but it is not bothersome and you have plenty of trim
authority. In general, any version of the AA1 series, perhaps
especially with the O-235 engine, is less forgiving if you get too slow,
but fly it by the numbers and you will have no trouble. Also, the big
engine will give you a much wider margin for error in this regard.
The 150 hp conversion does make the AA1 series much more capable, but it
may be necessary to more carefully consider who you are, what you are
comfortable with, and what your typical trips demand from an airplane as
compared to an AA5X. It is worth the extra time to make this
determination because if an AA1X/150 meets your needs you will have a
plane that is a huge amount of fun to fly, not to mention one that will
attract quite a bit of attention from passers by. It's a great way to
strike up a conversation when some curious person starts asking what
kind of plane you have.
Bill Kelly
AA1C 39065
Lancaster, CA
I am considering purchasing a two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp
conversion. What is the scoop on this conversion? How fast will the
airplane go? What is the range with and without aux tanks? I usually
fly by myself or with one person, so this setup seems to be a way to get
speed without a lot of cost but I am wondering what the trade-offs are
with this airplane.
George C. Mueller
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: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
Sometimes here in the NW.
----- Original Message -----
From: <teamgrumman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
>
> Cliff, do you ever take this plane to fly-ins?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 7:56 am
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George,
>
> The trade offs are range and useful load. Speed
> is all over the board depending on whether it is and AA-1 or AA-1A/B/C,
> has wheel and gear leg fairings, the prop pitch and a 150 or 160 hp
> engine.
>
> The biggest question is what STC was used for the
> conversion as there are main STC's that I am aware of (Fletchair's, Air
> Mods NW
> and Maynard Crosby). The one Fletchair sells is the so-called Collier
> STC
> and has a severe RPM restriction which would drastically reduce you top
> and even
> the cruise speed. The Air Mods NW STC only permits the O-320-A & E
> series engines, which are only 150 hp but has no RPM reduction (2700
> rpm
> redline) and has a gross weight increase for takeoff only. This is an
> IMPORTANT consideration as the bigger engine and heavier prop will
> result in
> less useful load. Maynard's STC allows 160 hp versions of the O-320 (B
> & D series) at full 2700 RPM, for takeoff and initial climb at
> least.
>
> There are some other considerations such as the AA-1C
> has a larger tail which is more effective and makes flairing a little
> easier. It also cam
> e stock with an oil cooler and dynafocal engine
> mount
> and is the only model that doesn't have any recurring AD Notes on the
> airframe. But all the O-320 conversions should have and will need an
> oil
> cooler. Some will have the battery located in the original location on
> the
> firewall and others will be either in the baggage compartment or just
> behind it
> (not very good for service, etc). Quite a few will have an extra 10
> gal.
> of fuel or a very few have 20 gal extra. Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW
> and
> Gene Plazak at Dallas Metroplex Aviation can answer your questions
> about the aux
> tanks.
>
> All these conversions will have a Sensenich 74DM6 or 7
> prop, which can be reduced from 74" to 72.5" as I recall. Prop pitches
> seem to vary from about 60" to 64" with the 60" pitch being a climb
> prop and
> used on slower planes without wheel and gear fairings and a 64" pitch
> being used
> on a fast plane with full gear fairings.
>
> Some info based on my AA-1C which has a 63" pitch prop
> cut down from 74" diameter to 73": My top speed is 170 mph with the
> engine
> turning 2850 rpm down low (only flown like this long enough to
> stabilize and get
> the data). At 10,000 ft or higher the full throttle rpm is still at
> least
> 2700 rpm. The plane has full wheel fairings with the brake cover, leg
> and
> sump fairings from an AA-5A/B. I think all these=2
> 0add about 10 mph or
> more. The plane needs another inch or so of prop pitch to take
> advantage
> of the power and maybe increase cruise speed a little but it climbs
> great at
> 2500 rpm and 100 kts. I've seen 1500 FPM by myself on a cool day!
> I've also flown it out of a 5000 ft altitude grass strip (3500 ft
> long) at
> full gross weight (1684 lb.) on a cool morning (40 F) and not had any
> problem. Useful load for takeoff is about 500 lb. so that leaves 368
> lb
> for people and baggage. The CG (with the battery on the firewall) is
> at
> the forward limit with no baggage and just the pilot but there is
> PLENTY of
> elevator to flair and keep the nosewheel off the ground for a long time
> after
> touchdown. And I can put just about anything in the baggage it will
> hold
> without exceeding the aft CG limits. The other models have less CG
> range,
> so for several reasons I think the AA-1C is the most desirable
> model.
>
> A cruise speed at 8500 ft or higher is 155-160
> mph if I push it to 2650-2700 rpm. It is slightly faster than a Tiger
> and
> will outclimb one unless the Tiger has only one person. Fuel
> consumption
> is between 7 and 8 gph up high, leaned out, depending on power
> setting.
> Range is ABOUT 275 nm or possibly a bit more at reduced power
> settings. 10 gal aux tanks would increase this to nearly 450 nm.
> With A fu
> el flow instrument (instantaneous and totalizer) is almost
> mandatory for these planes to be able to safely get the most range out
> of them
> as the fuel gauges bounce around a lot in turbulence and you can't rely
> on them
> totally. You need to keep track with a watch and based on experience
> with
> fuel flow at different power settings to assure adequate reserves.
> There
> is no published data for these conversions and planes will vary a lot
> from one
> to another. You have to develop your own information. The 22 gal
> useable fuel capacity limit it's range and usefulness for a longer
> distance
> cross country traveler and the 10 gal aux tanks will help this a lot,
> but most
> likely not allow you to carry any baggage or maybe only one person with
> full
> tanks.
>
> At any rate this is a good plane that performs far
> better than the original and can be operated most anywhere with the
> extra power
> it has to overcome the high induced drag from the short wings at
> takeoff
> speeds. Prices seem to vary from around $25K to $40K depending on
> condition, engine time and avionics.
>
> Cliff A&P/IA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> george.mueller@aurora.org
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:32
> AM
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp
> conversion for 2 place Grumman
>
>
> I am considering purchasing a
>
> two place Grumman with the 150/160 hp conversion. What is the scoop
> on
> this conversion? How fast will the airplane go? What is the range
> with and without aux tanks? I usually fly by myself or with one
> person,
> so this setup seems to be a way to get speed without a lot of cost
> but I am
> wondering what the trade-offs are with this airplane.
>
>
>
> George C. Mueller
>
>
>
> We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
> SPAMfersion does not have this message.
>
>
>
>
>
> us support!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
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 |
|
I've spent most of the day talking to
Ray Christ: Lycoming engines
Joe Logie: Champion/Unison
Ken Tunnel: LyCon Engine Rebuilders
Hugh Evans: Merlin Products
Ken Blackman: Air Mods Northwest
To the best of their knowledge they've never had to instrument Slick
mag for any modification or testing. Hugh has done Bendix mags. The
upper limit on Bendix mags is 225 degrees F. Slick was offering to
replace Bendix mags on many installations years ago. That implies, the
upper limit is 225 for a Slick mag.
"Measure the temperature on the outside surface of the
magneto frame during the long-term test at the highest RPM
setting. The magneto will generate heat during normal
operation. Maximum temperature on the outside surface of
the magneto frame is 175F when tested at room temperature."
Note this says, "when tested at room temperature." Room temperature is
now 72 degrees F. This also says, "during the long-term test at the
highest RPM setting" which clearly means testing on a bench.
To the best of their combined knowledge, no one knew 'where' to measure
the temperature. Ray said the mag had to be drilled and a
thermal-couple placed on the coil. Both Kens and Hugh said if they
were to test it would be on the magneto case (frame). Joe,
Unison/Champion, said (and, this is from my notes, but I could be
wrong) that Champion only got the PMA rights and that all of the
en
gineering data, as far as he knew, none of the engineering data was
included. He said I'd have to ask their engineering department to stop
what they are doing during the reorganization and I'd have to pay for
the data.
From the internet, the rule-of-thumb for new experimental installations
was 190 degrees in the accessory compartment.
All of them said the person to make the decision as to what was
acceptable testing was the ACO. When I added that the ACO was hoping
I'd do their job and get the necessary paperwork, reports,
certification procedures from Lycoming or Champion, none of them were
surprised.
I'll do whatever it takes. Just let me know what needs to be done.
Gary
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: | 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman |
Bill Kelly wrote"
<< In my case=2C which may be the extreme=2C I also have a rare form of aux
fuel tanks which are situated ahead of the wing spar=2C whereas I think th
e majority of the aux tank installations are behind the spar which makes a
lot more sense. You won't see too many installations like mine. They are
field approved tanks=2C not STC'd=2C an if there are a dozen of them out th
ere I'd be surprised. >>
Bill I'm another one of that dozen or so with the fwd mounted aux tanks...
Anyone else out there?
BTW=2C I relocated my battery to behind the baggage compartment.
Steve Roberts
AA1B - 641HY @ ILG
AYA Region 2 Director/Forum Admin
We shall not cease from exploration.
And at the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive were we started
And know the place for the first time - T. S. Eliot
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 |
|
So, Gary, get out of that bastion for bureaucratic excess and move someplace
that doesn't mind forward-looking entrepreneurs -- even those in the field
of aviation. I would think that almost anyplace would be more friendly to
an aviation-based small business than California (except Florida or Maine,
both of which thank their larder-boosting aero-transients with
personal-property-tax bills). After all, California probably views you as a
carbon-burning, lead-spewing menace. I know, you're working with the FAA,
not the state, right? Well, don't forget that most the Feds in California
are still, probably, Californians. It's likely that almost any other FSDO
you encounter will be staffed with guys who are less, er. . .difficult.
Look at what other aviation notables have done: True Flight/Tiger made its
home in GA; HondaJet settled in NC; Precision Engine lives in KY; and Bob
Stewart's home base is in AL (not that I can claim to speak for any of them
nor that any of them made those choices because of the nature of the
bureaucracy in any particular place -- that's my disclaimer). So get out of
the darkness and move towards the light! And bring Cliffy and Maynard with
you!
Don
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of teamgrumman@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:27 PM
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cowling Test
>
>
> I've spent most of the day talking to
>
> Ray Christ: Lycoming engines
> Joe Logie: Champion/Unison
> Ken Tunnel: LyCon Engine Rebuilders
> Hugh Evans: Merlin Products
> Ken Blackman: Air Mods Northwest
>
> To the best of their knowledge they've never had to instrument Slick
> mag for any modification or testing. Hugh has done Bendix mags. The
> upper limit on Bendix mags is 225 degrees F. Slick was offering to
> replace Bendix mags on many installations years ago. That implies, the
> upper limit is 225 for a Slick mag.
>
> "Measure the temperature on the outside surface of the
> magneto frame during the long-term test at the highest RPM
> setting. The magneto will generate heat during normal
> operation. Maximum temperature on the outside surface of
> the magneto frame is 175F when tested at room temperature."
>
> Note this says, "when tested at room temperature." Room temperature is
> now 72 degrees F. This also says, "during the long-term test at the
> highest RPM setting" which clearly means testing on a bench.
>
>
> To the best of their combined knowledge, no one knew 'where' to measure
> the temperature. Ray said the mag had to be drilled and a
> thermal-couple placed on the coil. Both Kens and Hugh said if they
> were to test it would be on the magneto case (frame). Joe,
> Unison/Champion, said (and, this is from my notes, but I could be
> wrong) that Champion only got the PMA rights and that all of the
> en
> gineering data, as far as he knew, none of the engineering data was
> included. He said I'd have to ask their engineering department to stop
> what they are doing during the reorganization and I'd have to pay for
> the data.
>
> From the internet, the rule-of-thumb for new experimental installations
> was 190 degrees in the accessory compartment.
>
> All of them said the person to make the decision as to what was
> acceptable testing was the ACO. When I added that the ACO was hoping
> I'd do their job and get the necessary paperwork, reports,
> certification procedures from Lycoming or Champion, none of them were
> surprised.
>
> I'll do whatever it takes. Just let me know what needs to be done.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowling Test |
Gary, this is pretty incredible! Why don't you write a letter to the FAA
and include info about all your phone conversations in some organized
logical way (even though that may not make any difference to the FAA) and
see what they have to say. Basically present your case about why should any
additional testing be needed based on your under cowl temperatures and maybe
any lack of standards as to temperature requirements and where it is to be
measured if that is the case. What are these guys trying to prove? This
sort of thing used to be approved at the FSDO level with the stroke of a pen
and possibly a cooling test and maybe a dive test to see if the thing holds
together. Planes did not fall out of the sky as a result back then. It is
no wonder there is no incentive in pursuing certified aircraft modifications
any more and all the real improvements are happening in the experimental
world.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: <teamgrumman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cowling Test
>
> I've spent most of the day talking to
>
> Ray Christ: Lycoming engines
> Joe Logie: Champion/Unison
> Ken Tunnel: LyCon Engine Rebuilders
> Hugh Evans: Merlin Products
> Ken Blackman: Air Mods Northwest
>
> To the best of their knowledge they've never had to instrument Slick mag
> for any modification or testing. Hugh has done Bendix mags. The upper
> limit on Bendix mags is 225 degrees F. Slick was offering to replace
> Bendix mags on many installations years ago. That implies, the upper
> limit is 225 for a Slick mag.
>
> "Measure the temperature on the outside surface of the
> magneto frame during the long-term test at the highest RPM
> setting. The magneto will generate heat during normal
> operation. Maximum temperature on the outside surface of
> the magneto frame is 175F when tested at room temperature."
>
> Note this says, "when tested at room temperature." Room temperature is
> now 72 degrees F. This also says, "during the long-term test at the
> highest RPM setting" which clearly means testing on a bench.
>
>
> To the best of their combined knowledge, no one knew 'where' to measure
> the temperature. Ray said the mag had to be drilled and a thermal-couple
> placed on the coil. Both Kens and Hugh said if they were to test it would
> be on the magneto case (frame). Joe, Unison/Champion, said (and, this is
> from my notes, but I could be wrong) that Champion only got the PMA rights
> and that all of the en
> gineering data, as far as he knew, none of the engineering data was
> included. He said I'd have to ask their engineering department to stop
> what they are doing during the reorganization and I'd have to pay for the
> data.
>
> From the internet, the rule-of-thumb for new experimental installations
> was 190 degrees in the accessory compartment.
>
> All of them said the person to make the decision as to what was acceptable
> testing was the ACO. When I added that the ACO was hoping I'd do their
> job and get the necessary paperwork, reports, certification procedures
> from Lycoming or Champion, none of them were surprised.
>
> I'll do whatever it takes. Just let me know what needs to be done.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
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! --
|