---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 06/03/09: 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:15:14 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:08 AM PST US 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:54:04 AM PST US Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman From: "Hosler, John" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:13 AM PST US From: Steve Roberts Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:56:45 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:12:01 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman From: Jeremy Williamson 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:43:59 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Sensenich Prop for sale From: teamgrumman@AOL.COM The dimension was in the hub thickness. That's where the corrosion was. < after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001 inches > too small. >> -----Original Message----- From: flyv35b 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. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:55:40 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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: 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. > > <> after removing the corrosion, the dimension in that area was 0.001 > inches >> too small. >> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: flyv35b > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:13:49 AM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:15 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman From: teamgrumman@aol.com Cliff, do you ever take this plane to fly-ins? -----Original Message----- From: flyv35b 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:21:29 PM PST US From: "WILLIAM KELLY" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:40 PM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 150 hp conversion for 2 place Grumman Sometimes here in the NW. ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:59 PM PST US Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Cowling Test From: teamgrumman@AOL.COM 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:23 PM PST US From: Steve Roberts Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:25 PM PST US From: "Don Curry" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: Cowling Test 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:22 PM PST US From: "flyv35b" Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.