Original Posted By: Steve Ruse
Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: "Steve Eldredge"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsMr. Steve,I had an A-65 Pietenpol and the only way I could have seen 80MPH was to have had someone pushing, flying straight down and just lieing about it. Would appreciate if you would pass your secret around to those of us suffering from abad case of the slows. Could be this 220 ft density altitude.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:37:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsMr. Steve,I had an A-65 Pietenpol and the only way I could have seen 80MPH was to have had someone pushing, flying straight down and just lieing about it. Would appreciate if you would pass your secret around to those of us suffering from abad case of the slows. Could be this 220 ft density altitude.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:37:54 -0600
Re: Pietenpol-List: RE:
Original Posted By: "walt evans"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE:In a message dated 8/16/2005 7:13:59 AM Central Standard Time, harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:The word I have is 42 p and 72 length gives 2150 rpm 70 -71 mph at cruise 85-87 tops.That's about what I get from my homebuilt 72 X 42 prop, with Cont. A65 engine. I added aerodynamic fairings to the gear legs, and jury struts, and nowI have to hold some forward stick pressure. I plan on removing the fixed trim tabs on the flippers. The fairings helped clean up the parasite drag, a littlebit.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:50:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE:In a message dated 8/16/2005 7:13:59 AM Central Standard Time, harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:The word I have is 42 p and 72 length gives 2150 rpm 70 -71 mph at cruise 85-87 tops.That's about what I get from my homebuilt 72 X 42 prop, with Cont. A65 engine. I added aerodynamic fairings to the gear legs, and jury struts, and nowI have to hold some forward stick pressure. I plan on removing the fixed trim tabs on the flippers. The fairings helped clean up the parasite drag, a littlebit.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:50:30 -0400
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: "Textor, Jack"
I had a Continental A 65 engine in my Pietenpol for the first few years and theninstalled a C 85 in order to have some reserve power on a hot day with a fullload.The propeller used with the A 65 that gave the best results was a Sensenich 72CK42.I could get about 2150 rpm static and cruised at the same revs. At this powersetting, it made about 74 mph in cruise and full throttle in level flightwould give about 2250 rpm (short of the rated 2300 rpm of the A 65) and perhaps78 mph tops. The Pietenpol is a bit draggy; a cleaner a/c like the TaylorcraftI once owned would top out at 95-100 mph at 2300 rpm with the same engine/propellercombination, and cruise almost 90 mph at2150 rpm.Another propeller that gave similar results was a Flottorp 72A48 (the pitch numbersfor different makes vary). A Flottorp 72A46 was pretty good, but the cruisedropped to about 70 mph at 2150 rpm. (If one cruised it at 2200 rpm, the cruisespeed increased to that of the 72CK42, but fuel economy suffered.)A Sensenich 72CK44 was tried, but proved to be a bit too coarse pitch-wise andthe climb rate suffered accordingly.With the A 65, the climb was never that good anyway, and in cruise with full loadit was often necessary to add whatever excess power that was available to justmaintain height! (The average elevation around here is about 2400' asl andthe density altitude can get up there on a hot summer day.)Installing a C 85 made a huge difference to the overall performance of my Pietenpol--particularlyin the climb, but it still is no speedster at about 80 mphwith a 72x43 custom prop turning at 2300 rpm. However it is particularly niceto have power in reserve--a feature lacking with only 65 hp.A friend used a Warp Drive ground-adjustable propeller on his A 65-powered Pietenpolfor several years and said he was able to optimize its performance rathereasily. He broke the Warp Drive prop in a mishap and replaced it with a customwooden one on the C 85 he has since installed. (I suspect he didn't like theappearance of the WD prop on the Piet, so didn't get new blades.)The Warp Drive propeller is a viable option. Shawn Wolk from Manitoba, Canada hasone on his Pietenpol, and has reported his experience with it to this list.Has anyone else tried one?Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in cool, cloudy Alberta, Canada)________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:03:38 -0500
I had a Continental A 65 engine in my Pietenpol for the first few years and theninstalled a C 85 in order to have some reserve power on a hot day with a fullload.The propeller used with the A 65 that gave the best results was a Sensenich 72CK42.I could get about 2150 rpm static and cruised at the same revs. At this powersetting, it made about 74 mph in cruise and full throttle in level flightwould give about 2250 rpm (short of the rated 2300 rpm of the A 65) and perhaps78 mph tops. The Pietenpol is a bit draggy; a cleaner a/c like the TaylorcraftI once owned would top out at 95-100 mph at 2300 rpm with the same engine/propellercombination, and cruise almost 90 mph at2150 rpm.Another propeller that gave similar results was a Flottorp 72A48 (the pitch numbersfor different makes vary). A Flottorp 72A46 was pretty good, but the cruisedropped to about 70 mph at 2150 rpm. (If one cruised it at 2200 rpm, the cruisespeed increased to that of the 72CK42, but fuel economy suffered.)A Sensenich 72CK44 was tried, but proved to be a bit too coarse pitch-wise andthe climb rate suffered accordingly.With the A 65, the climb was never that good anyway, and in cruise with full loadit was often necessary to add whatever excess power that was available to justmaintain height! (The average elevation around here is about 2400' asl andthe density altitude can get up there on a hot summer day.)Installing a C 85 made a huge difference to the overall performance of my Pietenpol--particularlyin the climb, but it still is no speedster at about 80 mphwith a 72x43 custom prop turning at 2300 rpm. However it is particularly niceto have power in reserve--a feature lacking with only 65 hp.A friend used a Warp Drive ground-adjustable propeller on his A 65-powered Pietenpolfor several years and said he was able to optimize its performance rathereasily. He broke the Warp Drive prop in a mishap and replaced it with a customwooden one on the C 85 he has since installed. (I suspect he didn't like theappearance of the WD prop on the Piet, so didn't get new blades.)The Warp Drive propeller is a viable option. Shawn Wolk from Manitoba, Canada hasone on his Pietenpol, and has reported his experience with it to this list.Has anyone else tried one?Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in cool, cloudy Alberta, Canada)________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:03:38 -0500
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
I've noticed that putting the nose down a little will increase speed withoutlosing altitude. I've dropped the nose a little before, watched the speedgo up and stay up (just a few MPH). I'll look at the altimeter after a fewminutes, expecting to have lost a couple hundred feet, but I haven't lostany.I'll have to play with the yaw as well. I have to hold right rudder inclimb, I need to add a little more trim tab to help keep my yaw down, I'mnot always on top of it as much as I could be.Steve RuseN6383J-----Original Message-----
I've noticed that putting the nose down a little will increase speed withoutlosing altitude. I've dropped the nose a little before, watched the speedgo up and stay up (just a few MPH). I'll look at the altimeter after a fewminutes, expecting to have lost a couple hundred feet, but I haven't lostany.I'll have to play with the yaw as well. I have to hold right rudder inclimb, I need to add a little more trim tab to help keep my yaw down, I'mnot always on top of it as much as I could be.Steve RuseN6383J-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsIn a message dated 8/16/2005 7:52:20 PM Central Standard Time, wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes:Mike and everyone.For top speed, I've found that on the Piet the yaw is very critical. If theball is a little off and you step on it, you can just feel a big change inspeed. Also, at altitude if I push the stick forward slightly to get it"on step" (don't know if that's a real term , or we made it up) it reallycranks.You'd swear it was diving/losing altitude but it's not. It flattens the lowpressure arch over the wing and keeps you there.Anyone else do this?Going like a rocket in NJ :)walt evansNX140DLYes, I've found this to be true, too. Especially transitioning from climb to cruise. I always leave full power in until cruise speed is reached, then adjust power till no pressure is needed on the stick to maintain altitude. Itplanes out at about 63 mph indicated, which is actually about 72 or 73 mph. Some day I'll have to try to correct the ASI by adding an O-ring in front of thestatic port on the pitot / static probe.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsIn a message dated 8/16/2005 7:52:20 PM Central Standard Time, wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes:Mike and everyone.For top speed, I've found that on the Piet the yaw is very critical. If theball is a little off and you step on it, you can just feel a big change inspeed. Also, at altitude if I push the stick forward slightly to get it"on step" (don't know if that's a real term , or we made it up) it reallycranks.You'd swear it was diving/losing altitude but it's not. It flattens the lowpressure arch over the wing and keeps you there.Anyone else do this?Going like a rocket in NJ :)walt evansNX140DLYes, I've found this to be true, too. Especially transitioning from climb to cruise. I always leave full power in until cruise speed is reached, then adjust power till no pressure is needed on the stick to maintain altitude. Itplanes out at about 63 mph indicated, which is actually about 72 or 73 mph. Some day I'll have to try to correct the ASI by adding an O-ring in front of thestatic port on the pitot / static probe.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsIn a message dated 8/16/2005 10:29:12 AM Central Standard Time, steve(at)wotelectronics.com writes:I have two props for my A-75. One is a 68x38, the other is a 68x40. I getabout 3,350rpm static with the 68x40, and about 50 more with the 68x38. The68x40 gives me about 70mph in cruise (~2,500rpm), the 68x38 gives me about65mph.Steve,Do you really get 3350 static rpm with those props ? That sounds very high for these small engines. I know they really crank 'em up to race with, but itshortens the life of the engine.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:43:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsIn a message dated 8/16/2005 10:29:12 AM Central Standard Time, steve(at)wotelectronics.com writes:I have two props for my A-75. One is a 68x38, the other is a 68x40. I getabout 3,350rpm static with the 68x40, and about 50 more with the 68x38. The68x40 gives me about 70mph in cruise (~2,500rpm), the 68x38 gives me about65mph.Steve,Do you really get 3350 static rpm with those props ? That sounds very high for these small engines. I know they really crank 'em up to race with, but itshortens the life of the engine.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:43:49 -0400
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: Steve Ruse
Steve, You will need a little Right Rudder in a climb. Trim for the speed atwhich you will spend most of your time at--usually in cruise.Jim Dallas ----- Original Message -----
Steve, You will need a little Right Rudder in a climb. Trim for the speed atwhich you will spend most of your time at--usually in cruise.Jim Dallas ----- Original Message -----
Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By:> harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?Chris>
What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?Chris>
> Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By:> > harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
Franklin AC176s are 80 hp @ 2500>From: >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: >Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:44:10 -0400>>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?>>Chris> >
Franklin AC176s are 80 hp @ 2500>From: >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: >Subject: Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:44:10 -0400>>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?>>Chris> >
> > Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
RE: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
> > Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: Harvey Rule
RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
Harvey ..They both have on line order forms on their web sites at; www.sensenich.com andwww.tn-prop.com..I bought from Tennessee because their price was half the price of a Sensenich uncertified prop without the brass leading edge..I set out to buy a Culver prop and found that Tennessee had bought them out...They have the template for the older Franklin hub..Which ever way you go make sure you stress your bolt pattern to them..The PLZ Franklins use an SAE pattern and when you say Franklin that's what they seem to think you need. I got mine several months ago and the workmanship in it is top notch and it has a nice classic shape to it...Ed Grentzer>From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Propellers>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:19:39 -0400>>>That's correct;the man I bought it from told me that he didn't think the>adaptor set up was all that safe and he felt that it was too heavy with>the metal prop.So much so,that he felt there was a danger of tipping>over easily.He suggested that I switch to a wooden prop and the AME that>is helping me said that a wooden prop would also be smoother.So I'm in>the market for a wood prop with either a 72X42 or 72X43 for the 80hp.I>have sent out letters to both Sensenich and Tennessee and have received>no info back.I believe that they want all the particulars with regards>to bolt pattern etc.before they will get back to me.In one situation you>have to fill out an order form first.So I have to wait till I can get>back to the aircraft to glean all that info.I will be selling that>McCauley prop if anyone is interested.And the adaptor as well.With a>wood prop on I may be able to reinstall the starter.That ,however may>just put me right back where I started with the danger of tipping.With>the starter,the metal prop and adaptor on it will tip over unless I tie>a rock to the rear,HAHAHA!I'd probably land up in the Redeau River eh>guys!>>-----Original Message----->From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham>Hansen>Sent: August 17, 2005 9:38 PM>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Propellers>>>>Chris and Ed,>>Harvey has an adapter on the Franklin which allows him to use the>Continental props. It had been machined for that purpose.>>I saw it in May when I was at Ottawa and, at that time, a McCauley metal>>prop (for a Continental) was fitted. His friend, an Aircraft Maintenance>>Engineer (as I am), told him a wooden prop would be safer with that>adapter.>I agree with his engineer.>>Harvey bought his GN 1 in an advanced state of construction and all this>>stuff was done by the builder.>>It would be better if he could find a wooden Sensenich for the Franklin,>but>I think that is not too likely. A custom-built prop to fit the Franklin>would, if he decides to go that route, allow him to ditch the adapter.>>Graham>>________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:26:17 -0400
Harvey ..They both have on line order forms on their web sites at; www.sensenich.com andwww.tn-prop.com..I bought from Tennessee because their price was half the price of a Sensenich uncertified prop without the brass leading edge..I set out to buy a Culver prop and found that Tennessee had bought them out...They have the template for the older Franklin hub..Which ever way you go make sure you stress your bolt pattern to them..The PLZ Franklins use an SAE pattern and when you say Franklin that's what they seem to think you need. I got mine several months ago and the workmanship in it is top notch and it has a nice classic shape to it...Ed Grentzer>From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: RE: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Propellers>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:19:39 -0400>>>That's correct;the man I bought it from told me that he didn't think the>adaptor set up was all that safe and he felt that it was too heavy with>the metal prop.So much so,that he felt there was a danger of tipping>over easily.He suggested that I switch to a wooden prop and the AME that>is helping me said that a wooden prop would also be smoother.So I'm in>the market for a wood prop with either a 72X42 or 72X43 for the 80hp.I>have sent out letters to both Sensenich and Tennessee and have received>no info back.I believe that they want all the particulars with regards>to bolt pattern etc.before they will get back to me.In one situation you>have to fill out an order form first.So I have to wait till I can get>back to the aircraft to glean all that info.I will be selling that>McCauley prop if anyone is interested.And the adaptor as well.With a>wood prop on I may be able to reinstall the starter.That ,however may>just put me right back where I started with the danger of tipping.With>the starter,the metal prop and adaptor on it will tip over unless I tie>a rock to the rear,HAHAHA!I'd probably land up in the Redeau River eh>guys!>>-----Original Message----->From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Graham>Hansen>Sent: August 17, 2005 9:38 PM>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Propellers>>>>Chris and Ed,>>Harvey has an adapter on the Franklin which allows him to use the>Continental props. It had been machined for that purpose.>>I saw it in May when I was at Ottawa and, at that time, a McCauley metal>>prop (for a Continental) was fitted. His friend, an Aircraft Maintenance>>Engineer (as I am), told him a wooden prop would be safer with that>adapter.>I agree with his engineer.>>Harvey bought his GN 1 in an advanced state of construction and all this>>stuff was done by the builder.>>It would be better if he could find a wooden Sensenich for the Franklin,>but>I think that is not too likely. A custom-built prop to fit the Franklin>would, if he decides to go that route, allow him to ditch the adapter.>>Graham>>________________________________________________________________________________Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp propsDate: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:26:17 -0400
> RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By:> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin> rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)> > > > ________________________________>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin> rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)> > > > ________________________________>
> > RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By:> > owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props> >> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin> > rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)> >> >> >> > ________________________________> >
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props> >> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp Franklin> > rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)> >> >> >> > ________________________________> >
> Re: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By:> > harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
>>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?>>Chris> >
>>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?>>Chris> >
> > RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By:> > owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props> >> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hpFranklin> > rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)> >> >> >> > ________________________________> >
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props> >> > So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hpFranklin> > rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)> >> >> >> > ________________________________> >
>>> Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props
Original Posted By: "Graham Hansen"
>>>>>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?>>>>Chris>> >>>>>From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>>>Date: 2005/08/17 Wed AM 07:43:49 EDT>>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>>>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props>>>>>>So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp>>> >>>>Franklin> >>>>rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)>>>>>>>>>>>>________________________________>>>>>>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com>>>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of>>> >>>>Graham> >>>>Hansen>>>Sent: August 16, 2005 9:36 PM>>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props>>>>>>>>>>>>I had a Continental A 65 engine in my Pietenpol for the first few>>> >>>>years> >>>>and then installed a C 85 in order to have some reserve power on a>>> >>>>hot> >>>>day with a full load.>>>>>>>>>>>>The propeller used with the A 65 that gave the best results was a>>>Sensenich 72CK42. I could get about 2150 rpm static and cruised at>>> >>>>the> >>>>same revs. At this power setting, it made about 74 mph in cruise and>>>full throttle in level flight would give about 2250 rpm (short of>>> >>>>the> >>>>rated 2300 rpm of the A 65) and perhaps 78 mph tops. The Pietenpol>>> >>>>is a> >>>>bit draggy; a cleaner a/c like the Taylorcraft I once owned would>>> >>>>top> >>>>out at 95-100 mph at 2300 rpm with the same engine/propeller>>>combination, and cruise almost 90 mph at>>>>>>2150 rpm.>>>>>>>>>>>>Another propeller that gave similar results was a Flottorp 72A48>>> >>>>(the> >>>>pitch numbers for different makes vary). A Flottorp 72A46 was pretty>>>good, but the cruise dropped to about 70 mph at 2150 rpm. (If one>>>cruised it at 2200 rpm, the cruise speed increased to that of the>>>72CK42, but fuel economy suffered.)>>>>>>>>>>>>A Sensenich 72CK44 was tried, but proved to be a bit too coarse>>>pitch-wise and the climb rate suffered accordingly.>>>>>>With the A 65, the climb was never that good anyway, and in cruise>>> >>>>with> >>>>full load it was often necessary to add whatever excess power that>>> >>>>was> >>>>available to just maintain height! (The average elevation around>>> >>>>here is> >>>>about 2400' asl and the density altitude can get up there on a hot>>>summer day.)>>>>>>>>>>>>Installing a C 85 made a huge difference to the overall performance>>> >>>>of> >>>>my Pietenpol--particularly in the climb, but it still is no>>> >>>>speedster at> >>>>about 80 mph with a 72x43 custom prop turning at 2300 rpm. However>>> >>>>it is> >>>>particularly nice to have power in reserve--a feature lacking with>>> >>>>only> >>>>65 hp.>>>>>>>>>>>>A friend used a Warp Drive ground-adjustable propeller on his A>>>65-powered Pietenpol for several years and said he was able to>>> >>>>optimize> >>>>its performance rather easily. He broke the Warp Drive prop in a>>> >>>>mishap> >>>>and replaced it with a custom wooden one on the C 85 he has since>>>installed. (I suspect he didn't like the appearance of the WD prop>>> >>>>on> >>>>the Piet, so didn't get new blades.)>>>>>>>>>>>>The Warp Drive propeller is a viable option. Shawn Wolk from>>> >>>>Manitoba,> >>>>Canada has one on his Pietenpol, and has reported his experience>>> >>>>with it> >>>>to this list. Has anyone else tried one?>>>>>>>>>>>>Graham Hansen>>>>>>(Pietenpol CF-AUN in cool, cloudy Alberta, Canada)>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> >________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>What rpm is the 80 hp franklin rated at?>>>>Chris>> >>>>>From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>>>Date: 2005/08/17 Wed AM 07:43:49 EDT>>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>>>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props>>>>>>So you would say that the 72X43 is my best choice for the 80 hp>>> >>>>Franklin> >>>>rather than the 72X42 right?(wood prop)>>>>>>>>>>>>________________________________>>>>>>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com>>>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of>>> >>>>Graham> >>>>Hansen>>>Sent: August 16, 2005 9:36 PM>>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 65 hp props>>>>>>>>>>>>I had a Continental A 65 engine in my Pietenpol for the first few>>> >>>>years> >>>>and then installed a C 85 in order to have some reserve power on a>>> >>>>hot> >>>>day with a full load.>>>>>>>>>>>>The propeller used with the A 65 that gave the best results was a>>>Sensenich 72CK42. I could get about 2150 rpm static and cruised at>>> >>>>the> >>>>same revs. At this power setting, it made about 74 mph in cruise and>>>full throttle in level flight would give about 2250 rpm (short of>>> >>>>the> >>>>rated 2300 rpm of the A 65) and perhaps 78 mph tops. The Pietenpol>>> >>>>is a> >>>>bit draggy; a cleaner a/c like the Taylorcraft I once owned would>>> >>>>top> >>>>out at 95-100 mph at 2300 rpm with the same engine/propeller>>>combination, and cruise almost 90 mph at>>>>>>2150 rpm.>>>>>>>>>>>>Another propeller that gave similar results was a Flottorp 72A48>>> >>>>(the> >>>>pitch numbers for different makes vary). A Flottorp 72A46 was pretty>>>good, but the cruise dropped to about 70 mph at 2150 rpm. (If one>>>cruised it at 2200 rpm, the cruise speed increased to that of the>>>72CK42, but fuel economy suffered.)>>>>>>>>>>>>A Sensenich 72CK44 was tried, but proved to be a bit too coarse>>>pitch-wise and the climb rate suffered accordingly.>>>>>>With the A 65, the climb was never that good anyway, and in cruise>>> >>>>with> >>>>full load it was often necessary to add whatever excess power that>>> >>>>was> >>>>available to just maintain height! (The average elevation around>>> >>>>here is> >>>>about 2400' asl and the density altitude can get up there on a hot>>>summer day.)>>>>>>>>>>>>Installing a C 85 made a huge difference to the overall performance>>> >>>>of> >>>>my Pietenpol--particularly in the climb, but it still is no>>> >>>>speedster at> >>>>about 80 mph with a 72x43 custom prop turning at 2300 rpm. However>>> >>>>it is> >>>>particularly nice to have power in reserve--a feature lacking with>>> >>>>only> >>>>65 hp.>>>>>>>>>>>>A friend used a Warp Drive ground-adjustable propeller on his A>>>65-powered Pietenpol for several years and said he was able to>>> >>>>optimize> >>>>its performance rather easily. He broke the Warp Drive prop in a>>> >>>>mishap> >>>>and replaced it with a custom wooden one on the C 85 he has since>>>installed. (I suspect he didn't like the appearance of the WD prop>>> >>>>on> >>>>the Piet, so didn't get new blades.)>>>>>>>>>>>>The Warp Drive propeller is a viable option. Shawn Wolk from>>> >>>>Manitoba,> >>>>Canada has one on his Pietenpol, and has reported his experience>>> >>>>with it> >>>>to this list. Has anyone else tried one?>>>>>>>>>>>>Graham Hansen>>>>>>(Pietenpol CF-AUN in cool, cloudy Alberta, Canada)>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> >________________________________________________________________________________