Page 1 of 1

Pietenpol-List: proper prop for A-75 piet

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:13 am
by matronics
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: proper prop for A-75 pietHey guys,I have become a lurker, but, I need some feedback from you guys on props. I have a prop off of a 65hp Aeronica mounted to my A-75 piet. I'm developing 2300-2400 rpm's. I was curious what others are using with their piets with A-75's and what kind of number they're getting. I was visiting with Jim Markle and he dug this up for me: An A-75 is merely an A-65 that is rated at a higher rpm. The pistons are different and the rods are drilled for extra cooling of piston skirt at the higher rpm. The carb has a slightly larger venturi and different jetting. The motor is timed slightly different. The prop is the only thing that actually makes a difference in performance; the other changes are only for longevity athigher rpm. A65 is rated at 2300,2150 cruise. A75 is rated at 2650,2300 cruise.The extra rpm is the only thing increasing horsepower: if your prop is not allowing the motor to wind up to proper rpm you simply have an A65. If you have an A65 that turns 23-2400 in a climb you have the performance of an A75. There was a C-75 which was a slow running version of C-85, but A65 to A75 conversions are much more common. A75 prop generally would be slightly less diameter and 2-3 inches less pitch than A65, but generally rpm is the only bigchange. With proper prop A75 will climb slightly better and cruise about sameas A65, but at higher rpm.With an A65 prop an A75 will climb exactly the same(because it is the same!) but you could cruise at 2300 which would be severalmph faster. Regardless, in the real world the weight of the airplane will make more difference than A65 vs. A75. In my opinion a metal prop is far superior to wood in thrust. Wood has less inertia and better throttle response, but metal definitely performs better. I like an A65 to turn about 2300 in 75 mph climb. That means about 25-2600 straight and level. Cruise about 2250 and youare still less than 75% at cruise. P. S. There was no C65 only A65's .A series was A40,A50, A65,A75,and A80. C series had slightly more displacement(188 cu .in. vs 173 cu. in.). C series was C75,C85 at 188 cu.in.and C90 at 200 cu .in.All that being said, I would like some exact performance numbers, prop numbers and manufactures, so I'll know what to start looking for. Currently Ihave a Univar 72 X 42, and according to the above I've got a 65hp engine on myaero plane. NX101XW is a little on the heavy side and so is the pilot, so I would like all of the potential climb that I can get (Without going to an O-200 or something!). I think I would like to stick with a wooden prop, unlessthere is just a huge amount of additional thrust/climb from metal. Well, letme know what you guys think, hell, maybe I should just stick with what I've got. It (engine) would be de-rated and should last longer?Any comments/help is greatly appreciated and as usual, thanks in advance, later.Max DavisArlington, TX.NX101XW (Reserved)________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Pietenpol-List: proper prop for A-75 piet

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:13 am
by matronics
Original Posted By: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
You said a whole lot more than I ever knew on this subject, thanks a lot for the info. ai have an A-65 with a Sensenich 72x42 prop.The only problem I have with your numbers is towards the end you talk about the performance of the A-65. I checked my manual, the A-65 is only rated to 2300 rpm. If I do 2300 rpm at 75 mph there is little if any climb. My best climb speed is around 55-60 mph and then I am turning about 2050 rpm, full throttle. I have never seen more than 2300 rpm.Dick N. ----- Original Message -----

Pietenpol-List: proper prop for A-75 piet

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:37 pm
by matronics
Original Posted By: "Rick Holland"

Re: Pietenpol-List: proper prop for A-75 piet

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:24 am
by matronics
Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: proper prop for A-75 pietIn a message dated 9/23/2006 9:21:49 AM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes:Hey guys,I have become a lurker, but, I need some feedback from you guys on props. I have a prop off of a 65hp Aeronica mounted to my A-75 piet. I'm developing 2300-2400 rpm's. I was curious what others are using with their piets with A-75's and what kind of number they're getting. I was visiting with Jim Markleand he dug this up for me: An A-75 is merely an A-65 that is rated at a higher rpm. The pistons are different and the rods are drilled for extra cooling of piston skirt at the higherrpm. The carb has a slightly larger venturi and different jetting. The motor is timed slightly different. The prop is the only thing that actually makes a difference in performance; the other changes are only for longevity at higher rpm. A65 is rated at 2300,2150 cruise. A75 is rated at 2650,2300 cruise. The extra rpm is the only thing increasing horsepower: if your prop is not allowingthe motor to wind up to proper rpm you simply have an A65. If you have an A65 that turns 23-2400 in a climb you have the performance of an A75. There was a C-75 which was a slow running version of C-85, but A65 to A75 conversions are much more common. A75 prop generally would be slightly less diameter and 2-3 inches less pitch than A65, but generally rpm is the only big change. With proper prop A75 will climb slightly better and cruise about same as A65, but athigher rpm.With an A65 prop an A75 will climb exactly the same(because it is the same!) but you could cruise at 2300 which would be several mph faster. Regardless, in the real world the weight of the airplane will make more differencethan A65 vs. A75. In my opinion a metal prop is far superior to wood in thrust. Wood has less inertia and better throttle response, but metal definitelyperforms better. I like an A65 to turn about 2300 in 75 mph climb. That means about 25-2600 straight and level. Cruise about 2250 and you are still less than75% at cruise. P. S. There was no C65 only A65's .A series was A40,A50, A65,A75,and A80. C series had slightly more displacement(188 cu .in. vs 173 cu. in.). C series wasC75,C85 at 188 cu.in.and C90 at 200 cu .in.All that being said, I would like some exact performance numbers, prop numbers and manufactures, so I'll know what to start looking for. Currently Ihave a Univar 72 X 42, and according to the above I've got a 65hp engine on my aeroplane. NX101XW is a little on the heavy side and so is the pilot, so I would like all of the potential climb that I can get (Without going to an O-200 or something!). I think I would like to stick with a wooden prop, unless there is just a huge amount of additional thrust/climb from metal. Well, let me knowwhat you guys think, hell, maybe I should just stick with what I've got. It (engine) would be de-rated and should last longer?Any comments/help is greatly appreciated and as usual, thanks in advance, later.Max DavisArlington, TX.NX101XW (Reserved)Hey Max, That was a great post, explaining the differences of the A65 & A 75 engines. The holes drilled in the rods squirt oil up under the bottom of the piston / cylinder on the opposite side - for cooling effect, and the A75 pistonshave fins inside, above the wrist pin. The wrist pins are actually smaller onthe A75. I think you should check your tach with an electronic hand held tach, to see if your panel mounted one is accurate. If you are actually developing 2300 to 2400 rpm on static run up, then you will probably get to the rated rpmof the A75 engine (2600 rpm), once the prop unloads in straight level flight. The Overhaul Manual notes: Prolonged running of the engine at or near "FULL THROTTLE" position should be avoided on the ground. I don't get anywhere near 2300 rpm on my full power static run up, with my A65 and homebuilt 72 X 42 prop. When I built my prop, to get the shape of the blades, I used the planform that Orin Hoopman drew up for the Model A engine. I think I get about 2000 rpm (maybe a little less) on full power staticrun up (brakes don't hold it), and when the prop unloads in straight level flight, full power run yields just under 2300 rpm. I re-worked my prop two different times in order to eventually get the rpm up to the rated power...notby decreasing the diameter or pitch, but by removing material from the trailing edgeof the blades, about half way out the diameter, and blending in the curved forward surface, thus reducing the chord of the blades. On a high drag plane like the Pietenpol, I don't think you should decrease the diameter of the prop in order to get a higher rated rpm. High dragairplanes require a large diameter prop. I think it would be MUCH better to decrease the pitch of the prop. It's true that a metal prop is more efficient, because it is a thinner blade. However, a metal prop on an antique plane like the Piet, just looks toomuch out of place. All that said, I think you should always check, and re-check after in service, the balance of the prop, and just stick with what you have, and fly theplane for 50 or 60 hrs, and then decide if you want to mess around with changing props.Chuck G.NX770CG________________________________________________________________________________