Props

[couleeone]

Geo

To avoid the red line issue, I just keep pulling the stick back.

Mike,

Sounds like you have a hot rod there! I like your final answer!

Geo

[Pete D]

Geo

I had Lycon build the 0-200 with high compression forged pistons, port & flowed heads and precision balancing..

I'm curious, did you swap out the cylinders or send them the whole engine? If you just do the cylinder swap and work in the heads then you still have the original rods and crank. Interesting to see how balanced that assembly is from the factory. If its anything like the heads then there is probably a lot of room for improvement.

Pete D.

[flybymike]

Pete,
I had Lycon build the entire engine with those options. They supplied all of the parts. I almost went with a single electronic ignition but was told that low altitude engines don't benefit much from that. I don't know how true that is but I can say that my engine with the 2 mags starts so easy it's scary, I never touch the prop with the mags on. It runs incredibly well and smooth. I do have a Dyna Vibe prop balancer which makes all the difference.

[Pete D]

What kind of plane do you have that motor on? It sounds like a well thought out build.

Pete

[flybymike]

It is a Kitfox SS.

[Springloaded]

Has anybody checked fuel consumption when changing cartridges on there prop. Mine 50 pitch 2000' 2450 IAS 97mph 6gal/hr 48 pitch 2000' 2450 IAS 92mph 7.5gal/hr. 50 pitch 300' 2200 4.5 gal/hr 48 pitch 300' 2200 3.8 gal/hr So at some point between 2200 & 2450 this prop becomes very inefficient.
I would of thought less load better fuel burn. I knew my fuel burn was higher at cruise but never could put my finger on it. I recently finished a repairmans course and had never thought about changing the pitch at the root does not do it equally across the the entire length of the prop.So i am wondering what pitch our prop blades actually made to run at.As our instructor told us he recently did the math on customers plane that the tip of the blade was actually pushing backwards! I ask a Sensenich guy at a show he had deer in head light look. I am going to try and measure the blades do the math and see what pitch the blade was made to be.
Chuck

[reileyr]

With a 48 pitch installed, my plane indicates 93 mph at 2375 60 OAT 3500' 5.4 gph leaned. Tack was tested/certified and it reads spot on. Higher propeller rpm results in higher airspeed and a higher fuel burn regardless of which pitch cartridge I use just like the power curves shown in TCM book. Fuel burn is a function of airframe drag just as it is in a car. Going faster requires more power and higher fuel consumption all else being equal. Drag is the square of velocity so going a little faster results in a much higher fuel burn.

re prop tip pushing backwards, instructor's math sounds like urban myth. Tips do much of the work which is why Borer props are so popular on Super Cubs. The pitch at the tip is very flat since the tip is traveling at a high velocity. The pitch near the hub is very coarse as it travels at a slow velocity. The pitch angle continuously changes from hub to tip. Sensenich can tell you the exact station where the "48 inch" pitch is measured but I think it is about a third of the way back from the tip. Have fun playing with the math.

[PropellerBalancing]

I agree, dynamic propeller balancing is a great way to reduce vibration levels for your aircraft.
I use the DSS Micro kit which works very well for me.

Morefield Aviation
http://www.morefieldaviation.com
Mesa, Arizona
KFFZ CHD MSC DVT
Mobile Repair Station

Pete,
I had Lycon build the entire engine with those options. They supplied all of the parts. I almost went with a single electronic ignition but was told that low altitude engines don't benefit much from that. I don't know how true that is but I can say that my engine with the 2 mags starts so easy it's scary, I never touch the prop with the mags on. It runs incredibly well and smooth. I do have a Dyna Vibe prop balancer which makes all the difference.

[N536cs]

I've flown three Sport Cubs, two with the HP upgrade, with the following props:

• McCauley 71 - 44
• McCauley 71 - 40
• Catto 76 - 40
• Catto 76 - 36
• Older Catto 76 - 36
• Sensenich with both a 48 and a 50 pitch cartridge

Got to admit the winner is the Sensenich with a 48 cartridge

Catto makes a great prop, smooth and the 36" works well for take off and climb.

But somehow, the 48 cartridge Sensenich seems to add JATO to the stock O-200 Sport Cub, will take off in the same distance, climb a 100 FPM faster, cruise at similar speeds as my high compression engine equipped SC and is just as smooth.

Yeah, we have had some mag issues that might be attributed to the Sensenich, but no definite proof.

Just did a back to back prop test, using my wife's (Kim) plane, last week did several tests with both my SC and her's and just finished a cross country from SMX up to the California Gold country. While I'm very content with my Catto 76-36, got to concede to the Sensenich better take off performance.

It might be that the Sensenich is better suited to the "draggy" fabric airframe and the O-200 that needs to spin up to 2,600+ RPM to make power.


Scott & Kim Huntington

[Robbymc]

Anyone running the new Sensenich 76" with the "PIN" system have any pireps?

Thanks in advanced!
Robby