Why not fit a manual turbo to your 80hp. Then youd have power when you
need it. Total cost about usd 5k.
Will
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 05:24 Pete Lawless <pete@lawless.info wrote:
>
> Graeme
>
> I totally agree with Kingsley's appraisal. AC has the standard 912 UL
> with a CAP 140 variable pitch prop. This allows me to get 5,600 rpm at
> start of roll, so getting as much power as possible out of the engine.
> Acceleration and climb out are no problem. The only time I would like
> more power is at max weight (1,300 lbs) on a hot, cross windy day, we
> then get a closer look at the far hedge that I like. Initial climb when
> clean is around 800 to 1,000 fpm. Cruise is 120 kts at 14 to 15 litres
> per hour, depending on weight. You can wind it up to 130 but the fuel
> consumption increases.
>
> Just worth checking I seem to remember that when the weight increase mod
> to 1,370 lbs was introduced that the PFA would only approve it with an
> 80 hp engine if using a variable pitch prop.
>
> Pete
> G-RMAC Classic mono #109
>
>
> On 12/01/2019 23:49, Kingsley Hurst wrote:
> > <kingsnjan@westnet.com.au>
> >
> > Hello Graeme,
> >
> > I have a Mono Classic with the 912 80HP engine with 3 tapered Warp
> > Drive blades and an Airmaster CS hub.
> >
> > Whilst I cannot directly compare the 80 HP 912 to the 100HP 912S, I
> > can say that I (along with others) am amazed how well it performs.
> > The only thing that would make me consider replacing it with the 100HP
> > engine is that part of flight between lift off and 90 kts. I am
> > perfectly happy with the ground run but after lift off in the high
> > drag configuration (flaps and gear down), 60 kts is about all I can
> > get. I therefore progressively start raising the gear/flaps very soon
> > after lift off and put them fully away at 60 kts. Climb rate at this
> > time is minimal as it fairly slowly accelerates. At 80 kts it starts
> > to climb quite nicely but by then I am well past the end of our 700m
> > strip. (Exacerbating this situation is the fact that we almost always
> > have a cross wind) I like to climb at 90 kts IAS and at AUW of 621
> > kg, I am astounded how well it climbs to altitude averaging around 500
> > fpm and sometimes more to 8,000 ft etc.
> >
> > A mate of mine had a tri gear with the 80 HP engine and a fixed pitch
> > wooden propeller. It couldn't look at mine performance wise. I'm
> > therefore of the opinion a CS prop is a necessity with the 80 HP
> > especially in the hot conditions we have to endure over here.
> >
> > I suppose this has told you very little Graeme but I wouldn't go to
> > the expense of purchasing a 912S without first trying the 912 you were
> > supplied. If need be, swapping them over is a very simple exercise
> > once you have forked out the $$$=C2=A3=C2=A3=C2=A3!!
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Kingsley in Oz
> >
> >
> > On 12.01.19 8:57 pm, graeme bird wrote:-
> >> I received an unused 80HP 912 with my recent part built kit with a
> >> thin three blade warp drive; my own Europa is a 100HP 912ULS, can
> >> anyone comment on what difference in performance I might expect. I
> >> recall on my previous plane, a C42, the 80HP was less violent and
> >> more economical with marginal difference in performance but that
> >> might have been because it was cloth and draggy.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
|