Will
We have the LAA to consider!
Pete
On 13/01/2019 13:40, William Daniell wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:pete@lawless.info> wrote:
>
> <mailto:pete@lawless.info>>
>
> 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 <mailto: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 $$$!!
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ==========
> pa-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
|