more hp required

[Forrest Barber]

Re: more hp required

oooops I thought you had the 40 ft wingspan.

[jgerard]

Re: more hp required

No need to buy new cylinders if you put high comp pistons in. And the best out of the water prop is the 75-38 Mcaulley off a C-150 seaplane. Other wise I would run a 1B90 74-42. A firewall fwd engine change would take a long time to do and make the plane even more nose heavy.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: more hp required

The Aeromatic is a long story which is still unresolved. The instructions and setup as it arrived were a contradiction. I was told the prop was tweaked for the C90 however he had all the spare weights on there so when I tried it I had a static as you would expect of about 1500. I wasn't too happy when I
discovered this and the fact that the weights were really not secured well.
He should have bagged the extras and or tagged the prop . I never really did get a good balance between static and cruise before running out of time. I will resume this spring.

Static should have been much higher. And what does tweaked mean? What did he change the pitch stops from? They are time consuming enough on hard ground to set up. I can;t imagin doing it on water.

Mike

[pete]

Re: more hp required

Try a 135 lyc with a borer prop, 40 or 41. With a short mount it flies good. Could soup it up too.

[gcgilpin]

Re: more hp required

No need to buy new cylinders if you put high comp pistons in. And the best out of the water prop is the 75-38 Mcaulley off a C-150 seaplane. Other wise I would run a 1B90 74-42. A firewall fwd engine change would take a long time to do and make the plane even more nose heavy.

What static RPM are you getting with the 74-42?

[Robert Bradbury]

Re: more hp required

No need to buy new cylinders if you put high comp pistons in. And the best out of the water prop is the 75-38 Mcaulley off a C-150 seaplane. Other wise I would run a 1B90 74-42. A firewall fwd engine change would take a long time to do and make the plane even more nose heavy.

I have the IB90 repitched to 74 39 for the current setup. It does work best in this configuration as a fixed with the stock engine. My cylinders, with the exception of one don't cut the mustard for high compression and are are prone to seperation if used at such and ran to 28 or 30 degrees . Some guys say just go ahead and run it with my current cylinders and keep an eye on
the head, but I'm not sure I would want to take that chance .

The 0-290 would be a lot of work but I have an eye on a firewall forward
package. A friend of mine has this same setup and 2000EDO floats and his
performance is outstanding. 2 guys full fuel and 150lb of baggage is a joke
in ANY conditions plus he cruises in the 110+ range. He could cruise faster
but keeps the power back to conserve fuel.

I guess I will weigh all the pros/cons and come up with the best senerio. I may end up with a 185 on floats yet, that is in the works too ,so if that does
happen the T will have to go .

Thanks for your imput, and everyone else for that matter. I have to consider
all of the variables to make any good informed dicision.

Robert

[Robert Bradbury]

Re: more hp required

What static RPM are you getting with the 74-42?

Actually I'm running the IB90 at 74" repitched to 39 with the stock C90.
I think my static is around 2350 give or take a little.

Robert

[Robert Bradbury]

Re: more hp required

Try a 135 lyc with a borer prop, 40 or 41. With a short mount it flies good. Could soup it up too.

That is one of the options I am negotiating right now. A lot of work tho .

Robert

[astjp2]

Re: more hp required

Try edo 1400's, I have seen them for around 6-8K, just 1320's but with one extra bay. Tim

[wlas]

Re: more hp required

1320's and 1400's are totally different the 1400 is a flat bottom, like a 1650 and the 1320 are fluted bottoms, I've flown both and the 1320 works better. the other thing I forgot about with the 135 hp installation is the air speed. I flew the plane into lake hood to get the field approval noticed the speed was like 115 mph with a borer prop, unlike a cub with a borer prop which is in the 90 mph range. If you have a chance to buy that 135, I would go for it.

[T.Taylor]

Re: more hp required

maybe a PT-6 turbine?? The aeromatic is a good prop for the 150 Franklins and up. Can you find a 150 hp Lyc??

Coming out in KitPlanes magazine will be an article on a Rebel Moose with a PT-6 on anphibes, iam a mech an a speller- anyway it looks like a animated computer scene when it takes off from the ground or water, no more than 6 secs after start of moving to airbourne, land or water, hardly any step, just speed, angle, gone now the owner has bought an AL-60 made in Italy under license from Lockheed, about the size of a beaver- the airplane- and we are putting another PT-6 in it, the Moose will be at Sun-N-Fun, and another example of an AL-60 will be there also, from Canada, I'd nver seen such a plane, so I went to Wikapedia and it turns out to be designed by Al Mooney, while he worked at Lockheed, enought of the history lesson, T.

[MNJoe]

Re: more hp required

Since you are experimental have you thought of using a 120hp Jabiru with a three bladed composite prop? The jabiru will weigh considerably less.

[Acroeric]

Re: more hp required

Robert- Call me when you get a chance- I have some experience hopping up the little C90 and )-200 engines. Mine turn out around 120 hp. You should be getting much higher static than 2350 with that prop. . . .

Also- if you change to the 0-290 your power to weight ratio will be about the same. . . .I'm not sure it would be any better than what you have now. I fly a 160 hp super cub and have recently flown a C85 powered cub. . . .if my goal was to get off as fast as possible then I'd take the J-3 with an 85 anyday.

Likewise- I have had a few clipwings- with both IO-320 and an 0-200. The tcraft really likes to be kept light-

I have a list of common mods that I have had good luck with- here are a few- There is a correct cam (530788) and you need to use C85 pistons (chamfered 1/4" or so) and C85 rods. I use an A65 spider, remove the vacuum drive mechanism, and moment weigh everything.

Feel free to call me anytime- I do not have the complete list electrinically so I'd have to fax it. . . .

Eric

[Robert Bradbury]

Re: more hp required

Robert- Call me when you get a chance- I have some experience hopping up the little C90 and )-200 engines. Mine turn out around 120 hp. You should be getting much higher static than 2350 with that prop. . . .

Also- if you change to the 0-290 your power to weight ratio will be about the same. . . .I'm not sure it would be any better than what you have now. I fly a 160 hp super cub and have recently flown a C85 powered cub. . . .if my goal was to get off as fast as possible then I'd take the J-3 with an 85 anyday.

Likewise- I have had a few clipwings- with both IO-320 and an 0-200. The tcraft really likes to be kept light-

I have a list of common mods that I have had good luck with- here are a few- There is a correct cam (530788) and you need to use C85 pistons (chamfered 1/4" or so) and C85 rods. I use an A65 spider, remove the vacuum drive mechanism, and moment weigh everything.

Feel free to call me anytime- I do not have the complete list electrinically so I'd have to fax it. . . .

Eric

Hi Eric,
I tried to call you a few times last week and no one was home. I'll try to call later today because I have a few things I would like to talk to you about.

robert