PDA

View Full Version : New Vetterman Exhaust for Super Cubs



Bugs66
12-08-2010, 05:47 PM
I spoke with Clint at Vetterman Exhaust today and he mentioned that Vetterman is now offering a new Super Cub exhaust. The Vetterman guys have been doing Vans RV exhaust for years and now have a nice crossover system for experimental Cubs.

Looks to be a nice clean package. They also offer dual or single mufflers and different options for heat muffs. Price begins around $900-ish for straight exhaust.

Just thought I would pass along as another system to consider for your projects. Clint is building up a light weight Super Cub with C90 engine. He has some neat mods like airfoil shaped tail surfaces (ala Zenith, upside down airfoil). Looking forward to seeing photos of his project.

http://www.vettermanexhaust.com/

174

Bushwhacker Air
12-08-2010, 05:57 PM
I spoke to Clint at Vetterman last week about these - I believe this will be the one I use on the BushCub with the new O-233. They do build a reall clean system at a reasonable price - looking forward to seeing it. Thanks Bugs.

behindpropellers
12-08-2010, 07:12 PM
0-233?

More info??

Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
12-08-2010, 07:21 PM
Looks almost exactly like the exhaust system we used for our 0-360 constant speed conversion on the PA-22/20....176

brown bear
12-08-2010, 07:37 PM
I have had a Vetterman ex. on 54wd for over 600 hours and have had NO trouble with it at all.
Doug

Bushwhacker Air
12-08-2010, 07:42 PM
0-233?

More info??



Lycoming's new engine based on the O-235 - 115 hp, 210 lbs dry weight - their answer for the LSA market.

tempdoug
09-29-2012, 12:55 PM
Bugs, are you still satisfied with your exhaust?

Bugs66
09-29-2012, 11:40 PM
I don't have Vetterman, I have Custom Aircraft. Can someone with Vetterman exhaust chime in with comments?

willirw
09-30-2012, 02:16 AM
I have the Vetterman exhaust on my Back Country Cub 0-375. It was easy to install and everything fit perfectly. I have flown it for 70 hrs now without any trouble. With the temp getting cooler now I would like to get a little more heat out of it. I spoke with Clint and he informed me he has an arctic heater muff similiar to Atlee's. I 'm planning on purchasing this winter.

tempdoug
09-30-2012, 10:43 AM
You guys that know these 2 systems, Custom Aircraft Exhaust and Vettermans, is there really much if any differences. I dont want to get into one is better than the other just more towards what in each system is nice. The carbon cubs use the Custom ones dont they?

Bugs66
09-30-2012, 12:35 PM
I think the huge difference is price. I believe Vettermans is substantially less.

Super11XP
09-30-2012, 05:11 PM
Hi Everyone, just so everybody knows, I work for Vetterman, and yes I am biased!
I would say that the main difference between our system and the one Custom Aircraft builds, is that ours is designed to run dual 7" mufflers. You can also take the mufflers off, and run straight pipes.
We are also offering a lightweight system that uses 1.5 inch tubing instead of 1.75 This has been dyno and flight tested, and actually produces slightly more torque according to the dyno tests. The installed weight with mufflers is 11 lbs and 8.5/ 9 lbs with with straight pipes and cabin/carb heat muffs installed.
Sky Dynamics builds the exhaust system for the Carbon Cub.

tempdoug
09-30-2012, 05:28 PM
Clint, the heat muffs you use will supply enough heat up here in the North? And is there much difference in noise without the mufflers?

NimpoCub
09-30-2012, 09:57 PM
I've been running mine for a couple hundred hours, still perfect. I had to cut an inch off the X-over pipe because it was made for an 0360. (Well described in the instructions) Fit & finish is perfect, the attach hardware is very configurable.

I asked the neighbors if it was any louder without the muffler, they all said it barked a bit more on TO but in cruise, no noticeable diff. I picked up almost 200RPM when WFO. Now I can spin my Borer 2900 RPMs & get 110 MPH on floats. Bart reports similar results, said 2900 is OK for TO & climb but don't leave it there too long.

Mine came with one 8" heat muff, I had to buy another for the other side. (One for carb, one for cabin)
Great performance, and Great Price!
Thanks Clint!

Super11XP
09-30-2012, 11:01 PM
HI Doug, Since my cub has a c-90 I don't have very much personal experience flying with one of our systems in a lycoming powered cub. As for the mufflers, they reduce the noise by 5-6 decibels. The main advantage of the mufflers is increased heat output. These mufflers are the same ones that we put on the RV's, only 1 inch shorter so that they will fit inside the cowling. In the RV's the heat valve just barely cracked open is as much heat as we have ever needed with the mufflers installed. The challenge for the cubs is getting more airflow through the heat shroud due to the lower speeds. We offer an additional heat muff to put on the cross tubes in front of the sump to preheat the air before it goes through the shroud around the muffler. This may be needed for people operating in the extreme cold.

spinner2
10-01-2012, 12:49 PM
HI Doug, Since my cub has a c-90 I don't have very much personal experience flying with one of our systems in a lycoming powered cub. As for the mufflers, they reduce the noise by 5-6 decibels. The main advantage of the mufflers is increased heat output. These mufflers are the same ones that we put on the RV's, only 1 inch shorter so that they will fit inside the cowling. In the RV's the heat valve just barely cracked open is as much heat as we have ever needed with the mufflers installed. The challenge for the cubs is getting more airflow through the heat shroud due to the lower speeds. We offer an additional heat muff to put on the cross tubes in front of the sump to preheat the air before it goes through the shroud around the muffler. This may be needed for people operating in the extreme cold.

I've been working with Clint on a system for the O-340 in the Carbon Cub. The issue with the original Carbon Cub exhaust system was very little heat output both for the cabin and the carburator. Clint came up with a design that puts out a lot more heat in both areas. And with two mufflers it is also much more quiet. The original CC system has no muffler.

Clint has made a few tweaks to the original prototype and I have not reinstalled it yet but will be soon.

My static and WOT flat and level RPM's were identical between the original CC system and Clint's.

The weight difference was minimal - a pound or so.

And Clint is an excellent guy to work with too.

8779

cubunltd
10-02-2012, 12:59 PM
Does anyone have any performance figures for these two exhaust systems?

John

Phil Sc
01-31-2013, 10:45 PM
Does anyone know the diameter of the Vetterman cabin heat outlet?
I would like to order a cabin heat box and don't know which size to get.
Any recommendations as to what heat box would be appreciated.

Thanks............Phil

tempdoug
02-01-2013, 08:01 AM
http://www.vettermanexhaust.com Clint will talk heat boxes with you. Theres another guy that makes them in Colorado i think, i will see if i can remember and put that on here. Would you have a picture of your exhaust?

Monte
02-01-2013, 08:40 AM
I have Vetterman exhaust on my 0235 Cub. I have owned about 6 months and 50 hours and have had not problems at all and it is beautiful workmanship.

Super11XP
02-01-2013, 09:13 AM
All of the inlet and outlet size on our exhaust heat muffs are 2" We get our heat muffs and firewall mounted airboxes from Rick Robbins @ robbinswings.com (303) 423-7002

Aktahoe
08-18-2015, 11:39 PM
Just a bump here. Any updates? Anything better? Seems like most everyone is running this exhaust now

Akt

tedwaltman1
05-19-2016, 02:05 PM
Rumor has it that a Super Cub in Alaska went from the 1.75" exhaust tubing to the 1.50" which resulted in a 30+ increase in CHT temps. Theory is smaller diameter tubing doesn't let as much heat exit. I believe he is waiting on a prototype 1.75" Vetterman system to see if his CHT's return to "normal" ranges. I'll try to remember to post if and when I hear of test results.

SD cubman
05-19-2016, 07:52 PM
I will reply to the posts regarding cylinder head temperature increase of the 1.5 inch exhaust vs. the standard 1.75 inch. I did the testing on both systems and I did not see any change in cht's on one vs the other. I did see a fuel flow increase which equated to more power as also confirmed on the dyno. This rumor that has started is a head scratcher because as I just can't relate the exhaust size to a 30 degree cht increase. BTW the testing was not just a couple of flights- it was many hours with documenting all the data for each flight. If the larger system brings the cht's down I will be pleasantly surprised. I think there is something else going here that may be causing the difference. Interesting indeed. Vetterman

skywagon8a
05-20-2016, 06:01 AM
I will reply to the posts regarding cylinder head temperature increase of the 1.5 inch exhaust vs. the standard 1.75 inch. I did the testing on both systems and I did not see any change in cht's on one vs the other. I did see a fuel flow increase which equated to more power as also confirmed on the dyno. This rumor that has started is a head scratcher because as I just can't relate the exhaust size to a 30 degree cht increase. BTW the testing was not just a couple of flights- it was many hours with documenting all the data for each flight. If the larger system brings the cht's down I will be pleasantly surprised. I think there is something else going here that may be causing the difference. Interesting indeed. Vetterman
This backs up what another member here has been telling me. He has been experimenting with changing his exhaust system for a more efficient model and through research has learned to make the diameter smaller for more power.

I recently installed Piccolo pipes on my Cub looking for a quieter operation. Not sure that it is quieter but in only one flight it seems to have a bit more power with about 0.4 gallon an hour more fuel flow at the same mp/rpm. I assume that is because the slight restriction slowing down the exhaust flow? Maybe?

CamTom12
05-20-2016, 07:52 AM
This backs up what another member here has been telling me. He has been experimenting with changing his exhaust system for a more efficient model and through research has learned to make the diameter smaller for more power.

I recently installed Piccolo pipes on my Cub looking for a quieter operation. Not sure that it is quieter but in only one flight it seems to have a bit more power with about 0.4 gallon an hour more fuel flow at the same mp/rpm. I assume that is because the slight restriction slowing down the exhaust flow? Maybe?
Exhaust restrictions tend to shift torque peaks lower in the rpm band. More torque at a given rpm makes more horsepower. Maybe that's what you're experiencing?

skywagon8a
05-20-2016, 08:04 AM
Exhaust restrictions tend to shift torque peaks lower in the rpm band. More torque at a given rpm makes more horsepower. Maybe that's what you're experiencing?
That could be since the engine is not turning 2700 due to prop pitch. It is perhaps producing the same power which it would be producing if it were turning a higher rpm or higher mp. It sure jumped out of the water and climbed like a scalded cat which was certainly noticeable.

tedwaltman1
05-20-2016, 08:46 AM
Just trying to learn here, so please don't shoot the messenger, so to speak.

I guess I understand the smaller 1.5" diameter tubing equates to more Hp. Ok, it's been a long time since my thermodynamics class in college, but doesn't more power equate to more heat? If we add Hp, didn't redesign the cowl or make any other provisions for increased cooling, where does that increased heat go?

SD cubman
05-20-2016, 11:41 AM
My purpose for the post was not intended to insult or "kill the messenger" but rather give some exhaust facts. The higher power available with the smaller exhaust will be noticed on takeoff from a small etc. once in the air and the power is set to a cruise rpm, there may not be much difference. If the exhaust is more efficient at a certain rpm or percent power, proper leaning should burn less gph. When we converted our Cubs from 150 hp to 160 hp and using the same 82-41 Borer prop, the fuel burn went down .4-.5 gph. Then changing the pitch to 43, the fuel burn went back up.
theory suggests that high torque and low rpm likes smaller diameter primary tubes. High torque and high rpm like large primary tubes.
when we started experimenting with smaller primary pipes, we asked a Lycoming engineer what to expect and he didn't know however he stated that most all big bore continental engines have a smaller exhaust port than lycoming.
As stated in previous posts, my cht's run quite cool on my cub with the carbon fiber plenums, however it may be time to install a standard size 1.75 inch system and see what results I get. I'll, see if Clint has one or will make one to do some testing. Vetterman

tedwaltman1
05-20-2016, 11:45 AM
Thank you for the information. Very useful! I'm sure interested in the larger tubing --IF-- testing shows any noticeable reduction in CHT. Please PM me or email me ( tedwaltman@gmail.com ) with test results.

THANK YOU!

16-bravo
05-20-2016, 12:15 PM
Thank you for the information. Very useful! I'm sure interested in the larger tubing --IF-- testing shows any noticeable reduction in CHT. Please PM me or email me ( tedwaltman@gmail.com ) with test results.

THANK YOU!


Mine seems to be working fine.....small tubes, and makes a lot more rpm than the system that it replaced.....Im in Alaska as well. LOVE my Vetterman. Thanks Clint:lol:

tedwaltman1
05-20-2016, 12:30 PM
My exhaust and CHT's were wonderful--all in the 340 range--last August flying in 40 to 50 degree weather at Sea Level in Alaska. It's when it is 75+ degrees, taking off from 5,000' and trying to climb over the continental divide at 13,000' that the temps get troublesome. Have made lots of cowl, baffling, etc mods. Searching for even better CHT temps--if larger exhaust tubing yields yet another 20 to 30 (or even more?) drop then I'm really happy!

pilotski
05-20-2016, 11:15 PM
Clint built a crossover exhaust for my homebuilt 0-200 cub high quality work fit good looks good and sounds good

cubdriver2
05-20-2016, 11:31 PM
Clint built a crossover exhaust for my homebuilt 0-200 cub high quality work fit good looks good and sounds good

Pictures?

Glenn

pilotski
05-21-2016, 10:31 AM
i'm not sure if the wife took any picture's if not i'll get her to.

tempdoug
05-21-2016, 01:18 PM
25743

MainlandCub
05-21-2016, 04:41 PM
This backs up what another member here has been telling me. He has been experimenting with changing his exhaust system for a more efficient model and through research has learned to make the diameter smaller for more power.

I recently installed Piccolo pipes on my Cub looking for a quieter operation. Not sure that it is quieter but in only one flight it seems to have a bit more power with about 0.4 gallon an hour more fuel flow at the same mp/rpm. I assume that is because the slight restriction slowing down the exhaust flow? Maybe?

Any chance of some pictures of the installed piccolo tubes Pete?

Thanks
Andrew

skywagon8a
05-21-2016, 06:26 PM
Andrew,
I don't have means of taking a picture of mine. They resemble this picture: http://www.supercub.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22694&stc=1 The difference is that I had a local auto exhaust pipe bender make me two 2" pipes bent back at an angle, about 60 degrees, so that the perforated section of 6" points straight back. I drilled a bunch of 1/2" holes and squeezed the end leaving about 1/2" slot. These were then attached with screws to the existing dual exhaust pipes.
This is my exhaust before the piccolos: 25744 The perforated 6" are parallel to the bottom of the fuselage.


SD cubman, It may be unfair for me to claim a 0.4 gph increase in consumption. The engine is fuel injected with balanced nozzles and electronic ignition. It is usually difficult to nail down an exactly properly leaned mixture. Some days peak EGT produces 8.0 gph, some days more or less. The engine never runs rough when over leaned, just has a smooth reduction of power. Still not bad for a 180 hp. Most of the time I just set it at 8 gph and leave it. If I took it on a trip I would likely fine tune it.

SD cubman
05-21-2016, 06:56 PM
Fuel burn does vary due to many things. That is one reason during my testing I flew as many as 20-25 flights, and some days the data just didn't fit so I just figured it was "one of those days". Also I never tested piccolo pipes on the ends of any exhaust system. I'll hang it all out here and be honest as the reason why....I think they are not too pleasing to look at or better yet, they're ugly. Ok no flaming here---it's just my opinion.
Many years ago, an RV guy called me and told me that he installed a set of them and they slowed him down about 3-4 mph. I don't have any data to prove it one way or the other though. We do know that noise is noise and the exhaust noise is only one facet of it. The faster the plane goes, the more wind noise, more prop blast beating on it, no interior insulation and on and on. Thankfully we now have ANR headsets.
Us carb guys don't hav the luxury of leaning like you injected guys. 8 gph sounds good for a 180 hp engine, probably around 65% power. SD cubman

skywagon8a
05-21-2016, 07:36 PM
That sounds close, 21.5" mp/2400 rpm. I was told that they do reduce noise, though I couldn't verify one way or the other. They did seem to make the engine sound a bit smoother. They perhaps did change the speed of the RV but not this Cub.