Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 144

Thread: Catto Vs Borer floatplane

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like

    Catto Vs Borer floatplane

    Hey Guys,

    just wondering if anyone has switched form a borer to a Catto on a floatplane?
    Catto suggests a 84X36 for a 150hp super cub on floats and a 84X37 for 160hp,

    the also said that some guys run the 36 with 160 hp

    any info would be appreciated.

    Thanks

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    other then being much smoother and lighter the nickel leading edge on the catto stands up better when it comes to water erosion, as for performance it also spools up quicker and IMO pulls a little harder, i went from the borer 40 pitch to the catto 37 cruise stayed about the same.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cub12, what HP are you running?

  4. #4
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    9,641
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Revr View Post
    Hey Guys,

    just wondering if anyone has switched form a borer to a Catto on a floatplane?
    Catto suggests a 84X36 for a 150hp super cub on floats and a 84X37 for 160hp,

    the also said that some guys run the 36 with 160 hp

    any info would be appreciated.

    Thanks
    Is your cub certified or experimental?

    MTV

  5. #5
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,447
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Is your cub certified or experimental?

    MTV
    The 24 dollar question!
    Eddie Foy
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God"

  6. #6
    C-FIJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lewisporte N.L.
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Revr Plane is experimental !!!!!!
    Gerry Marcil

    Every day spent flying is a great day !

  7. #7
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    771
    Post Thanks / Like
    Had a quick winter safety visit from the FAA last week. Very cordial and informative. Discussed controlled flight into terrain and carbon monoxide. No other problems.

    I mentioned that at one time I had considered installing a wood/composite Catto or similar via a coordinated Field Approval, but had discarded the idea as I wasn't sure the work and expense were worth the potential results. Another local FSDO rep was supportive and offered help with the paperwork but in the end I put the project on hold.

    The ramp folks noted the Catto wasn't approved on certified planes like my Taylorcraft. I agreed and then mentioned they were seen from time to time and if the aircraft they were on were experimental? There wasn't much else to say about that from them or me.

    So unless experimental some form of approval is required. That's not headline news. And citing CAR 4 certified aircraft as eligible for wood props w/o approval only applies to what that reg calls "light aircraft"....those under 1000# GW.

    GAP

  8. #8
    Eddie Foy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,447
    Post Thanks / Like
    Us certified smucks can only hope and drool!
    Eddie Foy
    "Put out my hand and touched the face of God"

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85 View Post
    Had a quick winter safety visit from the FAA last week. Very cordial and informative. Discussed controlled flight into terrain and carbon monoxide. No other problems.

    I mentioned that at one time I had considered installing a wood/composite Catto or similar via a coordinated Field Approval, but had discarded the idea as I wasn't sure the work and expense were worth the potential results. Another local FSDO rep was supportive and offered help with the paperwork but in the end I put the project on hold.

    The ramp folks noted the Catto wasn't approved on certified planes like my Taylorcraft. I agreed and then mentioned they were seen from time to time and if the aircraft they were on were experimental? There wasn't much else to say about that from them or me.

    So unless experimental some form of approval is required. That's not headline news. And citing CAR 4 certified aircraft as eligible for wood props w/o approval only applies to what that reg calls "light aircraft"....those under 1000# GW.

    GAP
    Except that it's written right into many TCDS' in many of these older aircraft. I say as little to a fed as I possibly can.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    i ran the catto 84/37 on a 0320 that had the 9.5-1 pistons, it was in a smith pa-12

  11. #11
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    771
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskadrifter View Post
    Except that it's written right into many TCDS' in many of these older aircraft. I say as little to a fed as I possibly can.
    We're drifting and that's not my intent...the OP asked about Catto and it's not approved unless the aircraft is experimental. And the FAA is aware.

    Nor are any unapproved wooden propellers for my Taylorcraft covered by TCDS A-696, which in Item 1 specifies "Approved wood (fixed or adjustable pitch)."

    TCDS A-691 for the J-3/PA-11 does list Item 101 "Propeller - Wood (fixed or adjustable pitch)." However I have it in writing that the Catto is currently considered a combination wood/composite propeller and as such is not eligible to be installed as a "wood" propeller.

    The quote from my contact at the FSDO:

    "Unfortunately, as the Cato propeller is not a wooden propeller of "conventional type" given the fiberglass wrap, I and the gentleman I spoke to within our Technical Standards Branch feel it would not qualify as a minor change. Given that this would be considered a major change to type design, I would like to encourage you to submit for a field approval so that an engineering evaluation may be made by the Administrator."

    GAP

  12. #12
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85 View Post
    The quote from my contact at the FSDO:

    "Unfortunately, as the Cato propeller is not a wooden propeller of "conventional type" given the fiberglass wrap, I and the gentleman I spoke to within our Technical Standards Branch feel it would not qualify as a minor change. Given that this would be considered a major change to type design, I would like to encourage you to submit for a field approval so that an engineering evaluation may be made by the Administrator."

    GAP
    Thanks GAP, That is encouraging, I take that response as "let's run it through the system, it is worth a try". From my previous experience with the Alaska FAA, I take that as an almost YES.

    If you could get a section of a blade to show how much is wood and how much is the "fabric" cover along with a conventional wood prop with it's fabric tip cover??????? It's a place to start. Assuming you are silver tonged and can carry on an intellectual friendly discussion with Mr. FAA, progress can be made. It's amazing how well this approach works.
    N1PA

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would like to put a Catto on my Tcraft (F21) but the feds here are anti aviation. I had go around them to get Baumann amphibs approved.

    Jim

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Is your cub certified or experimental?

    MTV
    Experimental

  15. #15
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    771
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Thanks GAP, That is encouraging, I take that response as "let's run it through the system, it is worth a try". From my previous experience with the Alaska FAA, I take that as an almost YES.

    If you could get a section of a blade to show how much is wood and how much is the "fabric" cover along with a conventional wood prop with it's fabric tip cover??????? It's a place to start. Assuming you are silver tonged and can carry on an intellectual friendly discussion with Mr. FAA, progress can be made. It's amazing how well this approach works.
    Yes I do feel it's something worth doing at some point. I've done it before and it takes some careful research and coordination with a knowledgeable A&P I/A and an FAA inspector that's willing to assist and advise. My verbal and written discussions were positive and I was left with the same feeling as you about their response so far. It takes properly filling out the 337 and ICW forms plus supporting documentation from the manufacturer.

    A subsequent before and after balance analysis on the airframe with a prop balancing unit locally available might be valuable along with specified periodic airworthiness inspections on all gear configurations. Prop tip clearance can be adjusted via gear and tire combinations.

    Previous success included getting the first Scout set gear installed on my 7GCBC in the early '80s. I got close but no cigar with getting EDO 2000's approved on my PA-11, but didn't have the resources for adequate flight testing.

    It may still happen and others may wish to pursue a Catto approval as suggested.

    My apologies to the OP for the thread drift. I should have started my own subject at some point.

    GAP

  16. #16
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    771
    Post Thanks / Like
    As a suggestion (maybe it's already been done) somebody including Catto should go experimental with a Cub or whatever and do some serious testing of approved metal vs Catto propellers. Data flys and BS walks.

    I'm sure Catto has done stress analysis of the props if their webpage info is correct. The engine/prop combination can be tested in some form...other prop manufacturers do that routinely. Engine operating parameters can be monitored and a test sequence set up to note any short term durability issues. See exactly what performance benefits and detriments come with the package versus proven metal propellers in various gear configurations.

    This would initially be for an FAA Engineering Assisted Field Approval and not a blanket STC. The former is something finite and perhaps achievable, the latter lengthy, expensive, and would require risk protection going forward.

    The bottom line question is are the Catto props that much better and equally as airworthy as existing approved propellers on our typical low and slow aircraft? If so then someone should prove that to the FAA.

    Edit: My quest for a Catto vs current Field Approved Sen M76AK-2-** on my Taylorcraft (essentially now a C-90 with STC'd and manufacturer approved changes) would likely provide limited parallel benefit for Cub owners with different engine and airframe combinations. That's why I suggest some testing on that aircraft as a start in proving the utility and airworthiness of the package.

    GAP
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 01-21-2017 at 03:37 PM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey cub12, Im looking for a catto 84x37, Im in NS Canada and wondering if you know of a canadian dealer

  18. #18
    40m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Shoreham, VT
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mike gittens View Post
    Hey cub12, Im looking for a catto 84x37, Im in NS Canada and wondering if you know of a canadian dealer
    Worked with Mark Friesen 807-seven37-1367, not sure what his relationship is with Catto but extremely helpful and knowledgeable.

    From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be
    found in all corners of the earth."

    Then he made the earth round... and He laughed and laughed and laughed!
    Likes C-FIJK, cubdriver2 liked this post

  19. #19
    C-FIJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lewisporte N.L.
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't believe there is a Canadian dealer for Catto props, best is new or maybe get lucky get a used one on Barnstormers
    Gerry Marcil

    Every day spent flying is a great day !

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as i know i was the only one dealing in Canada, Lately i have just been sending people directly to Catto. but feel free to give me a call if there is something you have questions about, 40m posted my# above. They are a great prop, stand up very well,are extremely smooth and are nice and light.
    Marc

  21. #21
    C-FIJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lewisporte N.L.
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oops I stand corrected!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by cub12 View Post
    As far as i know i was the only one dealing in Canada, Lately i have just been sending people directly to Catto. but feel free to give me a call if there is something you have questions about, 40m posted my# above. They are a great prop, stand up very well,are extremely smooth and are nice and light.
    Marc
    Gerry Marcil

    Every day spent flying is a great day !

  22. #22
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    8,687
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cub12 View Post
    As far as i know i was the only one dealing in Canada, Lately i have just been sending people directly to Catto. but feel free to give me a call if there is something you have questions about, 40m posted my# above. They are a great prop, stand up very well,are extremely smooth and are nice and light.
    Marc
    Marc's a great guy, thanks for all your help 2 winters ago

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
    Likes pfm liked this post

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah it looks like the used ones are rare, like impossible to find. I sent Catto a quote request, that exchange rate is going to hurt!!!

  24. #24
    C-FIJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lewisporte N.L.
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey there is one posted today on barnstormers
    Gerry Marcil

    Every day spent flying is a great day !

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    67.8N,115.1W CYCO Canada
    Posts
    729
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cub12 View Post
    As far as i know i was the only one dealing in Canada, Lately i have just been sending people directly to Catto. but feel free to give me a call if there is something you have questions about, 40m posted my# above. They are a great prop, stand up very well,are extremely smooth and are nice and light.
    Marc
    How much lighter than the Borer? I could stand to loose some weight ......on the nose I mean.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    the catto's are 12.5-13 lbs, your mac is probably around 37lbs.
    Marc
    Thanks NunavutPA-12 thanked for this post

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    67.8N,115.1W CYCO Canada
    Posts
    729
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be great to save 20-pounds up front. I wouldn't want to do so at the expense of performance, though.

    What could I get on the used market for my 82/44 Borer in decent shape?
    Last edited by NunavutPA-12; 02-20-2017 at 07:00 PM.

  28. #28
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,256
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by NunavutPA-12 View Post
    It would be great to save 30-pounds up front. I wouldn't want to do so at the expense of performance, though.

    What could I get on the used market for my 82/44 Borer in decent shape?
    82/40 catto will give you the same cruise speed as 82/44 borer, maybe a little more, and much better takeoff performance and quicker throttle response.
    Thanks NunavutPA-12 thanked for this post
    Likes 180Marty liked this post

  29. #29
    C-FIJK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lewisporte N.L.
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jst Sent u a pm

    Quote Originally Posted by NunavutPA-12 View Post
    It would be great to save 20-pounds up front. I wouldn't want to do so at the expense of performance, though.

    What could I get on the used market for my 82/44 Borer in decent shape?
    Gerry Marcil

    Every day spent flying is a great day !

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Thun Field, Washington
    Posts
    701
    Post Thanks / Like
    I normally run a Borer 82/45 on my 160 Cub. With a Catto 84/37 on it, I get less RPM taking off/climbing out, less RPM wide open and it goes slower.
    I haven't done a measured take off/climb comparison, but it feels similar.
    If you buy a used Catto without trying it, it might work and it might not. If it doesn't, you're out a prop for a while and some money while Catto figures it out.
    The problem is that it's so damn light and such a work of art that it's hard to remove.
    Thanks NunavutPA-12 thanked for this post

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like
    I ran a 8436 with 10:1's in a 320. Did good, until i had engine probs

  32. #32
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Food for thought

    I get it, Catto being a wood prop is lighter than the McCauley Borer which is aluminum. Less weight up front is good for two reasons. A lighter basic airframe weight and a CG which is further back. The Catto likely has better aerodynamics than the McCauley giving it the edge on performance.

    A four cylinder large bore engine has power pulses 180 degrees apart which create a certain amount of stress on the rotating components. This is improved when the engine has six cylinders where the power impulses are reduced to 120 degrees separation. Have any of you flown behind the Lycoming IO-720 eight cylinder engine? It is smooooooooth.

    Now in order to up your power a higher compression set of pistons is installed. This would automatically increase the torsion stresses on the components. Engines which do not have propellers have flywheels to absorb these stresses and higher impulses which helps the engine rotate to the next compression stroke in a smooth manner. Basically the bigger the fly wheel the smoother the idle. The Enstrom helicopter which I used to fly had no propeller and only a light cooling fan attached to the engine. It started roughly often kicking back (sometimes breaking starter housings) and idled at a very high rpm in order to keep running.

    These higher stresses and impulses generated by the high compression pistons will change the natural resonance frequency of the engine and thus the entire airplane. This makes me wonder if there may be cracks forming somewhere, anywhere in the entire airplane because of the higher compression pistons and lighter prop combination?

    Can anyone here answer these questions? Do more screws start falling out of the wraparound cowl or elsewhere?

    In my opinion one must think of all of the possible consequences before making multiple modifications which in their mind is an improvement. Uneducated modifications can create troubles where you do not imagine. Just because any and all modifications may give an improvement, when they are combined you may get a result which turns around to bite you.

    Just something for all of you to keep in mind when you make a change to your plane. Just because it works for one airplane doesn't mean that it will work on the next airplane. Think your ideas through. Look for the results of what might happen. Keep an open mind to the potential issues.
    N1PA
    Likes PerryB, wireweinie, pzinck liked this post

  33. #33
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well said. I have both a Catto and a Mac(Borer). My Cub has a 150/O-320. The Mac has a noticeably smoother idle. At cruise, both props are very smooth and there is no discernible difference, but I also realize that the harmonic anomalies that cause things to crack/break are almost never felt. These are torsional issues that happen in the plane of rotation, not balance issues. All that being said, I really like the Catto and am not worried about it on my little 7:1 motor. I think a 10:1 engine would be cause for concern with such little flywheel. Now on to my spin on the Catto, from a performance standpoint.

    My Catto is an 82-39. My Borer is an 82-42. From a performance standpoint they are two peas in a pod. They both cruise 92@ 2400rpm. They both run out at 103@2750rpm. They both produced nearly identical time to climb numbers. I did 3 runs each from brake release to 1000' and the average time came out to within .45 sec. Both produced times of right around 1:05 (but I hate to tell you the Mac won). My biggest reason for the Catto was weight. My 12 has the long mount and I wanted to optimize my CG. I already had a Niagara cooler, Skytec started and B&C alternator. My empty CG is now in the upper 13's and I'm really happy with how it flys/handles.
    I have been reading some pretty incredible things about the Catto in this thread that may be just a wee bit exaggerated. Its a great prop, but it won't take 20lb. off the nose (more like 16 which is still great) and it won't cruise faster AND climb better - aint happenin'. Well, now I've done it --- here it comes!!

    P.S. - I do agree with the Catto having better aerodynamics because it does the same job with 3 inches less mechanical pitch. It also statics about 40 rpm lower but has the same run-out speed and rpm. It would appear to be grabbing more air at lower rpm (static) but then the Mac catches up as they go through translation.
    Last edited by PerryB; 03-23-2017 at 08:41 AM.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Thanks sjohnson, TJAK thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  34. #34
    40m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Shoreham, VT
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    For me the difference from a McCauley to Catto was 11lbs. Catto offered the option of trying several options to see what was best suited for my engine and my objective, including one no charge re-pitch if I choose. The performance difference would be comparing apples to oranges.
    Last edited by 40m; 03-23-2017 at 09:29 AM.

    From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be
    found in all corners of the earth."

    Then he made the earth round... and He laughed and laughed and laughed!
    Likes TJAK liked this post

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    as far as harmonics the catto being a wood core prop will absorb the vibrations, where a metal prop will transfer them all the way to the tip. Their have been quiet a few cases of long metal props breaking( usually about 19" from the tip because of high comp pistons ect in 4 cyl engines. the worst culprits are the 0360's. shortly, like within 1/2 sec or so the engine tears off of the firewall from the imbalance. this same effect was seen in the canto's but only resulted in the leading edge sheath cracking and since then more carbon fibre was added to extinguish the problem. This is why the borer prop for an 0360 is so heavy but even at that i do believe all the vib testing was done with low comp pistons.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    You guys continue to refer to a Catto prop as wood, even when Catto's label says otherwise. So here are a few questions. My Whirl Wind blades are foam core. Does that make it a foam prop? Skywagon's Whirl Wind blades are hollow. What do you call that? An air prop? How do the foam and air props handle vibration? I only know of one bad pirep for a Whirl Wind and that was on an aerobatic plane spinning 3300 rpm. No other negative reports that I've heard. I'm just curious because the truth is that I don't know diddley about props other than some go better than others. Somebody edyoukate me, please?

    FWIW most of the EX high compression engines I looked at (360ci and above) use conterbalanced cranks. If that matters in the vibration discussion.
    Last edited by stewartb; 03-23-2017 at 10:00 AM.

  37. #37
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    cub12,
    You are correct in all that you said as far as the harmonics between the prop and the engine reacting together. The question is how does that power plant combination react with the entire air-frame?

    stewart,
    You are correct that Catto's data plate does not mention wood. The Catto is made up of multiple layers of wood topped with layers of glass and carbon fiber. The load paths and stresses are distributed among all of the layers.
    Your Whirlwind has the structural stresses incorporated in the carbon layers which are in turn stabilized (stiffened) by the foam core.
    My Whirlwind has the structural stresses incorporated in the carbon layers with a hollow core. The blade angles do not change during flight other than normal flexing.

    While I'm not certain, I suspect that since your prop is constantly changing pitch (constant speed) while in use that there are variable loads which must be dampened. Thus the addition of the stabilizing non structural core.

    There are reasons for calling the Catto "wood" which are not relevant to this discussion. If you wish to send me a PM I will be happy to explain my reason.
    N1PA

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know squat about load paths and tensile strength and elongation and yield. I am pretty sure a Catto prop isn't a wood prop, though.

    I don't have any criticism of what other guys use. I chose what I have because I talked to guys about their experiences and dialed in on what was important to me. Community and honest pireps are a powerful tool.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    sioux lookout
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like
    we can call a catto wood or wood core, my point is that the wood is very effective at dealing with vibration over metal. As to what goes through the airframe that would depend on what type of engine mount an rubbers were being used. I have seen props go out of balance in flight to the point that the horizontal stab is going up and down 6". In fact the company our family used to own ran a fleet of aircraft using Mac's, we were seeing a lot of engine gearbox damage from prop vibration( yes i know not engine vibration going down prop but prop vibration going through the engine and airframe) this would transfer through the whole aircraft. So we started an MT program ( again a wood prop covered with fibreglass) and it saved huge money in engine o/h costs, as for the airframe and avionics we knew it was saving money and a lot safer but it's hard to put a $ figure to it. With the Mac's the vibration was a hub issue not necessarily because it was a metal prop but we are taking vibration here so it somewhat applies
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Post Thanks / Like
    This discussion is like herding cats. I'll leave y'all to it. Have a nice day.

Similar Threads

  1. Catto composite prop survey on Catto website: take it
    By slowjunk in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-09-2015, 02:00 PM
  2. CATTO PROPS
    By 96chevtruck in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 08:29 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •