• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Sensenich Wood/Composite Propeller for O-320

Gary Ward

SPONSOR
Lincolnton, GA
I see on Airframes Alaska website that they are offering a STC for a fixed pitch Sensenich Wood Composite propeller. Has anyone had any experience with these on PA-18 and PA-12 with O-320 engines? Specifically, how do they compare in performance to the McCauley "Borer" prop? My PA-12 currently has a Borer which performs great but I feel my plane is a bit nose heavy and that handling would benefit from the lighter weight of the Sensenich. I think it saves about 16 pounds on the nose.

My PA-12 flies and performs great but it takes a lot of trim for the various flight configurations when flown solo at light weights.

Thanks.

Gary
 
Sounds like it’s Gary’s lucky day! You’d better send it too him and let him get a taste.
 
I have the Sens. in 80-40 and a borer in 82-42. After getting the Borer, the Sens. became a wall hanger. I want to say the difference is 14 lb. but we're splitting hairs at that point. Yes it helps the CG a bit and if I were more energetic I'd do the math, BUT.. In my opinion the performance increase of the Borer was more than enough compensation for the CG penalty. It climbs better (100-150 fpm) and cruises faster. The Sens. has a considerably fatter airfoil and is less efficient. I have the best of both worlds now, a Catto (82-39). No It's not certified and I don't care. It my personal pleasure aircraft and almost never even carries a passenger, much less for hire.
Some of the other mods that help a 12 a lot are: Skytec starter, B&C 20a acc. drive mount alternator and the Niagara aluminum chin cooler. Whats the empty CG?
 
Perry, if you had to choose between the Cato and the Borer, which would it be? I know you've said the performance is essentially the same, but the Cato is lighter, so guessing that one?
 
Yes, without hesitation. it's a solid 16 lbs off the nose and the Mac 82-42 vs. the Catto 82-39 is a perfect dead heat. I've done time to climb and WOT runout tests back to back. The raw numbers are identical, so of course the CG improvement just ices the cake. The Catto is also a bit smoother, and both props are balanced to approx 7 IPS with a Dyna-vibe. Final consideration for me was the ever-lurking stories of Borers throwing their tips when they get up in hours. You still drinking with the chickens ??
 
Last edited:
..Final consideration for me was the ever-lurking stories of Borers throwing their tips when they get up in hours.
Without having any proof, I suspect that the reason for those failures was not the hours but nicks in the leading edge which propagated cracks. Not repairing nicks is asking for trouble.
 
I have always suspected the same, but it still always stuck in the back of my head.
 
PerryB.
If you ever get a chance to try a Catto
84/36 prop on your airplane, I think you will be pleasently surprised; in its improvement over either of your props
For T/0 performance or ROC ............
Of course the penilty will be some reduction in cruise speed.
The Catto you are running is probably
One of the better "all around props" if one figures out everything.
The old "borer" is the industry standard for sure. Most need the pitch checked and a rebalance 'right outta the box" . They are a wonderful prop for sure and as Atlee used to say " they are the single best mod" you can do to a Cub!


Sent from my LM-X210 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Back
Top