Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 59

Thread: Borer prop benefits pros/cons

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Borer prop benefits pros/cons

    Hey guys,

    I need an education on borer props and the benefits on a Pa-18-150. Is there a big ROC increase? What are measurable performance benefits?
    I know nothing about them. I’m also curious as to the prop clearance issues as i understand owners will add gear leg extensions or larger tires for prop clearance. And is it all worth it for a grass strip flyer!
    Thank you I appreciate it!
    Last edited by J3Jim; 02-01-2020 at 07:02 AM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    What type of plane/engine? Great for trimming brush on new runways, takes a beating and keeps on ticking, Pulls hard off the line. If you are on grass/tar strips and don't plan on a lot of prop abuse the wood props are doing pretty good. Depends on mission. For proper propeller to ground clearance the aircraft must be equipped with an approved combination of wheels and tires that provides a minimum clearancebetween the ground and the center of the axle of 9-3/8 inches, or having extended landing gear per Cub Crafters' STC SA00411SE installed.
    DENNY
    Thanks Eddy Lewis, Doug Budd thanked for this post

  3. #3
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    1,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Borer (lets say 82-42) is going to hurt your cruise speed by probably 8-10 mph for a given RPM versus the Sens (lets say 74-56). With a Borer you'll find most people cruise at least 2400, 2500 is not uncommon. It's also going to reduce your takeoff run by a solid 1/3 and increase your rate of climb accordingly. They also generally run noticeably smoother. The 74" Sensenich series are tuning forks, in my limited experience with them. The Borer also has a lot more air brake effect, when you pull the power back rapidly (not that I advocate it) you'll feel yourself pitch forward. Are they worth it is a matter of your personal goals and budget. I have an 82-42 and I love it. I didn't buy my Cub to go fast, I bought it to get it and out smallish places. Hilltops, river bars etc. The only reason it's not currently installed is I have a Catto 82-39 that I like even more. It produces IDENTICAL performance figures, RPM, ROC, top speed etc. and weighs about 16 lbs less which helps CG and all that which follows. It also runs just a bit smoother. The problem is the Catto isn't certified so it's not actually ''legal". Keep this to yourself though, It's a closely guarded secret and I wouldn't want anybody here to find out. They might turn me in.
    Last edited by PerryB; 02-01-2020 at 12:03 AM.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !

  4. #4
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    1,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    What type of plane/engine? Great for trimming brush on new runways, takes a beating and keeps on ticking, Pulls hard off the line. If you are on grass/tar strips and don't plan on a lot of prop abuse the wood props are doing pretty good. Depends on mission. For proper propeller to ground clearance the aircraft must be equipped with an approved combination of wheels and tires that provides a minimum clearancebetween the ground and the center of the axle of 9-3/8 inches, or having extended landing gear per Cub Crafters' STC SA00411SE installed.
    DENNY
    Denny, If i'm reading that right, 8.50's will do the trick, yes?
    -- maybe lean on the air pressure a bit to eliminate the squat?
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Thanks Eddy Lewis thanked for this post

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Thompson Falls, Mt.
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like
    I did a ton of mods to my super cub like cuff, extended wing, flaps into the fuse, taller gear, weight out of it and NOTHING came close to the performance difference when I put on that Borer 82/44 ( 160 hp). Nothing. Night and day.
    Likes DENNY, Brandsman liked this post

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    PerryB
    Yes I believe you are right, had to look at some old posts to double check. Hard to find a cub up here that is not on 31inch bushwheels and extended gear so no one seems to worry about it much. Skis might get a bit low every now and then on stock gear but no one seems to care. A Borer will loose/gain about 2.5 mph for each inch of pitch change. A 82/40 will rip you off the ground but at 2400 will get you about 80 mph with a 160hp. I did fly a Sensenich Airframes had and it came off the ground pretty good and was about 7mph faster than the 82/40. I think the wood/composite props are very nice and great props depending on how rough you are on them. I am sticking with 82/43 Borer for now it is the best "GET YOU BACK HOME PROP MADE".
    DENNY
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  7. #7
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    What type of plane/engine? Great for trimming brush on new runways, takes a beating and keeps on ticking, Pulls hard off the line. If you are on grass/tar strips and don't plan on a lot of prop abuse the wood props are doing pretty good. Depends on mission. For proper propeller to ground clearance the aircraft must be equipped with an approved combination of wheels and tires that provides a minimum clearancebetween the ground and the center of the axle of 9-3/8 inches, or having extended landing gear per Cub Crafters' STC SA00411SE installed.
    DENNY
    This is the controlling regulation.
    CAR Part 3.422
    § 3.422 Propeller clearance. With the
    airplane loaded to the maximum weight and most
    adverse center of gravity position and the
    propeller in the most adverse pitch position,
    propeller clearances shall not be less than the
    following, unless smaller clearances are properly
    substantiated for the particular design involved:


    (a) Ground clearance. (1) Seven inches
    (for airplanes equipped with nose wheel type
    landing gears) or 9 inches (for airplanes equipped
    with tail wheel type landing gears) with the
    landing gear statically deflected and the airplane
    in the level normal take-off, or taxiing attitude,
    whichever is most critical.


    (2) In addition to subparagraph (1) of this
    paragraph, there shall be positive clearance
    between the propeller and the ground when, with
    the airplane in the level take-off attitude, the
    critical tire is completely deflated and the
    corresponding landing gear strut is completely
    bottomed.


    (b) Water clearance. A minimum clearance
    of 18 inches shall be provided unless compliance
    with § 3.147 can be demonstrated with lesser
    clearance.


    (c) Structural clearance. (1) One inch
    radial clearance between the blade tips and the
    airplane structure, or whatever additional radial
    clearance is necessary to preclude harmful
    vibration of the propeller or airplane.


    (2) One-half inch longitudinal clearance
    between the propeller blades or cuffs and
    stationary portions of the airplane. Adequate
    positive clearance shall be provided between
    other rotating portions of the propeller or spinner
    and stationary portions of the airplane.
    N1PA

  8. #8
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like
    J3Jim, Is there a measurable ROC increase?
    Years ago I did a comparison test between the stock 74-56 and two different "Borer" diameters 80" & 82". There was approximately a 30% improvement in take off time and climb rate. The test also tried different pitch settings.
    The 82-42 which Perry mentions is popular. It is useful for those who need maximum take off performance, very shortest take off run. After that it is like driving your car in first gear all of the time.
    An 82-44 or an 80-46 will provide nearly as good take off performance and climb as well as much improved cruise speed. I found the 82-44 and the 80-46 to be basically identical in performance.
    Both the 80" & 82" are much smoother than the original 74" prop.
    N1PA
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  9. #9
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    1,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Buying a Borer or Catto and then attempting to restore original cruise speed with additional pitch has always escaped me, but then again I'm the guy with 4.56 gears in my truck (with 35" tires).
    Last edited by PerryB; 02-01-2020 at 08:51 AM.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Likes RaisedByWolves liked this post

  10. #10
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PerryB View Post
    Buying a Borer or Catto and then attempting to restore original cruise speed with additional pitch has always escaped me. The fatter prop cannot takeoff nearly as well but cruise significantly better.
    What do you mean by "fatter prop"?
    A "Borer" prop is a McCauley 1A175GM with a diameter of 82" and a pitch of your choice. Borer is the name of the man who got the STC, Roger Borer.
    N1PA
    Likes cubscout, Beaverpilot liked this post

  11. #11
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    1,977
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've edited, but by fatter I meant more pitch. I'm familiar with who Roger Borer is. I said "Borer or Catto" because both props, for a given diameter, have practically identical performance envelope ranges. I've seen several people buy Cattos and go large on the pitch out of concern for cruise speed. I've heard explanations of how well they pull at lower RPM etc, but if you're not making revolutions you're not making power. I didn't put long legs, big tires and VG's on to go fast. Kinda like my truck with the big tires and 4.56's. It's not my freeway cruiser. Yes I'm opinionated, I hope you're not offended.
    PS - I have a 1A175GM/42.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Thanks BradleyG thanked for this post
    Likes Brandsman, BradleyG, Firepilot liked this post

  12. #12
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,025
    Post Thanks / Like
    The 82 inch props on stock length gear don’t comply with clearance requirements on many straight ski installations. I’m not sure many pay much attention to that, but that was part of the motivation to develop and certify extended gear.

    Like Pete, I prefer the 82/44 prop for the same reasons he offered: you get 90 % of the takeoff and climb performance, but retain about half the loss of cruise speed. Or so. That’s assuming a healthy engine.

    Perry mentioned rpm on takeoff, but don’t forget legal certification limits for static rpm.

    MTV
    Thanks BradleyG thanked for this post
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  13. #13
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not offended. I just like to be certain that everyone has the same understanding of the topic at hand. Some folks are less informed than others and are less prone to understand what is being addressed. Our fellow members here cover the range from a curious enthusiast to many decades highly experienced folks. Sometimes it is difficult to determine which is which when they make no admissions.

    When you mentioned fatter, my first thought was a wood prop which is fatter or thicker than a metal one with the same described diameter and pitch measurements.

    For what it's worth, my above described tests were done on two different float planes. A land plane will show different results.

    The original poster J3Jim indicated that he needed an education, thus a little extra detail has been added.
    N1PA
    Likes PerryB, Brandsman, Beaverpilot liked this post

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Used to Cubs, an observation: I never expected to see above 100mph in my 0-360 Bushmaster on Peck 2250 floats with experimental McCauley 84/43 P235 prop. At 2400, reading steam and gps, solid 90 knots. Mission: in and out of small lakes where the trout live.
    Thanks Beaverpilot thanked for this post

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,422
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J3Jim View Post
    Hey guys,

    I need an education on borer props and the benefits on a Pa-18-150. Is there a big ROC increase? What are measurable performance benefits?
    I know nothing about them. I’m also curious as to the prop clearance issues as i understand owners will add gear leg extensions or larger tires for prop clearance. And is it all worth it for a grass strip flyer!
    Thank you I appreciate it!
    A bigger thrust disc provides better slow speed thrust. A smaller disc is more efficient for speed. Rate of climb at Cub takeoff speeds will improve a bunch with a Borer. Which pitch you choose should be determined by your target RPM. Most STOL-minded guys I’ve known with 150hp prefer 41 pitch. I liked my pitch to provide 2700 RPM in level full throttle flight. No worry about overspeeding and didn’t give up anything at takeoff that I could notice.

    Even with constant speed props the “tractor” class of props, seaplane props, use longer blades for the bigger disc/improved slow speed thrust. Seaplane props are the choice for STOL wheel planes, too, while the go-fast crowd prefers short props.
    Thanks Poor Joe thanked for this post
    Likes PerryB liked this post

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks everyone. So basically an approximate 30% increase in ROC n decrease in TO distance? Cruise reduced.
    Once you add the prop and the extended gear to be legal.
    How much useful load did you lose?
    I’m a fair weather flyer that used to own a J3 so I’m interested in a super cub and simply glad to have the electrical system n starter lol.
    So I’m trying to get the basics on a performance increase n expenses to get them and if it’s worth it for someone like me. I will shortly be in the market for a straight SC for local pleasure flying.
    I appreciate all your feedback! Thx!


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you run big tires you don't need to extend the gear (unless you go to skis, depending on ski). Once again it is all about the mission. What part of the country are you flying in? Once you clear the ground do you really need a high ROC for pleasure flying? Unless you are going into tight short rough strips a wood/composite prop can give you excellent performance at less weight. No right or wrong just things to look at.
    DENNY
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DENNY View Post
    If you run big tires you don't need to extend the gear (unless you go to skis, depending on ski). Once again it is all about the mission. What part of the country are you flying in? Once you clear the ground do you really need a high ROC for pleasure flying? Unless you are going into tight short rough strips a wood/composite prop can give you excellent performance at less weight. No right or wrong just things to look at.
    DENNY
    Eastern PA. What is typical ROC for a strait SC?
    I’m really just trying to learn. I like the greatest ROC as I can reasonably achieve. My J3 C90 did 1000 1200 FPM I lived it n made me feel safer Incase of engine out.

    What minimum size tire to achieve clearance?
    What is weight increase of Borer prop n weight increase of 3” extended legs?

    Thx!!




    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Thanks Flaugherpa12 thanked for this post

  19. #19
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,025
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J3Jim View Post
    Eastern PA. What is typical ROC for a strait SC?
    I’m really just trying to learn. I like the greatest ROC as I can reasonably achieve. My J3 C90 did 1000 1200 FPM I lived it n made me feel safer Incase of engine out.

    What minimum size tire to achieve clearance?
    What is weight increase of Borer prop n weight increase of 3” extended legs?

    Thx!!




    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    This will give you some information on landing gear: http://www.fadodge.com/?s=extended+landing+gear&submit=

    Atlee Dodge is a good source of information. Note that they offer 6 inch extended gear and 3 inch extended gear. With either, you'll also need to replace the cabanes to match.

    It's also important to note that these gear legs are a fair bit stouter than stock Super Cub gear legs, as well as longer.

    As Denny noted, larger tires may do all you need for clearance.

    Borer props are definitely the way to go on a certified Super Cub.

    MTV

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cabane should remain the same. Shock struts to match standard, 3”,or 6”

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Coleman,Tx
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jrb View Post
    Cabane should remain the same. Shock struts to match standard, 3”,or 6”
    8.50x6 with standard gear gets you the needed clearance.
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks J3Jim, Brandsman, cubpilot2 thanked for this post
    Likes J3Jim liked this post

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    I went back and forth between wood composite and borer. I ended up with the wood composite since I was a little nose heavy and opted for the 18lbs of weight saving off the nose. I had a 76/56 on it and it would cruise at 120mph at 2400 rpm. Which is much faster than others I have talked to with that prop. Not sure why I was faster. Wood composite prop is a 80/42. With the wooden prop I can get off at least 30% faster and probably closer to 40%. Very smooth and lighter on the controls for sure. Went from indicating 115-120mph to 100mph with the 80/42. This is with a super cub 150. Which I believe it is a little over propped with the 80/42. But going to turn the 150 into a 160 soon as I can stop flying it long enough to send the jugs off. Hope this helps you!
    Likes J3Jim liked this post

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for that data I appreciate it! Who makes the composite wood? I don’t know anything about that combination?
    I was reading good things with a wood prop too from Denny’s link above.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J3Jim View Post
    Thanks for that data I appreciate it! Who makes the composite wood? I don’t know anything about that combination?
    I was reading good things with a wood prop too from Denny’s link above.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org


    Sensenich makes its. They make them in special batches. Took about 6 weeks to get mine. They are about 3-400 cheaper than the borer. They make a 80-38, 80-40, 80-42. Don at Sensenich said the 80-40 was optimal for the 150 and the 80-42 was best on the 160hp for climb performance. I talked with a few guys that were running them and said the pulled about has hard as the borer but when you are really heavy the borer would pull a bit harder. The wooden composite is a lot thicker than the aluminum props. It was amazing how much light the wooden composite was compared to the 76-56 I took off. Night and day difference. About half the weight. I have not flown a cub with a borer so can't help you there. I am happy with mine so far.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    When you say wood “composite” is that different than a standard Sensenich wood propeller? What is composite?


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  27. #27
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    19,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    8.50 tires or 3" extended gear will give you the proper prop clearance with the 82" McCauley 1A175 "Borer" prop. Hurts the cruise but the take off performance is worth it to me. Depends on your mission I guess. My 150 hp Super Cub on 700x6 tires, covered stock gear and Sensenich cruise prop would go 100 plus mph. With an 1A175-8241, 31" Bushwheels, 3" uncovered gear I cruise about 90 mph. Cruise speed is not my goal, I like to land on short spots. If I want to go faster I take my brother's PA16.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes Charlie Longley liked this post

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=J3Jim;765525]When you say wood “composite” is that different than a standard Sensenich wood propeller? What is composite?


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org[/QUOTE


    https://www.airframesalaska.com/category-s/1979.htm

    I tried to add the link. If it does not work. Go to airframes Alaska. Click on Reeve air motive. Sensenich propellers. You will see it. It is also on the white super cub on the airframes Alaska cover page. If you are interested call Gabe at airframes Alaska. He can tell you more about them. Thats who I delt with. Great guy! Its a birch wood propeller I think with a composite material over it with either stainless or nickel leading edge.
    Thanks Charlie Longley, reliableflyer thanked for this post
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    O’Fallon, MO
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like
    Approximate cost of Sensenich wood prop?

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by womblesd View Post
    Approximate cost of Sensenich wood prop?


    Prop was around 3750. plus bolts etc... with STC around 4200.00
    Thanks womblesd thanked for this post

  31. #31
    Charlie Longley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wow that’s a pretty nice prop! 16 pounds lighter than a Borer.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    157
    Post Thanks / Like
    The problem with a wood prop. Can I legally re torque it as required with the weather/temperature changes, or do. Have to get a mechanic?
    Thanks reliableflyer thanked for this post

  33. #33

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Brenham, Texas
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have the 82-44 and like it but would really like to put the Catto on. About 14lbs lighter and a nickel leading edge. My borer leading edge takes a beating. I’ve talked with Catto several times and they keep saying they’re getting it certified but I’m thinking it’s not going to happen.

  34. #34
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unfortunately the Catto prop that has proven itself behond any testing the FAA could ever dream up; most likely will never get certified while Craig owns it.
    The Catto will be certified, within 24 hrs; as soon as Craig Catto, sells it to Macaulay or Sensenich. "They" will never allow it to be certified; That approval has been held back for years, because of their pull: They still have over that market.
    Darn shame it has to be that way.
    There are now thousands of Catto props out there; that have more than proven themselves to be certified airworthy for decades. That really is NOT up
    for debate at this point. It's purely political
    BS.

    Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Last edited by TurboBeaver; 02-11-2020 at 04:28 AM.

  35. #35
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ross d View Post
    I have the 82-44 and like it but would really like to put the Catto on. About 14lbs lighter and a nickel leading edge. My borer leading edge takes a beating. I’ve talked with Catto several times and they keep saying they’re getting it certified but I’m thinking it’s not going to happen.
    https://www.wagaero.com/restoration/...er-decals.html
    N1PA
    Likes dirthog4 liked this post

  36. #36

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Brenham, Texas
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    LOL! Yeah I guess I could compromise and put a McCatto on. I’m just not ready to go feral quite yet!

  37. #37

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Brenham, Texas
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    That is BS! Wish something could be done about it.

  38. #38
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TurboBeaver View Post
    ...There are now thousands of Catto props out there; that have more than proven themselves to be certified airworthy for decades. That really is NOT up
    for debate at this point. It's purely political
    BS.
    Catto has built lots of props for a lot of happy customers without any FAA oversight and involvement. He apparently is very busy operating in the manner which he has been. Why should he let the FAA's nose under his tent? I don't blame him for building experimental only props. A comfortable low key living is more important than a big government regulated business. While every one wants to earn a lot more $$$, at some point more doesn't necessarily mean a more comfortable life.
    N1PA

  39. #39
    Binty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Island, New Zealand
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J3Jim View Post
    Eastern PA. What is typical ROC for a strait SC?
    I’m really just trying to learn. I like the greatest ROC as I can reasonably achieve.
    Round profiles are the Most draggy shape of all. Big bush wheels KILL R.O.C ! My lightweight stock 150 with 850 tires used to go up at 1200-1500fpm until I put on 29” ABWs. Now I’m at 500-700fpm. I’m now looking at a 160Hp and a Borer to regain some of my lost perf. But I still love em!

    I wish I’d been more academic and quantified it with a bunch of test flights. There must be hard data out there for ABW and prop performance?
    If you force it, it will fit

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Catto has built lots of props for a lot of happy customers without any FAA oversight and involvement. He apparently is very busy operating in the manner which he has been. Why should he let the FAA's nose under his tent? I don't blame him for building experimental only props. A comfortable low key living is more important than a big government regulated business. While every one wants to earn a lot more $$$, at some point more doesn't necessarily mean a more comfortable life.
    I understand that point and wouldn't disagree.

    I just would like an honest/direct answer because in person across a picnic table at the 2013 New Holstein Pig Roast, Craig told me they were working on it and it was two, maybe three years away.

    The good news in now there are several certified alternates really in the works.
    Remember, These are the Good old Days!
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Airstrip Registration, Pros and Cons
    By Jacob Papp in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-13-2016, 06:00 AM
  2. Jackscrew Vs. Trim Tab Pros and cons?
    By pipercubnut in forum Modifications
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-03-2010, 10:09 AM
  3. Widebody Pros and cons
    By Jeff in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-18-2007, 02:59 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
  •