• 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 Ground Adjustable Prop

No damage found to the engine via prop strike inspection.
PXL_20220206_214153507_exported_56120.jpg
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20220206_214153507_exported_56120.jpg
    PXL_20220206_214153507_exported_56120.jpg
    307.9 KB · Views: 1,879
So what is the difference between the certified and experimental prop, besides the sticker that says FAA approved?

Yup. That would be the difference. And the props already in the field will always be exp. and the approved will be twice as much money. One more of the reasons I fly an exp.
 
Steve, do you know if approval is being pursued for installation on a 150 hp PA-12 for this ground adjustable prop or only PA-18 at this time? Thanks

PA18 with 150 and 160 hp O-320. The prop will then be Type Certified which will make it easier for others to get STCs for other aircraft. There have been DER approvals on O-360 powered Cessnas based on the data from the PA18 180 hp STC.
 
PA18 with 150 and 160 hp O-320. The prop will then be Type Certified which will make it easier for others to get STCs for other aircraft. There have been DER approvals on O-360 powered Cessnas based on the data from the PA18 180 hp STC.

I sure wouldn’t want to be the DER that approved that. The PA-18 STC is an airframe STC based on the “new” Part 23. The approval is based on the airplane being a “Level 1” airplane, defined as having 0 to 1 passenger seats. The engineering rigor for a Level 1 is much less than for a higher level. FAA changed the certification rules based on “risk to the public”, so less seats is less risk. That’s part of the reason Sensenich changed gears and is now working on getting a TC for the prop. That opens up the availability to aircraft with more than 2 seats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Sensinich changed up because anything government related is a pain in the ass and next to impossible to deal with as they keep moving the target. Kind of like the full lotus float testing. Drops at gross, double gross then triple gross didn't result in airframe failure as the floats absorbed the impact. Without a "known failure mechanism" they refused to certify the installation. Makes a lot of sense to essentially remove the safety of airbags from being used in the certified world, yet there are so many examples flying safely in the "experimental" world.
 
I sure wouldn’t want to be the DER that approved that. The PA-18 STC is an airframe STC based on the “new” Part 23. The approval is based on the airplane being a “Level 1” airplane, defined as having 0 to 1 passenger seats. The engineering rigor for a Level 1 is much less than for a higher level. FAA changed the certification rules based on “risk to the public”, so less seats is less risk. That’s part of the reason Sensenich changed gears and is now working on getting a TC for the prop. That opens up the availability to aircraft with more than 2 seats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The flight test engineer that was here was on the committee that wrote that. He interpreted it differently than it was sold to us. He is right at home with the FAA.
 
No idea, waiting on the FAA. Will updater this thread as things move along.

Last I heard.

Flight testing not quite complete due to wreck. ( When will this start again?)

Things should happen fast after testing (fed’s slow down complete.)

Props are being built, and should be sent out fast after the rubber stamp.
 
….
Props are being built, and should be sent out fast after the rubber stamp.

Don’t bet on that, mine was supposed to ship Feb 28th, they are a least a month behind as mine might ship in the next couple of weeks. I think the experimental market is keeping them busy at the moment

edited to add: it’s shipping today
 
Last edited:
Cooling and dive tests complete. Have to do performance test now, take-off, climb and landing. After that data is compiled they put the noise test criteria together but the FAA noise test engineer has ass chap with the noise test DER. The DER has an amazing reputation around here and works with McCauley and Hartzell but someone has a burr up their butt. Sensenich does not have enough production to keep up with demand. Can't hire enough people. I am going to Sensenich the week after next to tour the plant. Will report back.
 
The DER has an amazing reputation.

and therein lies the the problem. Being married to someone that has worked for both state and federal government for nearly 30 yrs, I can tell you that Government competence is not allowed, seriously discouraged, and will always be punished.
 
Local experimental PA-18-160 will get back to back Borer/Sensenich adjustable starting this weekend. Prop arrived this week. Will report tho not my plane. It's on Aero skis so the pull in deep snow will be interesting.

Edit: Will also try to get him to do climb rate and cruise speed vs fuel flow and airspeed at his preferred rpm.

Gary
 
Last edited:
4EBC0436-FD23-40C3-958E-CDB14C123178.jpg
3 months and so far so good. Holding up better than the Pawnee I was using before.
 

Attachments

  • 4EBC0436-FD23-40C3-958E-CDB14C123178.jpg
    4EBC0436-FD23-40C3-958E-CDB14C123178.jpg
    100.4 KB · Views: 243
Here's the initial test results from 3/26/22 in Fairbanks for the 82" Sensenich. It was +40F at ~450 msl with wind less than 5 mph. Plane is EXP PA-18-160 w/Dakota Cub wings, long gear, and Thrustline engine mount. Owner is pleased. So far better performance compared with a Catto 82/40 and Borer 82/42.

Capt. Eddie at the stick
 

Attachments

  • image0 copy.jpg
    image0 copy.jpg
    117.4 KB · Views: 413
  • IMG_2630.jpg
    IMG_2630.jpg
    138.5 KB · Views: 211
^^^^There will be more testing in the coming weeks as the owner explores the prop's performance envelope. Things like cruise performance vs fuel flow and rpm. One thing I noted while he was testing was it cranked and started quickly...same for shutdown. It spun up fast if power was needed in flight. Weight of about 19# compared with metal Borer at 33# we had just removed.

Edit: One thing I noted as an observer was the sound signature on takeoff. At the "0" pin full flat pitch setting it sounded smooth during takeoff and pulled good like the Borer 82/42. At "2 and 4" pins it initially sounded like ducks farting in shallow water...typical for some blade cavitation common to getting on step with a floatplane until it starts really pulling.

Blade track was checked to be within 1/8" and it reportedly ran very smooth with no rpm-related rough spots. It truly took 5 minutes to change the prop pitch with the supplied variable diameter setting pins. The supplied Nord-Lock washers under the bolt heads make it easy and secure. We checked the torque of the bolts after an initial run and after every pitch change. They held true after a few flights.

The only concern now may be to add a cover plate over the adjusting pin holes to exclude water and debris. There's threaded holes next to them to attach a cover (or just duct tape :lol:) I was impressed with the quality of the setup and would own one. They make an EXP for my Taylorcraft.....hmmmm.

Gary
 
Last edited:
Here's a final test sheet for Post #169 above. It includes a test flight with adjustment pin #5 of the six available (0 through 5; 0 is the flattest pitch). Capt. Eddie said #5 still performed well on takeoff but was best for cruising. Next testing will be with a loaded airplane. Current fights were pilot and half or less fuel in the Dakota tanks.

Gary
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2636 copy.jpg
    IMG_2636 copy.jpg
    120.4 KB · Views: 360
Last edited:
This was my Cessna that was able to get the field approval. The local FSDO was great to work with and forwarded it to the Chicago ACO engineers. So no DER was involved, it was all FAA. I just completed the O-360 engine swap, so still flying with the prop in the middle pitch setting but the performance is incredible.
DD4F0AC8-2408-42EB-91FB-86739FC627C3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DD4F0AC8-2408-42EB-91FB-86739FC627C3.jpg
    DD4F0AC8-2408-42EB-91FB-86739FC627C3.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 309
Last edited:
I have a partial interior, all of the seats, door panels, and front side panels. With the O-360 and light weight she climbs very well. 1/2 tanks and me, it’s easy to see 1700-1800fpm at 75mph.

B03E33D4-F120-4851-9CE1-7F9E40F1BE3F.jpg58EE2466-2DF6-4484-898D-96FB6CD31434.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • B03E33D4-F120-4851-9CE1-7F9E40F1BE3F.jpg
    B03E33D4-F120-4851-9CE1-7F9E40F1BE3F.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 195
  • 58EE2466-2DF6-4484-898D-96FB6CD31434.jpeg
    58EE2466-2DF6-4484-898D-96FB6CD31434.jpeg
    95.3 KB · Views: 203
And then comes Brian, showing off the nicest 172 in the states, but it identifies as a 180/170 to the casual observer.

If only he can keep it out of the brush he flys in. :lol:
pb
 
Thanks Peter! Are you questioning how it identifies?!? 😆

Since I finished the install I have gotten overwhelmed with messages about it. I hope it opens up more opportunities for others to do the same.
 
Back
Top