Hand propping versus Horsepower options

I used to hand-prop my 180 hp Pitts all the time. Metal prop, so no problem. Piece of cake actually. It started easily, usually on the first or second blade. Not a problem at all.

Hardtailjohn said:

The most fun one was underneath and behind, while on floats.
JH

Click to expand...

I had occasion to hand prop a 985 on a beaver with a three bladed prop, on floats from behind. Teaches a guy not to make a long taxi with the landing light on and a generator that won’t keep the battery up.

PerryB said:

What could possibly go wrong.....? Besides the engine starting as you subsequently fall off.

Click to expand...

Read it again...I was in the water, behind the prop. Worst part was as the spreaders came over my head, I had to go almost all under water. Good hot day, not in Alaska!
JH

I have never operated with a starter. Skis and tires. From a stock and 9.5:1 c90 Pa11 to stock and 10:1 320 to a stock 360. All with cattos. I’ve started a few and flew probably 2 hrs worth of cubs that have had them. Feels weird pushing a button. I can look at my 360 with long catto and it will start. Second to 3rd blade EVERY time unless it’s sat for a few weeks which it just takes a couple more pulls. No primer lines either. Learning how they like to start is key. Hot or cold etc as both are different. After flooding it about 3 times you will have it figured. Where a glove. It’s easy. Most don’t even know how to start their rig if the battery dies in the field. Lord help them. I will admit though for a height challenged individual it may be difficult and may have to index prop differently. Have ran Bendix and Slick. I like Bendix better with just the one impulse on the left side. I’m 6’2 and with 6” gear 35” and TL I do have to reach up fairly good to grab mid- 3/4 prop. Ditch the weight. Not needed. Just be aware of what your doing and where body is.

jnorris said:

I used to hand-prop my 180 hp Pitts all the time. Metal prop, so no problem. Piece of cake actually. It started easily, usually on the first or second blade. Not a problem at all.

Click to expand...

Me too. 180 and 200 both with high compression. I did a 540 on a Pitts with a three bladed MT a couple times. Probably will not repeat.

I had a lot of people offer to swing the prop on my 200 hp Pitts - once. After that, it was, "I'll guard the throttle for you."

Don't forget to have a machinist trim the starter mounting boss off of your engine cases to save that extra 10oz. If you're gonna be crazy about weight you gotta go all the way!

One can shed much weight w/o carbon and w/o getting too crazy really. Headliner, panels, flywheel/ring gear, battery (even light) starter (even light) alt (even light) all the wire, solenoids so on. Throw a composite wheel on and one can shed 50lbs easily. Your typical who isn’t staring it 15x a daily..it really is not a nuisance at all. Get in a routine. A very basic light c90/0200 PA11 is a phenomenal single man plane and can work very short areas with the wallet thanking you. To answer the mans question, yes no elec 150 Hp at 750-800 lbs is doable and would
be a fire breathing animal that most heads would turn at.

On a supercub with flaps and 150 horse I could see 950 or even 900 with heroic measures but I really don't think 750-800lbs is possible. Game on though, I'm building just such a plane right now so I guess in a year or two (hopefully, maybe) we shall see.

All depends on what a guy is willing to rid. And how deep pockets are. 31’s? Oratex? What ribs? So on. Be tough yes. The word “super cub” is broad it seems. I once saw pa11 weight at 830. About 10 coats of paint. Bla bla. Many areas of it to have dumped weight. I just noticed the man mentioned more wing...if so, not a chance.

Well, as someone who is pretty weight conscious, this should be interesting. First you have to really decide exactly what your mission is, because if you want to go camping, you need extended baggage, perhaps extra fuel, some beef ups here in there to handle turbulence, and the extra weight of camping gear and pax.
If you just want to build a point A to point A airplane, that’s a different mission. with that mission you might be able to get it down to 900 pounds. To get below 1000 pounds, with a true backcountry airplane, it’s going to take some really really really serious work.
Since you are experimental, you can go with a battery 2 1/2 pounds, starter 5 pounds, and a lightweight fly wheel 2 1/2 pounds. So you can save 10 pounds going no starter. If your mission ever includes floats, I think that would be a very good 10 pound investment. Trying to hand prop from outside the cockpit while you’re drifting down current, into the trees is pretty challenging.
There are a lot of quite knowledgeable people on this site that can help you obtain your goals. And we would be very interested to follow your progress and learn ourselves.


Bill

Actual numbers for a flapless 100HP Catto swinging wood-wing +3 gear 29" Airstreak-wearing Cub:

Starter, ring gear, alternator, heavy gauge wiring, and assorted mounting hardware for an O235 weighs 48 pounds.

EarthX saved another 10 pounds (from the firewall for me).

My pig is a giant pain in the ass to hand prop some days. Even so, I will never bolt all of that extra crap on my Cub again. It simply flies better this way, and comes in very close to 900#.

900# is great for a PA-11 and especially with extended gear and 29's. Everything that weighs something has to carry it's own weight in some way. There are definitely some things that are worthwhile but IMO a starter just isn't one of them especially if it's a pretty dedicated wheel/ski plane. Floats...not sold on the concept yet. But again, some times things like a charging system (for GPS, radio, and LED lights) can be worth it's weight especially when you get caught out in the dark when you lose light fast in the fall. Baggage too, though I'm wrestling with that one. I could probably get by with just a standard baggage but since you're in there better to have the extra space than build without and regret later on.

Like Bill said, is it an A to A plane or something to travel in? That alone can mean the difference between an 800lb Lil Cub copy or a useful 1050lb cub that you can live with.

Good information here. I agree with Bill and Crash regarding weights. I once flew a Super Cub (certified, not EX) that had an honest 970 pound empty weight. From inside that airplane, you could see the OUTside of the airplane, any direction you looked....as in NO interior. Seat was fabric covered, no cushion. "Baggage compartment" was a net. No electrics...did have a hand held radio and an external antenna....that was IT. Everything you could do without was gone....including the pulley on the flywheel. Stock gear, 8.50 tires. It had a strong o-320 and a Borer prop. I flew it around Kodiak and landed a few beaches. It was a great performer, but you really had to be careful what you poked where.

Aktrap's figures for weight loss from metal to composite props on these fixed pitch props is waaaay high. You're only going to lose a few pounds there, but in this kind of game a few pounds is a big deal. But, you're not going to lose 30 pounds. I replaced a Hartzell CS prop with big blades AND a harmonic Damper (ten pounds itself) with an MT CS prop and saved 28 pounds, but that's CS and that damn damper assy.

I seriously doubt you could get a "bush ready" 150 hp Cub down under 900 pounds, and in fact, getting one to 1000 pounds will require a pretty minimal aircraft.

MTV

My Cub was weighed at 960# on 31s, but it has nothing but a little aluminum around where you sit. No electrical, no starter, Catto prop, O-320, handheld radio. It's fun, but in my experience unless there's a tape measure involved a couple hundred pounds doesn't make much difference. With light comes simplicity, in my opinion that's where the beauty is. In that case, my Cub is beautiful, but it's not.
Happy Thanksgiving!

My cub weighs less than 800 but has a 0200 no electric of any kind no interior no back seat . It does have flaps and 27” tires catto prop. I could trim a little bit more weight changing out the coil over spring shock but it works good landing on rough ground without beating the airframe up. 99 percent of my landing are off airport.