'
Looking for testimonials -- I have the option of purchasing an Aeromatic prop for the Warner on my Fairchild 24W. It's not cheap, by any means. But I've been living with a lower than optimal takeoff RPM since I bought the aircraft in 2008.
The current prop is a Sensenich wooden unit. The engine is a Warner 185K, R-550. (And yes, I could put a contant-speed on it, but I am unwilling to add weight to the airframe if I can avoid it.)
Has anyone done this -- used an Aeromatic on a Fairchild, or something similar? Were the results worth the investment?
Thanks,
Dave'
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
' I’d love to have an Aeromatic on my 24W. If you don’t buy it I will. Is that the Tom Goodlett prop? Quite a few F24’s with Warner 165’s have had Aeromatics. From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:35 PM To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Subject: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
Looking for testimonials -- I have the option of purchasing an Aeromatic prop for the Warner on my Fairchild 24W. It's not cheap, by any means. But I've been living with a lower than optimal takeoff RPM since I bought the aircraft in 2008.
The current prop is a Sensenich wooden unit. The engine is a Warner 185K, R-550. (And yes, I could put a contant-speed on it, but I am unwilling to add weight to the airframe if I can avoid it.)
Has anyone done this -- used an Aeromatic on a Fairchild, or something similar? Were the results worth the investment?
Thanks,
Dave'
Looking for testimonials -- I have the option of purchasing an Aeromatic prop for the Warner on my Fairchild 24W. It's not cheap, by any means. But I've been living with a lower than optimal takeoff RPM since I bought the aircraft in 2008.
The current prop is a Sensenich wooden unit. The engine is a Warner 185K, R-550. (And yes, I could put a contant-speed on it, but I am unwilling to add weight to the airframe if I can avoid it.)
Has anyone done this -- used an Aeromatic on a Fairchild, or something similar? Were the results worth the investment?
Thanks,
Dave'
-
Daniel Hanson
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:50 pm
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
'My F24R-46 had its Aeromatic prop installed in 1948. Weighs 55 lbs compared to the Sensenich of 32 lbs., plus they added 12 lbs of lead to the aft. I have no experience flying it in this configuration. BTW, plane and prop are now on Ebay.
'On Oct 22, 2015 6:32 PM, "lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]" wrote:
I’d love to have an Aeromatic on my 24W. If you don’t buy it I will. Is that the Tom Goodlett prop? Quite a few F24’s with Warner 165’s have had Aeromatics. From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:35 PM To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Subject: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop? Looking for testimonials -- I have the option of purchasing an Aeromatic prop for the Warner on my Fairchild 24W. It's not cheap, by any means. But I've been living with a lower than optimal takeoff RPM since I bought the aircraft in 2008.
The current prop is a Sensenich wooden unit. The engine is a Warner 185K, R-550. (And yes, I could put a contant-speed on it, but I am unwilling to add weight to the airframe if I can avoid it.)
Has anyone done this -- used an Aeromatic on a Fairchild, or something similar? Were the results worth the investment?
Thanks,
Dave
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
' I've not flown a Aeromatic on a Fairchild 24, but have flown one on a Cessna C-165 Airmaster, and have also done a bit of experimentation with an Aeromatic on my 165 powered Ryan SC-W.
On the Airmaster, the Aeromatic is a great propeller for performance as compared to a wood prop or fixed pitch metal props like the Curtiss-Reed.
The advantages are:Good takeoff RPM as compared to a fixed pitch metal like the Curtiss-Reeds that are pitched for cruise (at least on an Airmaster)Good cruise performanceReally smooths out surges/lags in RPM due to risers/sinkers when flying xc. Flies like a constant speed in this regard.
The disadvantages:Leaks oil.The original plastic coating is a bit fragile and can chip. New-manufacture blades that Tarver was building until recently have a fiberglass coating.Heavier than a wood prop.Few/Nobody knows how to work on them except for Kent Tarver, but there's some uncertainty now about repair station certificates.
On the Airmaster the Aeromatic really made the airplane perform. Airmasters with fixed metal props are complete slugs on takeoff and climbout. That's not a problem with an Aeromatic. On the high end the 165 Airmaster would hum along at 155 mph with the Aeromatic.
I tried a few turns around the pattern with an Aeromatic on my Ryan a few years ago. After calibrating the Aeromatic rpms, I didn't see significant performance gains on that airframe, which flies similar at Fairchild 24 speeds vs. Airmaster speeds. I was in a hurry at the time and didn't have time to dig in and figure out why. Could have been bad calibration, could be that my engine was run out at the time, and could be there's not as much benefit for a slower aircraft. I wasn't really looking for top speed, I was looking for climb performance, so the Aeromatic's lack of significant change over the wood prop disappointed me. It is possible that having a run out engine meant that the engine just couldn't generate more power. That and the extra weight might have cancelled any benefit.
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:50:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
My F24R-46 had its Aeromatic prop installed in 1948. Weighs 55 lbs compared to the Sensenich of 32 lbs., plus they added 12 lbs of lead to the aft. I have no experience flying it in this configuration. BTW, plane and prop are now on Ebay.
'
On the Airmaster, the Aeromatic is a great propeller for performance as compared to a wood prop or fixed pitch metal props like the Curtiss-Reed.
The advantages are:Good takeoff RPM as compared to a fixed pitch metal like the Curtiss-Reeds that are pitched for cruise (at least on an Airmaster)Good cruise performanceReally smooths out surges/lags in RPM due to risers/sinkers when flying xc. Flies like a constant speed in this regard.
The disadvantages:Leaks oil.The original plastic coating is a bit fragile and can chip. New-manufacture blades that Tarver was building until recently have a fiberglass coating.Heavier than a wood prop.Few/Nobody knows how to work on them except for Kent Tarver, but there's some uncertainty now about repair station certificates.
On the Airmaster the Aeromatic really made the airplane perform. Airmasters with fixed metal props are complete slugs on takeoff and climbout. That's not a problem with an Aeromatic. On the high end the 165 Airmaster would hum along at 155 mph with the Aeromatic.
I tried a few turns around the pattern with an Aeromatic on my Ryan a few years ago. After calibrating the Aeromatic rpms, I didn't see significant performance gains on that airframe, which flies similar at Fairchild 24 speeds vs. Airmaster speeds. I was in a hurry at the time and didn't have time to dig in and figure out why. Could have been bad calibration, could be that my engine was run out at the time, and could be there's not as much benefit for a slower aircraft. I wasn't really looking for top speed, I was looking for climb performance, so the Aeromatic's lack of significant change over the wood prop disappointed me. It is possible that having a run out engine meant that the engine just couldn't generate more power. That and the extra weight might have cancelled any benefit.
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:50:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
My F24R-46 had its Aeromatic prop installed in 1948. Weighs 55 lbs compared to the Sensenich of 32 lbs., plus they added 12 lbs of lead to the aft. I have no experience flying it in this configuration. BTW, plane and prop are now on Ebay.
On Oct 22, 2015 6:32 PM, "lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]" wrote:
I’d love to have an Aeromatic on my 24W. If you don’t buy it I will. Is that the Tom Goodlett prop? Quite a few F24’s with Warner 165’s have had Aeromatics. From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:35 PM To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Subject: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
Looking for testimonials -- I have the option of purchasing an Aeromatic prop for the Warner on my Fairchild 24W. It's not cheap, by any means. But I've been living with a lower than optimal takeoff RPM since I bought the aircraft in 2008.
The current prop is a Sensenich wooden unit. The engine is a Warner 185K, R-550. (And yes, I could put a contant-speed on it, but I am unwilling to add weight to the airframe if I can avoid it.)
Has anyone done this -- used an Aeromatic on a Fairchild, or something similar? Were the results worth the investment?
Thanks,
Dave
'
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
' Russell,
I've got an Aeromatic mounted on my F24, NC28685. It replaces a fixed Sensenich that's provided reliable service for many years.I bought the hub and blades from another Fairchild owner, who substituted a C-R. One blade had three broken bolts, the other only one. Kent was unwilling to attempt repair/replace (understandable), so he fabbed two new 85s for me. He left the blades 'nude' at my request, and the laminates make for an attractive prop. BTW, if anyone has a spare hub (doesn't even need to be airworthy per se) I'd like to discuss buying for my 'spare' unusable blades.No war stories, but I went through a lot of grief and cost getting the hub to seal. Kent and Glen stood by me along the way, so for the past several months I've had a setup that's holding oil. The prop is currently off of my Fairchild while my Ranger is being rebuilt by John. Hope to have it back soon, at which time we'll double-check that there's adequate oil in the hub (~4 oz +). If not, we'll know why it wasn't leaking oil!My experience with the Aeromatic performance-wise has been good. Climb performance increased from 900 fpm to 1400 fpm indicated (sea level cool air), and cruise increased from 100 to 115 mph indicated (cool still air). GPS says I was actually flying a bit faster than indicated.Of note is that setup is important, especially for fine pitch stops. I was on the ragged edge of low takeoff rpm, so often at rotation the prop would cycle to higher pitch and much lower rpm. Unnerving. Once shimmed to higher/proper rpm, great results. Best luck, Bill
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:06:15 -0700
Subject: RE: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
I've not flown a Aeromatic on a Fairchild 24, but have flown one on a Cessna C-165 Airmaster, and have also done a bit of experimentation with an Aeromatic on my 165 powered Ryan SC-W.
On the Airmaster, the Aeromatic is a great propeller for performance as compared to a wood prop or fixed pitch metal props like the Curtiss-Reed.
The advantages are:Good takeoff RPM as compared to a fixed pitch metal like the Curtiss-Reeds that are pitched for cruise (at least on an Airmaster)Good cruise performanceReally smooths out surges/lags in RPM due to risers/sinkers when flying xc. Flies like a constant speed in this regard.
The disadvantages:Leaks oil.The original plastic coating is a bit fragile and can chip. New-manufacture blades that Tarver was building until recently have a fiberglass coating.Heavier than a wood prop.Few/Nobody knows how to work on them except for Kent Tarver, but there's some uncertainty now about repair station certificates.
On the Airmaster the Aeromatic really made the airplane perform. Airmasters with fixed metal props are complete slugs on takeoff and climbout. That's not a problem with an Aeromatic. On the high end the 165 Airmaster would hum along at 155 mph with the Aeromatic.
I tried a few turns around the pattern with an Aeromatic on my Ryan a few years ago. After calibrating the Aeromatic rpms, I didn't see significant performance gains on that airframe, which flies similar at Fairchild 24 speeds vs. Airmaster speeds. I was in a hurry at the time and didn't have time to dig in and figure out why. Could have been bad calibration, could be that my engine was run out at the time, and could be there's not as much benefit for a slower aircraft. I wasn't really looking for top speed, I was looking for climb performance, so the Aeromatic's lack of significant change over the wood prop disappointed me. It is possible that having a run out engine meant that the engine just couldn't generate more power. That and the extra weight might have cancelled any benefit.
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:50:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
My F24R-46 had its Aeromatic prop installed in 1948. Weighs 55 lbs compared to the Sensenich of 32 lbs., plus they added 12 lbs of lead to the aft. I have no experience flying it in this configuration. BTW, plane and prop are now on Ebay.
'
I've got an Aeromatic mounted on my F24, NC28685. It replaces a fixed Sensenich that's provided reliable service for many years.I bought the hub and blades from another Fairchild owner, who substituted a C-R. One blade had three broken bolts, the other only one. Kent was unwilling to attempt repair/replace (understandable), so he fabbed two new 85s for me. He left the blades 'nude' at my request, and the laminates make for an attractive prop. BTW, if anyone has a spare hub (doesn't even need to be airworthy per se) I'd like to discuss buying for my 'spare' unusable blades.No war stories, but I went through a lot of grief and cost getting the hub to seal. Kent and Glen stood by me along the way, so for the past several months I've had a setup that's holding oil. The prop is currently off of my Fairchild while my Ranger is being rebuilt by John. Hope to have it back soon, at which time we'll double-check that there's adequate oil in the hub (~4 oz +). If not, we'll know why it wasn't leaking oil!My experience with the Aeromatic performance-wise has been good. Climb performance increased from 900 fpm to 1400 fpm indicated (sea level cool air), and cruise increased from 100 to 115 mph indicated (cool still air). GPS says I was actually flying a bit faster than indicated.Of note is that setup is important, especially for fine pitch stops. I was on the ragged edge of low takeoff rpm, so often at rotation the prop would cycle to higher pitch and much lower rpm. Unnerving. Once shimmed to higher/proper rpm, great results. Best luck, Bill
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:06:15 -0700
Subject: RE: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
I've not flown a Aeromatic on a Fairchild 24, but have flown one on a Cessna C-165 Airmaster, and have also done a bit of experimentation with an Aeromatic on my 165 powered Ryan SC-W.
On the Airmaster, the Aeromatic is a great propeller for performance as compared to a wood prop or fixed pitch metal props like the Curtiss-Reed.
The advantages are:Good takeoff RPM as compared to a fixed pitch metal like the Curtiss-Reeds that are pitched for cruise (at least on an Airmaster)Good cruise performanceReally smooths out surges/lags in RPM due to risers/sinkers when flying xc. Flies like a constant speed in this regard.
The disadvantages:Leaks oil.The original plastic coating is a bit fragile and can chip. New-manufacture blades that Tarver was building until recently have a fiberglass coating.Heavier than a wood prop.Few/Nobody knows how to work on them except for Kent Tarver, but there's some uncertainty now about repair station certificates.
On the Airmaster the Aeromatic really made the airplane perform. Airmasters with fixed metal props are complete slugs on takeoff and climbout. That's not a problem with an Aeromatic. On the high end the 165 Airmaster would hum along at 155 mph with the Aeromatic.
I tried a few turns around the pattern with an Aeromatic on my Ryan a few years ago. After calibrating the Aeromatic rpms, I didn't see significant performance gains on that airframe, which flies similar at Fairchild 24 speeds vs. Airmaster speeds. I was in a hurry at the time and didn't have time to dig in and figure out why. Could have been bad calibration, could be that my engine was run out at the time, and could be there's not as much benefit for a slower aircraft. I wasn't really looking for top speed, I was looking for climb performance, so the Aeromatic's lack of significant change over the wood prop disappointed me. It is possible that having a run out engine meant that the engine just couldn't generate more power. That and the extra weight might have cancelled any benefit.
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:50:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
My F24R-46 had its Aeromatic prop installed in 1948. Weighs 55 lbs compared to the Sensenich of 32 lbs., plus they added 12 lbs of lead to the aft. I have no experience flying it in this configuration. BTW, plane and prop are now on Ebay.
On Oct 22, 2015 6:32 PM, "lowea1@comcast.net [fairchildclub]" wrote:
I’d love to have an Aeromatic on my 24W. If you don’t buy it I will. Is that the Tom Goodlett prop? Quite a few F24’s with Warner 165’s have had Aeromatics. From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:35 PM To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com Subject: [fairchildclub] Aeromatic Prop?
Looking for testimonials -- I have the option of purchasing an Aeromatic prop for the Warner on my Fairchild 24W. It's not cheap, by any means. But I've been living with a lower than optimal takeoff RPM since I bought the aircraft in 2008.
The current prop is a Sensenich wooden unit. The engine is a Warner 185K, R-550. (And yes, I could put a contant-speed on it, but I am unwilling to add weight to the airframe if I can avoid it.)
Has anyone done this -- used an Aeromatic on a Fairchild, or something similar? Were the results worth the investment?
Thanks,
Dave
'
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
'Tony & Dave:
Sorry I don't follow this discussion group as often as I should, but yes, that is one of the Tom Goodlett props that I have for sale. There were two Aeromatics, one of which I'm keeping as a spare, and a Curtiss Reed that already sold. Here is the story on the prop:
1. It is an F-220 with 85" blades and Tom apparently bought it new, I've asked his daughter to look for any paperwork that can verify this and will gladly pass it along to whoever buys the prop.
2. He installed it on his Warner powered Fairchild and flew it until he swapped it out for the Curtiss Reed - 26.7 hours in service, according to the prop log.
3. The 2004 annual inspection revealed a missing (?) lag screw, which was replaced.
4. Tarver SB 2000-001 was last complied with during the 2005 annual inspection.
5. The prop was removed from the Fairchild in 2008 or 2009, there is no log entry documenting its removal, but that is roughly when Tom bought the Curtiss Reed.
6. The prop was stored in Tom's hangar until I purchased all the spare props last year, it has been stored horizontally in my guest bedroom ever since.
7. The photos in the Barnstormers ad speak for themselves, it's gorgeous, but there is VERY light surface corrosion on one clamp, which can either be cleaned and re-plateds or replaced. No big deal.
8. The prop SHOULD still be set up exactly as it was when Tom removed it from his Fairchild, which would be for a Warner powered Fairchild.
9. I have additional counterweights (as does Tarver) that I would consider selling.
10. This is a gorgeous prop! BUT, if I was going to hang it on the nose of my airplane and go flying, I would send it to Tarver for inspection first. Any competent IA can sign it off as airworthy, but it hasn't flown since 2005 and although Tarver doesn't have a Certified Repair Station or a PMA, he can still inspect the prop for general airworthiness and can assist with the setup for your particular engine and airframe.
If you are interested in the prop - please call me at Eight One Seven, Seven Eight One, One Six Four Two (freakin' Yahoo....) or email me at the email address shown in the Barnstormers ad. '
Sorry I don't follow this discussion group as often as I should, but yes, that is one of the Tom Goodlett props that I have for sale. There were two Aeromatics, one of which I'm keeping as a spare, and a Curtiss Reed that already sold. Here is the story on the prop:
1. It is an F-220 with 85" blades and Tom apparently bought it new, I've asked his daughter to look for any paperwork that can verify this and will gladly pass it along to whoever buys the prop.
2. He installed it on his Warner powered Fairchild and flew it until he swapped it out for the Curtiss Reed - 26.7 hours in service, according to the prop log.
3. The 2004 annual inspection revealed a missing (?) lag screw, which was replaced.
4. Tarver SB 2000-001 was last complied with during the 2005 annual inspection.
5. The prop was removed from the Fairchild in 2008 or 2009, there is no log entry documenting its removal, but that is roughly when Tom bought the Curtiss Reed.
6. The prop was stored in Tom's hangar until I purchased all the spare props last year, it has been stored horizontally in my guest bedroom ever since.
7. The photos in the Barnstormers ad speak for themselves, it's gorgeous, but there is VERY light surface corrosion on one clamp, which can either be cleaned and re-plateds or replaced. No big deal.
8. The prop SHOULD still be set up exactly as it was when Tom removed it from his Fairchild, which would be for a Warner powered Fairchild.
9. I have additional counterweights (as does Tarver) that I would consider selling.
10. This is a gorgeous prop! BUT, if I was going to hang it on the nose of my airplane and go flying, I would send it to Tarver for inspection first. Any competent IA can sign it off as airworthy, but it hasn't flown since 2005 and although Tarver doesn't have a Certified Repair Station or a PMA, he can still inspect the prop for general airworthiness and can assist with the setup for your particular engine and airframe.
If you are interested in the prop - please call me at Eight One Seven, Seven Eight One, One Six Four Two (freakin' Yahoo....) or email me at the email address shown in the Barnstormers ad. '
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
'I have a set of 93" Aeromatic blades...aren't they for Warners? I need either the 85 or 86. Does anyone have any comparisons of the different blades for use on a Ranger?'
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
'I posted the Aeromatic blade model page from the 220 Hub TCDS. looks like a ranger could use the 0-85 or 0-86A. It looks like the Warner uses the 0-93. Maybe someone who knows more about these can explain what works best on what?'
-
Jamie Treat
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:14 pm
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
'The Warner 165 and 185 use the O-85 blades for land use. The O-93 are for Warner float operation. Ken Larson in Fla has this setup on his Cessna 165 Airmaster. JST From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:42 PM
To:
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Aeromatic Prop?
I posted the Aeromatic blade model page from the 220 Hub TCDS. looks like a ranger could use the 0-85 or 0-86A. It looks like the Warner uses the 0-93. Maybe someone who knows more about these can explain what works best on what?'
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:42 PM
To:
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Aeromatic Prop?
I posted the Aeromatic blade model page from the 220 Hub TCDS. looks like a ranger could use the 0-85 or 0-86A. It looks like the Warner uses the 0-93. Maybe someone who knows more about these can explain what works best on what?'
-
Jamie Treat
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:14 pm
Re: Aeromatic Prop?
'I used the O-93 blades on my 175 Ranger F-24 for a year or so. Pitch stops were set low. Made RPM, lots of noise, slow cruise. Not recommended. See other email for where they ended up. JST From: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com []
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:15 PM
To: fairchildclub@
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Aeromatic Prop?
I have a set of 93" Aeromatic blades...aren't they for Warners? I need either the 85 or 86. Does anyone have any comparisons of the different blades for use on a Ranger? '
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:15 PM
To: fairchildclub@
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Aeromatic Prop?
I have a set of 93" Aeromatic blades...aren't they for Warners? I need either the 85 or 86. Does anyone have any comparisons of the different blades for use on a Ranger? '