How fast (really, not book) is your 14-19-2?

Hi Bernie, I spent yesterday helping a friend get his Cruisair ready for annual. When we got to the ailerons I thought that they looked great. Nice and flush with the bottom of the wing. but 2 of the brackets were loose. Since there are inspection holes in the front side of the spar at each bracket location, I just reached in and with a small 3/8" and took a 1/4 turn on the nuts and expected results. I am very leary of crushing the wood so I did a little at a time ,and got no result. The bolts were turning and not tightening. One bracket had an inspection cover over a small 2.5"hole behind the spar so I was able to get a socket on one of the bolt heads . The other bolt head was almost impossible to reach. I was able to jam the head from turning with a bent screw driver. The outboard bracket was loose so we cut a 3" hole just inboard of the bracket and could reach one bolt head but not the upper one. The upper skin is too close to the bracket to get a socket on the head. I got the lower one snug and I think I got the upper one a little better, since all of the wiggle is gone. This was not a fun or easy job. If it needed shimming, I am sure it would have required larger holes and more swearing. If you cut the hole directly under the bracket, there is no chance of reaching the upper bolt head. There is a rib just outboard of the bracket, so the hole needs to be on the inboard side. A 1/4" drive 3/8" thin wall socket would have helped(I think). The flap gap seal that I mentioned a few days ago turned out to be part of the wing walk wood, Someone had rebuilt the wing walk with one size thicker plywood and extended it out an extra inch to form a perfect flap gap seal. It is a nice strong wing walk. I am going to have to use a piece of aluminum to do it on my plane. As Dan said DO IT NOW, while it is easier. _____Grant.
 
Thanks Guys really good info....another question how tight should the nuts be on the spar strap bolts the aluminum ones. Mine are quite loose and I am able to get a few turns before they nip up. I don't want to over tighten them.

regards
Bernie
 
Bernie, Those aluminum nuts and bolts are tougher than most think. We are always worried about the proper torque in wood. Always remember that their strength is in shear...not tension. My un scientific analysis says to finger tight clean threads and make one more turn, with the proper tools. Stop there. Most of the pre-war ships did not use the ANDD bolts, but, used aluminum rod, threaded at the end, plain nuts and staked at the end. short , simple and light. Dan
 
I happened to stop by the factory a few month ago and ran into the person who works the wings, been there since the old wing shop days. He said it's not unusual for nuts to be hanging on by a thread when they show up at the factory. Like Dan said, since they're in shear this is no problem. Nuts far enough into the wing they can't get a wrench on they just hand tighten and send the wings on their way.
 
I put about 650 hours on my 19-19-2. I averaged all those hours and fuel burn. I flew a lot of trips to Baja taking medical teams down there. (that was before all the warring going on now) The average speed was 149 mph and the average fuel burn was 11.8 gph. The trips were with a number of stops. A typical trip was about 6.5 hours with 8 stops. Whiteman near Burbank to Riverside to Mexicalli to the clinic to Mexicalli to Calixico to Corona to Riverside to Whiteman. Some trips were with only 6 or 7 stops. I fly high.
Kent
 
I guess you could call N6RJ a 14-19-2.5 since it has the IO470 in it. At 10,000 TAS is 157kts with 20.5"mp@2450RPM and 13gph. A couple of years ago I installed a Challenger airfilter which is a K&N filter and the map increased an inch at altitude.

Return trip from PIA last weekend coming home at 13000 TAS was 150kts on 11.8 gph with 18.1"map@2450RPM

Dan
 
Dan,

I apologize in advance for my ignorance as I am new to the forum and Bellanca ownership, but I have a question. You own a 28-90? That is amazing!!! I have collected and restored airplanes since I was 13 and have specialized in those airplanes that most have not ever heard of, but I cannot begin to pretend I have ever owned an airplane as amazing as a 28-90. Kudos to you.

RT
 
Rob, With all the buzz about speed, I thought I'd spoof a statement about a Bellanca model that probably doesn't exist, anymore. However, If any of our members have an original piece of a Model 28.........I'd be interested. This topic should move over to the antique section of the forum. Dan
 
I have owned all three. I calculated ground speed on a long trip in Mexico once in a 14-13-2 and got 133 mph on 7.5 gph. when i got a 14-19 I got 155 mph on 12-13 gph and my 14-19-2 gets 160-165 mph on 13 gph. The 14-19-2 figures are at 8500 ft, full throttle/2500 rpm from the gps.
 
Well, Here is Dan's idea..............I just "inherited" 9801B from John Jefferies of Star Treck fame.A nice airplane, with issues.
 
Having known the previous two owners of this airplane, you would think I would be forewarned...Anyway, as these airplanes came out of the same mold, I find that previously mentioned performance figures are on par with my experience. I see 150 IAS at 8500 MSL @40F. This is full throttle, 2300 RPM and EGT at 50 degrees rich of peak, burning 13gph of Lynn's precious 100LL. Now, accurate is that???? I don't know. Kent Tarver, guru of Aeromatic Propellers, a previous owner said he could get 11.8 gph. I think I could run at peak temperature without damage and save a gallon. What do you Ace Aviators think? Dan
 
Dan, I am glad to hear that Johns plane went to a good home. He was such a nice guy. He was also the aviation director for Catch 22. I think I will go rent the movie tonight.____Grant.
 
I'm comparing the reported speeds for the 14-19-2 against the owner's manual for our Cessna 182-C (1960 fastback with swept tail).
The 182 seems competetive, even faster up to 5000 ft, but above 8000 ft the Cruisemaster is 'flying away'.
Now before I get flamed, I have to add that I don't think we get 'Book Numbers' either. Using a GPS and reported winds aloft to compare to the airspeed indicator and E6B helps zero in on the plane's performance better than the pre-GPS days.
We got 8599T less tahn a year ago, so we are just getting to know it, but compared to a Bellanca, the climb rate is substantially less, and manifold pressure drops off faster with increase in altitude.
Our son just got 8533R, a 1966 14-19-3A, which I expected to be a lot faster than the 182C....before I read this thread.
He also noticed the empty weight of 2000 is quite a bit heavier than the 1750 lb listed on the 'Risingup aircraft data site'
which is a payload of 1000 lbs, still higher than our equipped 182C, which is 947 lbs.
Reality stinks sometimes.
 
Has anyone ever seen a book speed that matches reality for pre 1960 aircraft? How about pre 1970? You\re right Shipchief, in this case reality does suck. If you haven't seen it, search the EAA archives in Sport Aviation for the Raspet report on Cruisairs. I still want to see a STOCK 150 hp Cruisair do 150 mph in sustained level flight!
 
Dan - according to a Cessna club guru some years ago, below 65% power you cannot generate enough heat to hurt the exhaust valves running O470s too lean. He also recommended 2300 RPM at the reduced power settings to keep pressure on the rings and less revolutions on the bottom end for better wear. So I ran my engine as lean as it would run smooth and make decent power for the last 1000 hours/15 years with no ill effects at power settings below 65% power and 2300 RPM. Using this technique I could easily one stop it to S. Florida from the Chicago area averaging 130 kts TAS and less than10.8 gallons/hr at 9500'. I recall this Cessna guru said that the last bit of throttle enriched the mixture, but had little effect on Manifold Pressure. He said this was an important feature above 75% power for engine cooling and a reason not to do partial power take-offs, but below 75% you can reduce throttle until MP just starts to drop to save gas. I'm around 18" on my MP gage at 9500', then I leaned it for max noise and continue leaning until power barely drops or it just gets rough. Then enrich a little for smoothness or power. Usually I'd indicate 140-145 MPH. In formation I found I'm going about 7-10 mph IAS faster than the people I'm flying with. I had the airspeed indicator checked once and there was no error so I think it's an airframe installation error. I have no idea how accurate my RPM & MP pressure gage are, although MP seems to line-up with altimeter settings corrected for altitude on the ground. The fuel consumption/TAS is accurate. I find performance at lower altitiudes at 18"/2300RPM is similar except maybe 11.5 gal/hr. Maybe you could save a good 2 gal/hr over Lynn's OPEC contributions with minimal speed loss.
 
Glenn, I agree with your notes. The 13 gph figure came from my initial checks bringing the airplane up from SoCal. The airplane was new to me and I flew it 50 degrees rich of peak at full throttle. Lately,I've leaned the old fashion way you described, but haven't checked the consumption. My EGT seems to float + and - after I set the mixture. I tend to watch it closely. I haven't flown with any other similar airplanes for comparison. Dan
 
Hi guys, as an owner of a Bellanca from the other side... a 1960 14-19-3 Cruisemaster , I cruise at 150 kt pulling 23 -24 "mp and 2400 rpm and 14.5 gph. I get the best TAS at 8-9000 ft. Like it is mentioned it is one great plane ,fairly fast, very easy to fly and a good x/c and IFR platform. I will say as a long time tailwheel guy ,I find this plane to be somewhat "twitchy" in a crosswind even after extensive overhaul of all nosegear/steering rod stuff per the great Bellanca newsletter article. Cheers, Ken
 
OK, I have been reading this post for a while and never added to it but I will now. I fly a 14-19-2 and have for 12 years. When I purchased it, I thought it was slow compared to the numbers that were bounced around between bar stools by all the old guys and the story telling braggers. But listening to the present owners tell stories I think these numbers are more in line with what I get. My best cross county numbers were a canada run and back that was 162mph and 11.2 at 13,500 northbound and 155 at 11.4 and 12,500 south bound. I use the numbers that Glen mentioned about 2300 rpm and 25+ rich of peak with a single digital EGT. I also noted that i can indicate about 150 at 10,000ft. But the best number I have ever seen was a departure out of Eureka Ca with a beautiful cool day and smooth air I put the old girl down on the waves and pushed all to the wall and she indicated 196. Ya 196. Nobody knows indicator accuracy but I don't care it was a fun number to remember and not that far off book, for a airplane with a much heavier empty weight, and an old motor.
I know these birds are affected by rigging more than slower machines, but not much is spoken about how light the test airplane was, and that nobody will ever be able to fly one that light. If money was no object my goal would be to build a
-2 as light as the factory test bird with a little more up front. It would be a joy to fly. Brian
 
Agree that the speed doesn't matter much. It's the joy of it that really counts. Having said that, my (early) 17-30 trues out at 165-170 mph with point to point fill up the tanks just under 13 gph. Now I know & love Franklins. Flew behind the 165 in my Stinson 108-2 for 21 years. That airframe/engine gave me about 125mph and 10gph. I felt that the extra 3gph was a good trade off for 40mph. The hard part was the nose wheel. My old taildragger pals just can't forgive me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top