real numbers

R

RogerGebhart

New member
I'm new here but just acquired a 14-19-3. I haven't flown it much yet but am curious as to what power settings some of you are using and the performance your getting. Will get to fly it more as the spraying season winds down. Only flights so far have been down low and showing about 150 mph at 24 square. Fuel pressure seems very low at about 8# max so dropped it off to have that looked at. Seems like a really nice flying airplane so far. Gotta get a lower profile headset since I keep knocking this one off when leaning foward. Thanks rog
 
Roger, sounds pretty slow to me. These machines need to be clean and straight to get good numbers but that is way too slow for you. I would suspect the indicator or the static air system. Those settings should net you 170- 180+. Brian
 
I agree with Brian. I get 12-15 more on 70 fewer horsepower on a 14-19. If this was IAS I agree that you should check the instrument. If it was GPS ground speed...well...we all know the variables with that.

Dunno what you Continental guys need for fuel pressure, but the Lycoming in my 14-19's fuel pressure (normal range) is 3-5 pounds.

I take it that your 'Master did not come with a proper manual, Rog? The one in 1950 that came with mine was typical for that era - next to nothing compared to contemporary ones. Dunno the standard for the late '50s or early '60s when the -3 manuals were issued.

Jonathan
 
The manual is fairly decent for that era and it lists numbers more like you both say. May be a bit but I will see how this bears out with GPS and get back. I lovve learning about new airplanes. rog
 
Larry, the OPEC 470 gets 13 down low and 11 at 7500 ft. Got a 6 pos EGT and # 4 runs the hottest. Life is short pay the money and keep a smile on as someday it will all be over :P Lynn the crate soldiers on
 
Thanks lynn Taking into account gauges and such I maybe don't feel so bad. This engine has a around 1700 hrs and I'm sure that may play into this as well. Not much time to play now but I'll spend more time later to check it out. I have c210 with an IO-470E and i flight plan it at 12 GPH. 7500' is a good altitude for the egine and airplane as well. In answer to fuel pressure At least on the 210 with like gauges 15# is min called for at max power. I would expect similar here. Lynn that is a good looking bird you have there. rog
 
Mine is a 14-19-3A so mabye a little less drag but a little heavier??? Should be close

7500ft 150KTS TAS 23inches/2400RPM

I'm about 12-13 Gal/Hr Block to Block (start to shutdown)

Dont look at your IAS it doesnt mean much in cruise flight. Do a four leg pattern one min each leg with your GPS, take an average GS for your four legs and thats your TAS.

I finally got my Mitchell executive II working....Woo hoo.

Joe
 
Will hopefully get to go to Davenport Ia in a few weeks to see young son. I should be able to get a better Idea by then. Kudos on the A/P. This one has some sort of A/P I've never heard of before. I can't remember the name but they were made in Tn. and are no longer in production. Seems to be trying to work, just haven't got it sorted out yet. I suspect if it dies its done. Thanks again rog
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Bellanca airframe doesn't really shine until a density altitude of 9-11000 feet. As Lynn said..."dirty bird." It's not that dirty, though. The airfoil doesn't suffer at high altitudes like some of the thinner, so called "high speed" wings. I realize that those of you, east of the 100th meridian, think that 9-11000 feet sounds like an awful amount of climbing; but if you're going on a trip that comes close to max range, you will find a good balance between speed and economy. Use the engine manufacturer's manual on leaning and some common sense. The non-turbo engines will be full throttle above about 7000 feet. Try it and give a pirep. Dan
 
I agree with you Dan. BTW, I flew some long legs in formation with a Beech Sierra - slowflight for a Cruisemaster. Every leg when we refueled I burned less fuel than the Sierra. The Sierra pilot said he was cruising at 75% properly leaned. Last year the same experience was repeated with a Cherokee 235. I know our 50 year old engines could be a bit more efficient but I think the 50 year old airframe is amazing in the way it performs better than a lot of more modern planes when flying at the same speed.
 
Well things finally slowed enough I was able to fly the Bellanca. Went to Gastons resort about 110 miles to the west. At 7500 full fuel 4 on board we we're making 170 mph at 24/23. Sadly on roll out the nosewheel collapsed and got the prop and motor. Airframe appears almost undamaged. Now we wait and see. @#$%^ rog
 
Jonathan Read your story as well. Life is just a @#$ sometimes. I'm considering putting a prop back on it and bringing it home if the insurance will let me have it back. I can do the motor here myself. just gotta wait and see and think on it a while. rog
 
Many say the likelihood of damage to the engine is less when the stoppage occurs at idle power, but can't ever be sure. On Continental engines "dialing" the crank (measuring runout) may be worthwhile to make you alittle more assured that there is no internal damage. Good luck. I'm having problems myself. Coming home from Columbia my brand new engine (five hours) started to have problems with cylinder number 5. It would run lean and hot. I tried carb heat but that didn't fix the problem EGT and CHT were all over the place on 5. Any ideas?
 
Roger, you may want to check out the appropreiate Continental SB. See the following: http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB96-11B.pdf

Peter, you may have a burned exhaust valve. See FIG 7 in: http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB03-3.pdf
You may also want to check your compression in that cylinder, that would also be a good way to check, but borescoping is a great way to confirm before you yank a jug!

Good luck to both of you!

Larry
 
Thanks also for the link. Regarding tear down after prop stoppage. The gold standard is to tear down the engine as outlined in the bulletin you provided. However, many people with prop strikes with idling engines have elected to dial the crank and take their chances. There are also people who have dialed the crank and continued to fly and then had a catastrophic prop failure. I had a prop strike with a wood prop once and it didn't stop the engine and I dialed and continued to run the engine. I guess that isn't prop stoppage but it was more than minimal damage. I have heard that Lycoming engines are particularly liable to have no evidence of problem when the prop is dialed, but subsequently to be found to have profound damage-for some reason Continentals usually show evidence of damage when dialed. I've heard this and it may just be lore. Anyone else with thoughts on this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top