NEED A&P or AI in Phoenix, AZ area for owner assisted an

A

airplayn

New member
I am repairing my wing walk area and getting ready for an owner assisted annual and I need any members in the Phoenix area to let me know about any A&P's and/or AI's that I might contact. I'm also looking for a spinner. I have a new back plate. If any one knows has info on making a fiberglass replacement I'd be interested in that as well.

Tim
 
What model triple tail do you have, Tim? I ask because that means everything when it comes to spinners.

Billy Walker based his hopped up 14-19 in the Phoenix area. He sold it and I doubt he's reading this forum now. Drop him a line at BillyWalker@cox.net. He may know of a mechanic wise in the ways of Bellancas in he area.

Jonathan
 
Hi Jonathan,

I have a 1951 14-19 Cruisemaster. It has the Lyc. O435, but, unlike most O435 powered 14-19's, it has high compression pistons and rate s at 225HP instead of 195HP (but the prop shaft and spinner are the same).

I have pix at;

http://airplayn.spaces.live.com/

I'll email Billy Walker and see if he has any info, Thanks.

Tim
 
As I recall, the 225 Hp O-435's can only achieve that HP at about 2900 or 3000 RPM (look at the engine data plate). I'm not sure what it achieves at the propellor's red line.
 
I looked at that plane up in Oregon before I bought mine. I made the wrong choice-I should have gotten the one you got. Good price and a great plane. brown and yellow is a great pattern.
 
You're quite right, Peter - the 225hp on the conversion to the O-435A2 (higher compression pistons) can only be achieved at 3000rpm on a prop that has a 2900rpm red-line that only a daring fool would employ in flight. Plus you need to advance the timing 5 degrees on an engine/cowling combination plagued by high CHTs.

The practical reason for having the higher compression pistons is slightly better efficiency and lower incidence of lead fouling. Some folks say they want the potential to employ the added power in a pinch, but that could be trading one problem for another.

Jonathan
 
Nearly forgot....

I have those A2 pistons on mine, and had a prop that was two inches longer than spec. I hit 2900 on one of my first flights before I was paying enough attention to the fact that it's a -controllable- rather than constant speed prop. The tips went supersonic. You don't hear that in the cockpit but you will notice that the climb performance hits a wall. I stopped doing that :oops:

The book on that prop says 2800 for one minute is safe. I saw the prop bladder removed from one fellow I know who routinely went that high. The attach holes were oval shaped...oy!

Jonathan
 
On the type certificate for the O-435-A2 it says the engine is rated at 225HP at 3000RPM MAX continuous HP for FIVE minutes and TAKEOFF. The 7.5-1 compression ratio also requires 91/98 octane.

The mag timing differences ( -8 or -20 ) are only listed on the specs for the 190HP O-435-C1 and C2, not the -A or -A2 found in Cruisemasters. The A2's 225HP was developed from improved crankcase, cylinders, valves and valve seats, exhaust valve guides and rocker shaft bushings. They list a 240HP and 250HP non-geared version, the O-435-K and K1, but as they have compression ratios of only 7.3-1 at the same RPM (3000) I don't know how they achieved the HP. They WERE 40 lbs heavier and the K1 was only approved for helicopter installations.

My airport is at 1200MSL and I really can't tell much difference in TO performance between 3000RPM (225HP) and 2550RPM (190HP) of the standard 14-19 engine. But then, I haven't actually measured TO roll, but the climb IS slightly better. And the bigger engine will have a few more HP at altitude, which is not a bad idea out west with high density altitude airports. (I was initially AMAZED at the LONG runways out here until I used every inch and then some to get off!!) I'm using a Hartzell HC12X20-8D.

The biggest drawback is that I'm getting only 11-12GPH.
':('
And it doesn't seem much better even if I throttle down to the 435-A setting of 2150-2300 for cruise that I used in my previous Cruiseaire 190HP, O-435-A conversion, instead of 2550 listed for cruise RPM on the O-435-A2 in N500A.

BTW if anyone needs prop or engine overhaul manuals I have them as well as original owner's manuals for the 14-19, 14-19-2 and 14-19-3.

Tim
 
Thanks, Tim.

I was mistaken when I said "book" regarding the 12x20-8D. My info came from another owner who'd owned his 14-19 for 29 years, and prepared an ops manual for mine. He said he had the original data. I didn't buy his 'Master though, and thus I did not inherit his collection of documents.

I tried Hartzel but they were not returning calls very often on those props after the half-price "sale" they had on them for a short time after the AD came out. Nor could I find any revision to what I already couldn't find when the the newer style heavier clams arrived. All I can say for certain is that...yeah...they sure are beefier than the original ones.

The oversize prop on my airplane was the work of my 'Master's previous owner. When he had to replace the blades after a gear collapse on landing, he could not bring himself to cut them down to the 78 inch max in the TC. This may have been the chief cause for the supersonic tip problem and it could have contributed to those oval holes in the bladder he showed me.

The differences between the two (A and A2) were vague in the TC when it came to exact comparisons of the two crankcase. I have the parts manual for the A series and I tried to make a comparison, but I was unable to form a good picture from that. Those improved (larger) valves and valve guides you mentioned had already made it to my engine. Pretty much all O-435s have received them if they've had an overhaul in the past couple of decades.

Looking at the performance curves (at least I have them) for the O-435, the sweet spot for fuel consumption seems to be at 2200. Even at that RPM you're over .5lbs/hp/h.; I believe its .54. I burn 13 gals/hr, at normal cruise because I suffer high CHTs and dare not lean fully. This improved when my mechanic added sides to the cowl flap - this lessened back-flow that many aircraft of the period suffered. I can get it down to 10.5 if I slow down to 130kts. It's been too long since I've been up in the airplane to recall what that translated into in power settings.

As for timing, I have a small green cover "manual" for the A and A2 from Lycoming. It says -20 for the A, and -25 for the A2.

How do your CHTs run, Tim? For reasons that will probably forever remain unknown, some 14-19s have the CHT temp problem and some don't, regardless of baffling...a suitable word for this problem, I think :)

Jonathan
 
I have a 6 cyl. CHT and even "hot 6" runs cool, even leaned with the EGT AND in a AZ summer!! I still lean 50deg cooler than max EGT even after reading those articles from that Texas outfit that says they've proved that 50 deg ABOVE max EGT is better. Too cautious, don't want to fry my valves.

I was flying a '47 C-120 and it ran high oil temps until I found out about the cooling air duct that had to be installed to blow on the oil temp gauge!! The owner couldn't figure out why that piece of tubing was dangling loose in behind the baffles!! LOL

The 14-19 I am flying now was Best Bellanca at Oshkosh in the early 90's with the previous owner and the guy who rebuilt it did a nice job. I inherited a BIG box of documentation as well as a nice home made prop removal tool!! I'm gonna need that as the old Navion type spinner he installed was over weighted when balanced and ripped off, causing a pretty severe nick in the prop that I filed down. I STILL NEED a spinner or some info on molding a replacement from fiberglass or Carbon fiber. I've done some glaas work, but hate to "reinvent the wheel" if other's have done this.

Interestingly, he also put in a 28V electrical system to overcome the problems of the long power cable and the next owner had an AI notice that it wasn't STC'd and the FAA ground him until he replaced it with the 14V, OR do an STC at great expense!!

I have overhaul and parts manuals for both the O435 AND the O435-A2, if any one needs info. I have original 1951 ops. manual too. I made a real nice check list printed out on two sided white cardboard that is small and convenient, if anyone's interested.

Anyone else have some names for A&P's or AI's I can contact? Bill Walker gave me Lee Maxson's name, but I haven't been able to contact him. Any other's?

Tim
 
Tim:

Two decades ago, when more 14-19s were flying, a bunch of guys went in on a project to have some new back plates and spinners made. The fellow entrusted with making them did a fine job on the back-plates, but the carbon fiber spinners invariably failed. I grabbed the last of the back-plates after getting the next to the last one for Robbie Bach for the 'Master Jerry now owns.

I didn't know of anyone who tried lean-of-peak ops in carburated engines. Not sure if you can or if it would be wise, given the more even metering of fuel in fuel injected engines.

Sorry to nag you with yet another question, but what temp do you define as low for CHTs? Since the addition of sides to the cowl flaps, my presumed hottest cylinder (I have the original single probe) is 400 degrees. The original red-line used by Lycoming was 500...could have been higher, I forget. Nowadays that would be considered metal melting point high.

Three things have made me reluctant to get one of those dancing orange bar slices devices. First, the expenses for more immediate things. Second, it looks out of place IMO in a 1950 panel. And, third, I figured it would largely serve to confirm whether my original probe had indeed been on the hottest cylinder all along :lol:

Jonathan

Jonathan
 
Two decades ago I was the west coast coordinator for the Bellanca club when Larry D'Attillio ran the club and it was ONLY for low wings. I remember trying to help 14-19 owners to find spinners and was glad I had a 14-13 ...WITH an O-435 conversion!! NOW I really feel their pain!! ;-} But the ol' girl just looks silly with a Navion spinner on the nose!

Back plates aren't a problem, I made one for my '59 14-19-3 from TIG welding a rim onto a disk and having it turned on a 14" lathe. A lot of homebuilts are using composite spinners, and the FAA is allowing them for old orphans like the Bellanca, so I think they're really pretty safe, maybe these weren't done by a pro. There's a place down here in the Phoenix area that makes them for homebuilts but won't consider doing one that big!! I just don't want to have to turn a humongous piece of wood for a mold blank, but I tried to work with an old spinner a friend loaned me but it didn't work too well (no use building in warps and dents into a mold LOL )

I don't have a digital EGT/CHT, but the guy who restored it put in a 6 way switch and multiple detectors. I can't recall my CHT, it's been a while and the plane is not flying right now. You might be right that these new EGT techniques are for fuel injected engines.
 
Tim:

The previous owner of my 14-19, Chuck Davis, told me about those days when anything other than a low wing got the toilet paper treatment. He stretched this to include Vikings, but I wondered if that were true.

The spare back-plate I have is stamped, a bit heavier gauge, and can be welded for repairs, unlike the original on my airplane now with its crack-stop holes. Mine is still airworthy. The other is like so many spares owners keep in their just-in-case pile. Mine came with a spare cowl, complete with "teeth," boxes of odd parts, and a pair of full wheel and leg farings, uncut, out of a mold made at Santa Paula. It also came with a tail wheel fork capable of handling a large Scott, versus the original wheel that was an odd size. It was blown full of foam and would develop a flat spot if it sat. My mechanic could not locate another tire and tube to replace it, thus the other fork came in handy.

I have only been a Bellanca owner since '01. Thus I read all the back issues of three different incarnations of newsletters written by three clubs that formed, faded, and were reborn.

I also listen carefully to veteran owners. Much good information, fascinating folklore, and odd advice. As I've often noted, the triple tail owners I have met are not among but, rather the most eccentric group of aviators I've yet encountered - in a good way, in my opinion.

Some of the most interesting lore comes from accounts of Bellanca manufacturing when it was, in fact, Bellanca, prior to its death and rebirth in Scandinavian realms where airplanes were christened with the most un-Italian name, Viking. There are tales - told in earnest - of undocumented Sicilian woodworkers mysteriously appearing in New Castle, and vanishing when Bellanca went Tango Uniform. Chuck insisted that major assemblies of the 14-19s were manufactured in a variety of locations, and put together in New Castle.

It's not the grassy knoll. but it is interesting.

Jonathan
 
Let me know if you think I'm wrong. On injected engines there are differences between the various injectors and the length the induction air travels to get to the cylinders. Hence the popularity of gami injectors that compensate for the different mixtures for the different cylinders. A carbureted engine has each cylinder sipping a premixed air/fuel mixture that should be identical for all the cylinders. As such a six cylinder CHT/EGT would not be of much use on most of our planes. It would be interesting to see what people who have installed them have observed.
 
As I said, Peter, I largely view those dancing column cylinder displays as verification of whether your CHT probe has indeed been reading the hottest cylinder all along :)

CHT, however, has as much - if not more - to do with cowling design and airflow as it does with fuel mixture. Hence the problems with the same engine in different installations. EGT is useful for leaning, no matter if you have nozzles or carbs. I'm not sure if an EGT probe for each cylinder is useful or practical. Most use a probe attached where the exhust pipes collect prior to becoming a single exhaust pipe on each side.

Folks say these devices are useful for warning of impending cylinder problems, if they show a cylinder cooling down in relation to the others. I have no first hand experience with this.

It's also possible - theoretically - to operate lean of peak with a carburated engine, though you may have to employ carb heat to do so.

Theories, however, are silly things to test unless you're a test pilot. In Star Trek, theoretical things always work. While flying I rarely encounter Klingons or Romulians attacking me, thus I don't need theories on how to reconfigure the deflector array and remodulate my shields.

Prior to the super serious world after 9/11 I must say I enjoyed announcing myself as a Klingon Bird of Prey decloaking at the usual landmark used by pilots at non-towered airfields. Those who played along would respond with "Shields!" and "Prepare the Photon torpedoes." Nowadays I'd probably just be tossed in jail and added to the terrorist watch list, along with other dangerous people like Cat Stevens.

Jonathan
 
I have had 6 cyl EGT and CHT on my plane for almost the whole time I have owned it.(16+ yrs). I am actually on my 4th EGT and 2nd CHT. I had an EI 6 cyl digital EGT which was really fine. I had a single cyl Alcor EGT when I got the plane. Replaced that with a 6 cyl EGT from KS Avionics. That was ok, but had to switch from cyl to cyl. That was ok for the EI CHT, but was a pain for EGT. Then I got seduced by the pretty display of the Aerospace Logic EGT. (big mistake). Digital EGT is not that great, and the pretty analog display wasn't very useful, since you had no way to really reference from cyl to cyl. The actual value of each individual EGT is of little use. THe difference between cyl is most useful. I just didn't like what I had.
I kind of kept my eye out on ebay, and found a KS avionics Hexhad II. BOught it, and sent it back to KS for them to check it out. That is what I have now, and I love it. I talked to Insight and JPI before I bought the Hexhad, and they were not that helpful or friendly. The total opposite of KS. Bill Simpkinson s just GREAT to work with. While the HEXHAD does not have all the whisles and bells of the digitals, it just "belongs" in our planes. I like being able to see what is happening in each cyl. I have used it to diagnose engine problems, and it made my life a lot simpler. I use it to lean and to even know when my CHT are warm enough for take off. Personally, I would always want one in any plane I owened.
 
Don't fret, Larry. I hit preview and use the Google Bar spell checker and I *still* make plenty of typos :oops:

I agree the KS stuff is the best - I have their Mixture Miser - because needles are more intuitive for me than lighted bars. Unfortunately this is the minority view and, these days, KS makes its living making probes for all those companies producing the lights and bars devices.

You need to give them 3-4 weeks notice if you want a new Hexrad II. I considered buying one until I was buried by Bellanca bills and needed an overhaul of my faithful (but oh so tired) C85 on my Luscombe.

The upcoming crop of pilots will, of course, probably find the electronic displays more intuitive than needles. Soon new pilots will get their tickets without ever having to look at a needle. That fine with me. I only hope there is an upcoming crop of GA pilots.

The BIG point is, as you put it Larry, that needles look right in these airplanes. The new guys will inevitably get that urge for retro eventually, and find these old panels fascinating.

No...I don't have a Bong beside me :!:

Jonathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top