New Husky

[Ak Kurt]

JC, are you saying you can get 125 - 130 mph TAS on 7 gph? If so, that thing is rocket compared to mine. I just did a whole battery of performance and slow flight trials and was able to consistently get 130-135 mph TAS at 4500’ on 8.50 tires, but using 24”, 2500 RPM, and almost 11 gph. I thought I was doing pretty well - until now .

Try reversing that power setting to 2,400 RPM or even 2,300RPM and 25 inches. May surprise you.

 

[belloypilot]

Will do. I have the 31s on now so doing another round of tests next week.

 

[DuntoDawg]

What altitude was the airport you were taking off from when you registered those fuel flows? Sea Level fuel flow for a 200hp should be around 19-20GPH.

Kurt

4150 DA

 

[Meadowlark]

Several things here. First, my fuel flow meter shows ~ 9.2 - 9.4 gph at cruise. I don't trust it and cannot reset the "k" value to make the "fuel used" indication agree with reality. However, when I refuel the Husky and divide the gallons by the time spent flying...... It is always 6.5 - 7.0 gph. Even on a fairly long cross country it is rarely over 7.5 gph. Yes, run over square as much as possible, or if flying higher, run the settings that provide over square conditions down lower. I also have a air/fuel ratio gauge which allows me to set the mixture perfectly and continually monitor it to make small adjustments to the mixture as atmospheric conditions change. Ignore that percent of horsepower bullshit. Ignore the EGT temps. Pay close attention to CHT and oil temp. Run your engine ~ 185 - 190* as much as possible. Never below 180*. Speed is a no wind GPS speed over the ground.

To set the wings correctly (Thomas help me out here), level the aircraft and then measure the wing angle of incidence on the underside of the wing (or do the math). This is changed by adjusting the bottom end of the rear strut. The wing flat-er to the fuselage, is faster..... greater leading edge angle, wing to fuselage, is slower. I also cheat..... My flaps are set to go reflex ~ 4* when set at "zero"...... Make sure the aircraft is set up to fly straight and level hands and feet off! NO trim tabs!

Of course.... I have been known to be wrong....

J/C GTF & P48

 

[belloypilot]

Well, my Husky isn’t anywhere close to those true air speeds on 7 gph no matter how over/under square I run it or how lean/rich it is, so I clearly have something to learn about how you have your aircraft configured. Best I’ll get on those fuel flows and 31s is about 105-110 mph true depending on loading. Add 3-5 when I switch to 8.50s.

Not sure what you are using for a fuel/air ratio instrument but it’s probably a wideband O2 sensor - correct? True fuel/air ratio measurement requires mass flow of both streams. O2 (or sometimes CO) measured in the exhaust gas is a pretty good proxy, but still a proxy. In industrial applications we’d measure mass flow going in and O2 and CO coming out to tell us mixing and combustion efficiency. In any case, sounds like it allows you to accurately get to the mixture setting you are looking for so that’s certainly helpful.

 

[Meadowlark]

Don't get down in the weeds Mike. First, I said that I refer to a GPS ground speed measurement...... Indicated airspeed, true airspeed have no use to me. Only the distance between points on the ground and the amount of time required to connect those points. After all, we all must return to earth sometime.......

Second, the mixture setting does not have to be scientifically perfect. Compare my air/fuel indicator with an Alcor gauge. Markings, no numbers and we set mixture according to an unknown value. Worse yet was the old "lean until it stumbles, then enrich 1/3 of the distance the knob is pulled out". For a time, everyone thought that lean find on an engine monitor was heaven...... I am able to lean accurately enough.... with an automotive gauge. Some of the best additions to an aircraft do not have to be FAA approved!

I was astounded to learn that flying under a cloud and then out into clear sky both required a change in mixture....... How many set the mixture and bore on for hours?

J/C GTF & P48

 

[johnaz]

It performs far better than mine--don't get me wrong I love 68WY but it is slow! The trailblazer prop made a big difference in takeoff roll and climb performance which is excellent but my cruise speed is slower than other 200HP A1C's that I fly. The other one I spend a lot of time in is a 2015 A1C-200 with the metal hartzell and 29"ABW's. It will cruise at 125 mph indicated at 25/25. Mine at that power setting indicates 100 mph but I think the pitot static is off because I can fly formation with the other up until about 115.
The new one, felt great on takeoff and I only flew a 0.3 as I met the owner at Motown and asked about the plane and he tossed me the keys and I went for it. I didn't leave the pattern in it but flew formation with it as we left and I was in the above 200 HP and we were at 125 and the new one pulled out in front pretty quick so I think it will fly at 130 on those tires. The other thing that was interesting was at full power prior to leaning the fuel flow was under 13 GPH, whereas my plane show about 15.8 GPH. I'm going to find some time to go down to Pegasus in the next week to do a longer flight for a better analysis.
As an aside, et me know when your package from Germany arrives, I should have two packs of the washers and bolts that he enclosed with your shipment. I can fly up to sky ranch and pick them up at your convenience and we can talk Huskies!
Dave

Dave,
Can you give me your contact number/info?
I have the guy who bought my one Husky coming and wanted to get some instruction in it before leaving, coming this Friday to Carefree. If you are interested.
Thanks,
John Schwamm
jschwamm@cox.net
480.766.9990

 

[belloypilot]

Try reversing that power setting to 2,400 RPM or even 2,300RPM and 25 inches. May surprise you.

At 3500', where I can actually get 25" MP, 25/2400 gives me 3-5 mph IAS more than 24"/2500. That's pretty consistent with other tests I've done with this MT Ultra prop - it's more efficient at turning HP into thrust at lower RPM. The battery of performance trials I'm conducting is at 4500', though.

So far it looks like 31s cost me about 5-6 mph IAS at higher power settings, and 3-4 at 22"/2000 where I normally operate (compared to 8.50s). That's a bit less than I had thought. More tests tomorrow morning in smooth air, then crunching numbers to make sense of the notes.

 

[trapper]

with 31's on my husky i flight plan 105 knots its no speed demon and its not designed to be one

 

[belloypilot]

with 31's on my husky i flight plan 105 knots its no speed demon and its not designed to be one

Yeah, this isn’t about trying to make it go fast. It’s about understanding all the factors that impact performance and how much. It’s more about going far, and trying to figure out how different loadings and configuration can impact range. At 90 KTAS, how much range do 31s costs me compared to 8.50s? What about at 105? Those kinds of questions. I have a pretty good feel for most of this after almost 300 hours and some long trips, but just trying to put a finer point on it. While I’m at it, trying to figure out if there’s something about this particular aircraft that’s better or worse than ‘normal’ and, if so, if there’s anything I can do about it.

Cheers.

Mike

 

[Snowbirdxx]

I can pull data for 850 s off my CGR30 next time I go fly. Then you need somebody with 31s doing that. I can get the Miles per / lbs number easy.

 

[belloypilot]

I can pull data for 850 s off my CGR30 next time I go fly. Then you need somebody with 31s doing that. I can get the Miles per / lbs number easy.

That would be interesting to see. I appreciate the offer to share the data. I’m guessing yours is something close to the ultimate Husky hot rod, so a great benchmark.

 

[trapper]

Yeah, this isn’t about trying to make it go fast. It’s about understanding all the factors that impact performance and how much. It’s more about going far, and trying to figure out how different loadings and configuration can impact range. At 90 KTAS, how much range do 31s costs me compared to 8.50s? What about at 105? Those kinds of questions. I have a pretty good feel for most of this after almost 300 hours and some long trips, but just trying to put a finer point on it. While I’m at it, trying to figure out if there’s something about this particular aircraft that’s better or worse than ‘normal’ and, if so, if there’s anything I can do about it.

Cheers.

Mike

I think the bigger tires are around a 5 knot loss which is acceptable to me. I spent a few hours rigging my Husky years ago and gained a few knots. Mine was rigged well when I bought it from Kurt years ago.

 

[tbienz]

I plan 100 kts with 31’s and unfaired extended Alaska gear flying LOP at 2000 rpm. My numbers are also at altitude (usually 8,000-10,000 MSL) so that may have some effect as well since the engine can’t put out as much power.

 

[belloypilot]

At lower power settings I can make almost as much speed difference shifting the CG as the tire size makes. Interesting.

 

[trapper]

At lower power settings I can make almost as much speed difference shifting the CG as the tire size makes. Interesting.

What prop are you running?

 

[belloypilot]

What prop are you running?

MT Ultra

 

[trapper]

At lower power settings I can make almost as much speed difference shifting the CG as the tire size makes. Interesting.

MT Ultra

MT Ultra

I think the weight difference when the MT props are installed makes a difference is how the plane flies. It puts more weight on the tail as opposed to the Hartzell which weights a bit more when the CG is thrown aft slightly. I really noticed it when I switched props on our old A1A. It was a noticeable difference on the elevator position in flight.

 

[belloypilot]

I think the weight difference when the MT props are installed makes a difference is how the plane flies. It puts more weight on the tail as opposed to the Hartzell which weights a bit more when the CG is thrown aft slightly. I really noticed it when I switched props on our old A1A. It was a noticeable difference on the elevator position in flight.

Agreed. It had an MT 205 on it when I bought it so I’ve never flown a Husky with the Hartzel metal prop. I think the weight difference between the 205 and the Ultra is something like 2 lbs. Or less. But I agree with your point. I was just surprised how much CG affects performance on a slower aircraft like a Husky. I went through something similar when I had my Bonanza turbocharged. It took a couple years of shifting weight around an moving a few avionics components into the tail to get the CG back close to where it started before it fLew the same again.

Do you think its drag front the control surfaces on the tail, or the additional downforce ‘weight’ that’s the primary cause of the performance degradation when the CG is forward?

 

[tbienz]

Agreed. It had an MT 205 on it when I bought it so I’ve never flown a Husky with the Hartzel metal prop. I think the weight difference between the 205 and the Ultra is something like 2 lbs. Or less. But I agree with your point. I was just surprised how much CG affects performance on a slower aircraft like a Husky. I went through something similar when I had my Bonanza turbocharged. It took a couple years of shifting weight around an moving a few avionics components into the tail to get the CG back close to where it started before it fLew the same again.

Do you think its drag front the control surfaces on the tail, or the additional downforce ‘weight’ that’s the primary cause of the performance degradation when the CG is forward?

Yes, that has been my understanding. Also part of the reason a plane like the VariEze or Piaggio Avanti are much more efficient and faster than similarly powered standard planform aircraft. A rear CG also makes the stall speed lower which helps in STOL ops. "CC" Milne Pocock makes a big point of that in Bush & Mountain Flying.
This link discusses all manner of weight and CG matters including stall speed and cruise speed: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/AP4ATCO_-_Weight_and_Balance