Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Brett Lovett

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Maintenance and Repair / Re: Part # for Marvel Schebler MA3 / Ma3A?
« on: April 07, 2013, 10:17:09 PM »

The Franklin part number for the carburetor is 10585 (listed in the 4AC-199 Parts Catalog).  I think this part number would have been stamped somewhere on the carb and should provide positive identification of the correct carburetor.  I hope maybe this will help.  I'm unsure on the data plate issue. 

If you haven't already, you might try contacting Marvel-Schebler.  After my experience with a Hartzell representative (the supposed expert on Hartzell wood propellers) claiming it was illegal to fly an airplane (any airplane) with a Hartzell wood propeller (any Hartzell wood propeller) installed, I would advise caution, a sense of humor, and thick skin when making contact with them.  They don't show the A10-2302 as a valid part number, nor do they show any part numbers for pre-war Franklin engines, so they may be very helpful, or they may claim that it is illegal to use any Marvel-Schebler carburetor on any pre-war Franklin engine. | Toll Free: 855-672-2272


Maintenance and Repair / Re: Part # for Marvel Schebler MA3 / Ma3A?
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:56:53 PM »
From what I can find the appropriate Marvel-Schebler part number for installation on any Franklin 4AC-199 90 H.P. engine is A10-2302.  I found this in a "Service Parts List Model MA-3A as used on Franklin Aircraft Engines" attached to a copy of a Franklin 4AC-199 Operators Handbook & Parts Catalog.

Culver General Discussion / Re: Culver Cadet Propeller
« on: March 13, 2013, 10:05:23 PM »
I was just throwing out ideas.  At 2500 RPM your airspeed sounds fairly close to what I'd expect, perhaps a little on the fast side, still within 5 knots.  However I find the fact that you're turning 100 RPM below static limits at full throttle on the ground and more than 300 RPM above redline at full throttle in level flight very odd.  I don't think that should be physically possible with a fixed pitch wood Sensenich 70AB56 propeller in combination with the Franklin 4AC-199E3 engine. 

I see in your aircraft paperwork file that a Sensenich 70AB56 propeller is listed as having been installed with the Franklin 4AC-199-E3 engine.  I believe I was in error above in my comments in the previous post about the 70AF56 prop.  From what I can find the 70AB for the 4AC-199 engine should have a 4 inch thick hub, but otherwise be identical to the 70AF propeller with a 3.25 inch thick hub for the 4AC-176.  This is a bit confusing as Sensenich apparently also used the AB designation for some propellers designed for a B-type hub with a No. 20 spline shaft (Continental R-670 and Ranger) which would certainly not fit on a Franklin.  I found in my notes that Culver did list the Sensenich 70AB56 (not 70AF56) propeller in their aircraft specifications for the L-AR-90.  I previously thought the AB was a typo.   

Culver General Discussion / Re: Culver Cadet Propeller
« on: March 12, 2013, 02:59:22 PM »
Which engine do you have?

By the way, my LCA is NC37818, s/n 329, one serial number after yours.  Wasn't yours in a museum in Fond du Lac WI a few years back?

I'll assume you have the Franklin 4AC-199E3. Based on that, the numbers you are showing seem rather odd to me.  The standard propeller for the Culver L-AR-90 (essentially a Cadet with tricycle gear and a 4AC-199E3) was a Sensenich 70AF56, so that should be the right propeller for you. You may still be interested in an adjustable pitch propeller, but I don't think the fixed pitch prop is responsible for these odd numbers (unless possibly you are using a different model than the AF).  With a 56 inch pitch (fixed) prop, I would expect approximately 2300 static RPM and approximately 2500 to 2550 RPM in level flight with full throttle (with a true airspeed of about 115 knots @ 2500 RPM), with the climb RPM somewhere in between. 

The very low static RPM and very high full throttle level flight RPM are what I find particularly odd.  Have you verified the RPM with an optical/digital tach?  Mechanical tachs are often inaccurate.  Your airspeed indicator could also be inaccurate.  I've found a few old Aeromarine airspeed indicators that read about 10% higher than they should.   Beyond that, I would investigate the engine (things such as ignition timing, throttle operation, carburetor adjustments, etc.) as a cause prior to changing props.

Unfortunately I don't know of any good solutions for an adjustable pitch propeller.  Culver originally used Freedman-Burnham ground adjustable propellers on the Cadets, but changed to fixed pitch Sensenich props sometime fairly early in production.  Here's a link to some photos of Freedman-Burnham propellers including one on a Culver:  I believe an airworthy Freedman-Burnham will be fairly difficult to come by.  They've been out of production for a long time.  I don't know of any certified adjustable pitch propellers currently in production.  Sensenich makes them for experimental & LSA. 

Documentation / Re: Who owns the Culver Cadet Type Certificate?
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:12:42 PM »
What about G-CDET?  How was it registered with the CAA in the UK?

It looks like it was imported to the UK in 1986, with the previous US registration of N29261.  It might be worthwhile to research how this aircraft was imported to the UK and approved for flight there.

Documentation / Re: Wooden Swift prototype
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:00:32 PM »
The cowling of the GC-1 Serial Number 1 NX17688 (on the Swift website page) certainly looks familiar.

Maintenance and Repair / Re: Horizontal Stab Bolt Holes, '41 LCA
« on: March 04, 2013, 06:29:39 PM »
Can someone take and post a picture of the "fix"   I'm not quite getting my head around how ,what I am imagining the part to look like, makes the area stronger.


I don't have a picture, but I can give you a description that hopefully will help you visualize it.

A 3/16 inch thick plywood block is glued to the underside of the longeron at the bolt hole.  A 1-3/16" long bushing (the thickness of the longeron plus the block) is placed around the bolt in the hole, through both the longeron and the block, to prevent the bolt from crushing the longeron and plywood block.  A .049 thick tab of 4130 sheet is soldered to the bolt head to serve both as an anchor for the bolt head and as a washer to spread the load of the bolt head.  The end of this tab being bent up over the front of the plywood block keeps the bolt from rotating when the nut is installed. 

The bushing provides the primary strength to prevent crushing from excessive tightening.  The 4130 sheet tab serves as a washer to reduce the likelihood of crushing (by spreading the load of the head) from "improper handling" (lifting by the leading edge of the stabilizer).  I also suppose the plywood block also serves a bit as a doubler for the longeron adding a bit of strength and thickness to the original 1" longeron and possibly can take some crush from the bolt head without damaging the longeron itself.

At least I think this is right. 


Maintenance and Repair / Re: Horizontal Stab Bolt Holes, '41 LCA
« on: February 22, 2013, 11:07:06 PM »
I also suggest paying close attention to Service Memo 5, whether it applies to your Culver by serial number or not.  This service memo does not apply to my airplane, s/n 329, built well after the service memo alteration was incorporated into production starting with s/n 179.  However I found out the hard way that someone in the airplane's past didn't like those big pulleys sticking up out of the floorboard (even with the cute little covers on them), so they re-drilled the pulley brackets and installed small pulleys that would not extend through the floorboard, thus doing a very good job of recreating the issue and events that resulted in the service memo, an experience that I could have easily lived without.

Maintenance and Repair / Re: Horizontal Stab Bolt Holes, '41 LCA
« on: February 22, 2013, 02:03:57 AM »
Check Service Memo 12:

The factory became aware that some airplanes were experiencing crushed longerons at the front stabilizer mount and issued this service bulletin to address the issue.  Part of the recommended alteration is to install a steel bushing.  The text suggests that some airplanes were originally equipped with steel bushings in these mounting holes and some weren't.  I would recommend fully complying with Service Memo 12 while you are doing the fuselage rebuild.

Culver General Discussion / Re: New wings for the Culver Cadet
« on: February 18, 2013, 05:49:08 PM »
I been busy working on my wings and unfortunately many or most of the butt (90* such as rib to spar) glue joints are loose.  Iím considering removing all the ribs and starting with fresh spars.  I have a few questions to the wing building experts;
1)   Does the Culver wing have any washout?
2)   Were the original wings built in a jig, or does the steel tubing line everything up?
3)   If they used a jig, are there any drawings or old pictures?

Thank you,  Phil


I'm almost certain that the Culver wing has no washout.  Washout would probably defeat the lift distribution that the elliptical taper is attempting to accomplish.  Washout would also probably have made the wing slots unnecessary.  I don't know of any airplanes that use both wing slots and washout together.  I do believe that the airfoil is a NACA 3414 at the root and tapers to a 3408 at the tip (meaning the airfoil tapers from a 12% thickness to an 8% thickness).

I've seen a picture of the fuselage assembly in the factory, but not of the wing. 


Modifications / Re: Changes or add on's to the Franklin 90hp engine
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:42:12 PM »
Sky-Tec is defunct?  I don't believe that is so.

Documentation / Re: Who owns the Culver Cadet Type Certificate?
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:32:08 PM »
I believe Antique Airplane Association may own Type Certificate A-748 to the L-AR-90, and Lark 95. AAA did rescue the remains of Spinks aircraft.  Spinks acquired the type certificate from Helton, who acquired it from Lark Aircraft, who obtained it from California Aero, who acquired it from Superior, who acquired it from Culver (to the best of my memory and knowledge).  I am uncertain if the FAA would consider the Antique Airplane Association the legitimate owner of the type certificate, and if the AAA actually obtained ownership of the type certificate, or just the Spinks' remains.

I believe the lineage of the type certificates for all other Culver models ends with Superior Aircraft (except for the PQ-8A which became the Jamieson J-1, and the Dart series which went to Applegate-Weyant, then Dart Aircraft Corporation).  I'm not sure it will be so easy getting the FAA to admit that the type certificates are orphaned.

Modifications / Re: Locking Tail Wheel
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:15:38 PM »
I havn't flown with a non stearable tailwheel Cadet either. I don't know why you would want it that way. With a stearable tail wheel you have the advantage of positive controll while taxing, less brake wear, less strain on the entire airframe and landing gear from constant jabbing of the brakes to maneuver, better control in a crosswind.
Having made my point above as long as there is sufficient rudder ( and the Cadet has plenty of rudder) it will probably work out ok as origionaly designed. I flew the DC3 and it had a lockable but free wheeling tailwheel which I found a pain but hay the design hasn't been modified on it in its working lifespan.


The reason that someone would want it that way is because that's the way that it was built.  I don't believe the factory ever produced an LCA or LFA with a steerable tailwheel.  The addition of tailwheel steering on the Culver is not as straight forward as in an aircraft where the bottom of the rudder can serve as a mounting point for a rudder horn.  The rudder horn isolates the tension of the tailwheel springs from the rudder cables.  I have copies of Culver factory drawings for a tailwheel steering installation, but one which does not isolate the tailwheel steering spring tension from the rudder cable.  A portion of the steering cables were erased from the drawings.

I've seen a few steerable tailwheel installations on Culvers that ignore this issue (including on my own), and some that use some type of horn to address it.


Culver General Discussion / Re: Fun flight today
« on: October 20, 2012, 08:48:21 AM »
Joe, I'm getting a "This content is currently unavailable" message when I click on that link.

Documentation / Re: Culver V with square wing tips
« on: October 20, 2012, 08:44:20 AM »
I believe the V-2, while being a modification of an Al Mooney design, is the only Culver model that was not conceived by Al Mooney or under his design management.  In other words, the V-2 is the only post-Mooney Culver.  I don't know who was in charge of design, or even who remained in engineering and design at Culver after Al Mooney departed.

I also find it interesting that Superior, obviously having acquired the rights to both the V and V-2 chose to build the V as the Superior Satellite rather than the V-2.  I also was wondering if it is possible, as in the case of Mark Trimble's V/Superior Satellite, if Superior may have converted/updated some of the V's manufactured by Culver into Superior Satellites in addition to manufacturing some of their own, or if perhaps they used an existing Culver V as their "prototype" for the V/Satellite.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7