What kind of performance can one expect from a stock 15AC with the O-300A. E.W about 1200 lbs. I had previously been looking for a 7AC, but could not come to an agreement with the owner and my mission has changed. Now a Sedan has presented itself and it looks like a nice ship. My mission is 2 seats( me and my bride) and camping stuff with the dog. The occasional second, third, forth pax. Cross countries of 150-400 miles.
Not real backwoods flying, no skiis, or floats, maybe Johnson Creek for camping. Ottumwah, IA in September would be a big trip that I'd like to make.
I had looked at 170's Stinsons, etc. but this Sedan came up and it sounds nice.
What is the current status of Burl supporting the 15AC line? Can shoulder harnesses be retrofitted for the front seats? I would feel naked without them.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
David
Real World Sedan Performance?
-
FlyingWrench
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 13:46
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Real World Sedan Performance?
Hi ! I have a sedan and love it!!! Have flown in 170's and Stinson 108's. The Sedan is the most comfortable plane of the lot. They all are not barnburners, so the comfort level suits me. They are slightly underpowered for ski's and floats, but no problem on wheels unless you plan on mountain flying in 90 degree weather. Handling characteristics on takeoff and landing are very uneventful. There is plenty of support for the airplane and the oil cooler issue has been resolved. Great airplane for the money. Wish they would have made 2-3000 of these little gems. This is why Burl in Alaska, has been slowly getting all the parts for this airplane back together. Good luck!!
Re: Real World Sedan Performance?
I just flew one from Phoenix to Middletown Ohio and back two weeks ago, and loved most of the trip. The thunderstorms along the route were the only issue. Did 3400 total miles in 42 hours, but some of this flight time was giving rides at the NAA fly-in there, so its faster than it seems.
Not a hiccup anywhere along the way, the old gal just kept running fine.
Burl does have the shoulder harness adapters but frankly after buying a set and trying to figure out how to make them work (I have inertia reel shoulder harness's that need to be adapted to them) I am still flying with just a good set of lap belts.
Improvements I would look for are the Cleveland wheels and brakes, hopefully dual puck. I am not a big fan of the Lycoming engined Sedans as you have to run a Piper cowling and if I wanted an airplane that looked like a Piper, I would buy one. As well I like the Continental 6 cylinder smoothness. Some planes have the metal fuel tanks and thats fine but we are still using the rubber bladders and no problems with them. Unless you are flying off of ski's or floats, for me the seaplane door is not needed.
My C-145 is nearing 1000 hours since overhaul and it burned about 8 quarts of oil. Thats over 5 hours per quart and on cylinders that have 5-600 hours on them. Most of it is leaking out the pushrod tubes and for now its cheaper and easier to buy another quart than take them off and fix them.
You do not have your location on your profile (might change that, it helps to know where people are from) but if you are up North flying 3 people and bags is not a problem. Four people, unless two of them are kids, might get tight but the baggage compartment is pretty good sized. I took off out of several airports on my trip where the density altitude was 7000 or higher and no problems, but was alone and with full fuel and lots of bags.
I have flown Chiefs and Champs and they just are not the same. For something like you mention, camping with the wife and a pax or two, the Sedan is heads and shoulders above the rest IMHO.
Joe A
Not a hiccup anywhere along the way, the old gal just kept running fine.
Burl does have the shoulder harness adapters but frankly after buying a set and trying to figure out how to make them work (I have inertia reel shoulder harness's that need to be adapted to them) I am still flying with just a good set of lap belts.
Improvements I would look for are the Cleveland wheels and brakes, hopefully dual puck. I am not a big fan of the Lycoming engined Sedans as you have to run a Piper cowling and if I wanted an airplane that looked like a Piper, I would buy one. As well I like the Continental 6 cylinder smoothness. Some planes have the metal fuel tanks and thats fine but we are still using the rubber bladders and no problems with them. Unless you are flying off of ski's or floats, for me the seaplane door is not needed.
My C-145 is nearing 1000 hours since overhaul and it burned about 8 quarts of oil. Thats over 5 hours per quart and on cylinders that have 5-600 hours on them. Most of it is leaking out the pushrod tubes and for now its cheaper and easier to buy another quart than take them off and fix them.
You do not have your location on your profile (might change that, it helps to know where people are from) but if you are up North flying 3 people and bags is not a problem. Four people, unless two of them are kids, might get tight but the baggage compartment is pretty good sized. I took off out of several airports on my trip where the density altitude was 7000 or higher and no problems, but was alone and with full fuel and lots of bags.
I have flown Chiefs and Champs and they just are not the same. For something like you mention, camping with the wife and a pax or two, the Sedan is heads and shoulders above the rest IMHO.
Joe A
-
Muskokabob
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 13:11
- Location: Muskoka Ontario
- Contact:
Re: Real World Sedan Performance?
I do not know where you are located, but I am in Canada, in Muskoka about 100 miles north of Toronto. My sedan is on floats and has an 0360, 180 hp. I cruise at 90 mph and have a range of 400 miles max, if that was my target distance I would put in my aux. tank of 18 gallons giving me a conservative 450 to 500 mile range with full fuel and load. My longest flight was 8 hours with one fuel stop and I was not a cripple when I deplaned. The sedan is probably as comfortable as you would ever get in our class of plane.
Performance with the 180 is great, I have had it on wheels and skis, and on wheels it takes off like an elevator, I left the seaplane prop on and probably should have installed a cruise prop. If you have any specifics, let me know.
Muskokabob
Performance with the 180 is great, I have had it on wheels and skis, and on wheels it takes off like an elevator, I left the seaplane prop on and probably should have installed a cruise prop. If you have any specifics, let me know.
Muskokabob
Re: Real World Sedan Performance?
Bob brings up something that I forgot.
This last flight I did 270-300 mile legs and landed with 8-9 gallons on board, so for me a good reserve. This was at 95-105 mph flying speed.
This plane has the "comfor or tempur foam" seat cushions and not one of the days (and some of them were 8-9 hour days) did I feel tired.
The one mod I would love to see is the addition of another 10-20 gallons of fuel onboard in the Sedan. For me 38 gallons is a bit shy. While my bladder does not want to fly more than 2-3 hours, there are times that I would really love being able to go 400-450 miles with a reasonable reserve. I understand that Burl has a fix for this (additional fuel mod) but its stalled...
Joe A
This last flight I did 270-300 mile legs and landed with 8-9 gallons on board, so for me a good reserve. This was at 95-105 mph flying speed.
This plane has the "comfor or tempur foam" seat cushions and not one of the days (and some of them were 8-9 hour days) did I feel tired.
The one mod I would love to see is the addition of another 10-20 gallons of fuel onboard in the Sedan. For me 38 gallons is a bit shy. While my bladder does not want to fly more than 2-3 hours, there are times that I would really love being able to go 400-450 miles with a reasonable reserve. I understand that Burl has a fix for this (additional fuel mod) but its stalled...
Joe A
-
Muskokabob
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 13:11
- Location: Muskoka Ontario
- Contact:
Re: Real World Sedan Performance?
I agree, another 15 gallons would be ideal. The question is weather the wing would take the extra load. I have read somewhere that when equipped with flaps the wing had to be severely stengthened. With my tank in the back seat (seat removed) I am not restricted to space, and the extra weight aft is certainly acceptable. The small pump ( fromACS) is
large eneough to do the job.
Bob
large eneough to do the job.
Bob
-
sedanpilot
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 03:12
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
Re: Real World Sedan Performance?
Burl's shoulder harness kit does work quite well if you use the belt he recommends, which are not inertia reel belts. I used them "firmly" once and I walked away with only a little raspberry on my neck and the engine was ripped off the firewall with the impact. (I tried to take off with a tailwind, bad idea, hit the trees at about 10 ft off the ground and nosed in, more to the story.....) The kit I had at the time is essentially what Burl sells. I currently have a similar setup and it works well. An inertia reel would be nice, but they cost a bit and I don't find I really need them, I can reach everything I need with the shoulder harness the way it is.
I really love the Sedan myself, it is really comfortable for me and does what I want well. It will haul a load and is a very docile tail dragger as tail draggers go. I flew with me, a 450 lb filipino, full fuel baggage and survival gear to 12,500 ft over the Knik Glacier once and it worked great. (I am not a light weight either)
I would like a little more fuel as well. I figure about 350 miles is my limit, and less if I don't have a place to put it down if the winds are not as expected. At 100 mph that is about 3 1/2 hour and is about my bladder limit anyway. I saw a Sedan at Lake Hood once for sale that had a modified metal fuel tank that essentially made the outboard fuel bulkhead one rib bay outboard, so more gas by about 1/3rd. I never talked to the owner so I don't know how it works in a slip. I also saw one at Birchwood that had integral fuel tanks in the same space forward of the spar as the originals, but no floor plate below the tank to take up space. It looks like that also gave quite a boost in fuel capacity. Burl's aux tank installation should also work well when he is finished with it.
I don't think there is really a structural issue with the strength of the wing for the extra fuel, other than how to replace the stringers where the tank goes. Fuel in the wings takes away from weight in the fuselage, so helps the wing loads, not hurts.
Flaps are a different story. They significantly change the wing and the tail loads. Because the Sedan has a rear spar that is pretty far aft, it doesn't leave much room for flaps. That means they probably won't really do much for lift, but will increase drag on approach so you can get in over the trees a little shorter. Unfortunately, like many airplanes, the Sedan takes longer to get in the air than to land, so a little shorter landing distance doesn't really help much if you plan on taking off again. I can usually get down about as steep as I want to with a slip anyway, and the Sedan Slips nicely. On balance, I think Aeronca did the right thing by not putting on the Sedan, less complexity and weight and not enough benefit to be worth it.
Burl does a good job supporting the airplane in my opinion. Some gripe about his prices, but with low production rates, it seems fair to me. In the end, it's a business, not a charity. I have compared his prices to what Cessna charges for similar parts on 170s and they are about on a par, and they built a lot more 170s so the setup is spread over a lot more parts.
I really love the Sedan myself, it is really comfortable for me and does what I want well. It will haul a load and is a very docile tail dragger as tail draggers go. I flew with me, a 450 lb filipino, full fuel baggage and survival gear to 12,500 ft over the Knik Glacier once and it worked great. (I am not a light weight either)
I would like a little more fuel as well. I figure about 350 miles is my limit, and less if I don't have a place to put it down if the winds are not as expected. At 100 mph that is about 3 1/2 hour and is about my bladder limit anyway. I saw a Sedan at Lake Hood once for sale that had a modified metal fuel tank that essentially made the outboard fuel bulkhead one rib bay outboard, so more gas by about 1/3rd. I never talked to the owner so I don't know how it works in a slip. I also saw one at Birchwood that had integral fuel tanks in the same space forward of the spar as the originals, but no floor plate below the tank to take up space. It looks like that also gave quite a boost in fuel capacity. Burl's aux tank installation should also work well when he is finished with it.
I don't think there is really a structural issue with the strength of the wing for the extra fuel, other than how to replace the stringers where the tank goes. Fuel in the wings takes away from weight in the fuselage, so helps the wing loads, not hurts.
Flaps are a different story. They significantly change the wing and the tail loads. Because the Sedan has a rear spar that is pretty far aft, it doesn't leave much room for flaps. That means they probably won't really do much for lift, but will increase drag on approach so you can get in over the trees a little shorter. Unfortunately, like many airplanes, the Sedan takes longer to get in the air than to land, so a little shorter landing distance doesn't really help much if you plan on taking off again. I can usually get down about as steep as I want to with a slip anyway, and the Sedan Slips nicely. On balance, I think Aeronca did the right thing by not putting on the Sedan, less complexity and weight and not enough benefit to be worth it.
Burl does a good job supporting the airplane in my opinion. Some gripe about his prices, but with low production rates, it seems fair to me. In the end, it's a business, not a charity. I have compared his prices to what Cessna charges for similar parts on 170s and they are about on a par, and they built a lot more 170s so the setup is spread over a lot more parts.