Source for Sensenich props, new or used/Sparrow Hawk

[Paul Folbrecht]

I want (need) a new prop for my C152. Sensenich has a 12-week lead
time. Are there other sources?

2nd question: Anybody have any comments re: the Sparrow Hawk conversion?

[OSKI 3]

Wag Aero has those props. I got one
about 5 years ago.. Hope you have good
luck. It makes a difference.

Bill OParowski

[Scott Skylane]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> I want (need) a new prop for my C152. Sensenich has a 12-week lead
> time. Are there other sources?
>
> 2nd question: Anybody have any comments re: the Sparrow Hawk conversion?
>
Paul,

1. http://www.propellerman.com/

although, they may be a bit "pre-occupied" today...

2. We converted our fleet of 152's years ago, and have been pleased
with the results. Lower spark plugs stay cleaner, the revised baffling
is more serviceable, and of course the performance improvement is
welcome, if not dramatic. Only real drawback is that the piston rings
tend to get "soft" at about 1500 hours, probably due to increased heat
of cumbustion. A quick hone and new ring set cures that, and its off
for another 1500 hours.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[Paul Folbrecht]

Another real drawback I learned of is the decrease of TBO from 2400 to
2000. But thanks.

Scott Skylane wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>> I want (need) a new prop for my C152. Sensenich has a 12-week lead
>> time. Are there other sources?
>>
>> 2nd question: Anybody have any comments re: the Sparrow Hawk conversion?
>>
> Paul,
>
> 1. http://www.propellerman.com/
>
> although, they may be a bit "pre-occupied" today...
>
> 2. We converted our fleet of 152's years ago, and have been pleased
> with the results. Lower spark plugs stay cleaner, the revised baffling
> is more serviceable, and of course the performance improvement is
> welcome, if not dramatic. Only real drawback is that the piston rings
> tend to get "soft" at about 1500 hours, probably due to increased heat
> of cumbustion. A quick hone and new ring set cures that, and its off
> for another 1500 hours.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane
> N92054
>

[Scott Skylane]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> Another real drawback I learned of is the decrease of TBO from 2400 to
> 2000. But thanks.
>
/snip/

Paul,

Unless the airplane will be flying under part 135 or 121, the TBO figure
is meaningless. We routinely flew our engines 3500-4000 hours between
overhauls. This, of course, was only acheivable due to the high
utilization rates (about 100 hours per month, year-round). Your mileage
probably WILL vary, but I really don't think the Sparrowhawk conversion
has any meaningul effect on the engines life, other than the prior
mentioned ring issue.

Remember, to get the 2400 hour "TBO" on a regular O-235 L2C, you must
use a specific heavy piston part number, as well as "100% Genuine
Lycoming Parts" throughout the rest of the engine. Install even one
aftermarket valve cover gasket, and *poof*, the "TBO" magically drops
back to 2000 hours. As I said, meaningless...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054