Welcome! Becoming a registered user of ShortWingPipers.Org is free and easy! Click the "Register" link found in the upper right hand corner of this screen. It's easy and you can then join the fun posting and learning about Short Wing Pipers!

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences

  1. #41
    Stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lopez Island, WA
    Posts
    3,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Carb for O-320

    It's nice to have a property working carburetor. The fuel consumption is down significantly, and the lean idle cut off works again.
    "You can only tie the record for flying low."

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Fort Mohave, AZ
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Carb for O-320

    Does anyone know if the 10-5009 carb is the same as the 10-3678-32 carb, looking at TCDS and then the list on approved carbs is list the 10-5009
    has anyone used this carb is a 150 hp shortwing? this is for O-320-A3B converted to -A2B with straight riser sump.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Carb for O-320

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Hankins View Post
    Does anyone know if the 10-5009 carb is the same as the 10-3678-32 carb, looking at TCDS and then the list on approved carbs is list the 10-5009
    has anyone used this carb is a 150 hp shortwing? this is for O-320-A3B converted to -A2B with straight riser sump.

    https://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/showthread.php?4760-12-or-32-was-Carb-Differences&p=23044&viewfull=1#post23044


    Quote Originally Posted by longpacer View Post
    The 10-5009 should work for a test flight. The big difference is that these carbs have a smaller main jet opening than the 10-3678-32 -- about 10% smaller. (My guess is that you have the -32 carb which seem to be more common than the -12.) The 5009s also lack an economizer feature present in the -32, but losing this is no big deal.

    If you try the 5009, one thing to watch is the cylinder head temps during long climbs due to less fuel flow and therefore leaner operation. I believe the 5009 was created for the Cessna 172s which have much better cooing systems than our old Pipers.

    There are two versions of the 5009. If the part number is 10-5009N, then it has been modified in the field with an improved main discharge nozzle which provides better fuel atomization for more equal fuel distribution among the cylinders. (Lycoming Service Instruction 1305C deals with this. It is a worthwhile mod.)

    I fly my experimental Pacer with an O-320 A2B running a 10-5217 carb, which is a later version of the basic 5009N design and uses the same improved nozzle. I like the carb, but I found I had to open up the main jet to get more fuel flow to keep the cylinder head temps under 400 in climbs.

    Steve Pierce has a good point about the legal issues, but from an operational perspective, I would have no problems in doing a test flight with the 5009. I just wouldn't engage in long climbs. I would keep the full power climb to maybe 1500 feet then go to a more relaxed on route climb to the test altitude.

    Bob

    Both are still available listed on Marvel site

    https://msacarbs.com/product-categor...?orderby=price

    Last edited by SMO22; 09-06-2019 at 10:20 PM.

  4. #44
    Administrator Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Graham, Texas, United States
    Posts
    12,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences

    Good information I had forgotten about. I merged the two threads so it is easier to get all the info later down the road.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Fort Mohave, AZ
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences

    thanks for the info, I will get my carb overhauled to a -32 or find an exchange -32, just waiting on prices before I send out this old -11 that I have

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    389
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences

    I would like the -12 not -32 , lots of good info about it running jus fine and burning 20% less gas. If you dont plan on flying in extreme cold wx the 12 should work according to the passdown here in this thread.

  7. #47
    CamTom12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences

    Iíve not heard anyone else mention it: with a -32, can you not just pull the red knob out and gain back that 20% difference folks have mentioned?

    I would think that any differences in fuel burn would be noted at full rich. If thatís the case, give me the carb that flows more fuel. If I need less fuel, I can control that with the red knob. Itís hard to get more fuel out of a carb once that knob is full rich.

  8. #48
    dbudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    CRAWFORD, NE
    Posts
    195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences


  9. #49
    Gilbert Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germantown, Tennessee 01TN
    Posts
    3,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: -12 or -32? was Carb Differences

    I had this service bulletin applied to my -12 carb. My CHT’s run within 10 to 15 degrees of each other depending on Power settings. My EGT’s are within 25 to 75 degrees again depending on power setting.

    https://msacarbs.com/pdf/SB-22_O%20N...l%20Nozzle.pdf




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •