Sensenich 72C44

Boundary Waters

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 24, 2021
Messages
153
Display Name

Display name:
Luscombe Driver
How, or does it differ from a W72CK44? (I know the W was added in '68 or so.) Does that K mean anything? The specs look identical. An old copy of P-170 doesn't list the CK and new revisions list both but with fewer applications and...
 
(I know the W was added in '68 or so.)
Not quite. As I recall Sensenich used a prefix "M" for metal blades and a "W" for wood blades prior to 1968. After 1968 or so they dropped the "M" for the metal blades. So a 72C44 should be a metal prop and a W72 should be a wooden prop. However, Sensinich has several model explanation docs out there for your reading pleasure should you care to look.;)
 
Sensenich's Guide # 612, their current propeller selection online lists the W72CK44 (but not the 72C44). Aircraft #1 has no propeller and the TCDS specifically lists the 72C44. Aircraft #2 has an ancient 72C44, it's definitely wood. The "Sensenich 72x44 wooden propeller" is listed on the performance charts in the maintenance manual but the TDCS just says:

"Propeller - wood (fixed or adjustable pitch) 11 lb. (-58)"

So to be legal I could buy a W72CK44 and have an A&P mount it on aircraft #2, and have him swap the prop from #2 onto #1, unless they are the same. Then I don't have to do double work to separate parts that are working well together for no actual gain.

From an old revision of P-170 (the prop TC)...
Type Fixed pitch wood Material Laminated birch/maple with fabric and metal tipping; or with synthetic leading edge No. of blades Two...
72C 691 65 2350 72” 50”-40” 6 25/64" 4-3/8” 6-1/8" 3-3/8" 10 1,2a
72CK 691 65 2350 72” 50”-40” 6 25/64" 4-3/8” 6-1/8" 3-3/8" 10 1,2a

(Current) Revision 28 of P-170 lists the W72CK with the same data as the 72CK above and it states in notes that Sensenich began prefixing wood blanks with a W in March 1968, but propellers sometimes are not manufactured for years after a blank is laminated. I am wondering if they just added "additional" nomenclature when they added new features. Looking at six sales sites I do not believe that the 72C is still being made / sold unless its really the same as a 72CK / W72CK. Which 5/6 of those sites have offered for sale.
 
Last edited:
Contact Sensenich and ask them. They were very helpful when I was swapping from an older Sensenich metal prop to a wood prop. In the end, I installed a wood prop made by Sterba, no need to pay for a certified prop on an experimental.
 
but the TDCS just says:
So to be legal I could buy a W72CK44 and have an A&P mount it on aircraft #2,
You put a lot of credence in the TCDS but keep in mind it is created for a certain purpose and you may need other documentation in order to complete your intended maintenance/alteration per Part 43. In reality, TCDSs play a very small role in maintenance and usually only when a conformity issue as arisen. The older Aircraft Specification sheets played a slightly different role under the CARs but under todays FARs they are considered equal to the TCDS. So as mentioned, best to either find the Sensinich docs I indicated above or contact Sensinich direct to ensure your swap above will be a minor vs a major alteration.
with the same data as the 72CK above and it states in notes that Sensenich began prefixing wood blanks with a W in March 1968,
FYI: as I mentioned previously, back in the day (pre-68), there were wooden and metal props with the same specs. Sensinich differentiated them by adding “M” or “W”. The "W" has always been there. After ’68 the M was dropped. But you don’t have to take my word about it:
upload_2021-10-22_8-30-44.png
 
One, no human is perfect. I'm not, but I can't rain legal repercussions down on others because of my ignorance or capriciousness.

To put it frankly, I don't put any technical credence whatsoever in the TCDS, it's crap, albeit legal crap. I have a file with literally thousands of errors the FAA made converting files and making revisions. The FAA maintenance station that reweighed the aircraft (in the late 40s). Made a THREE INCH error in the empty C.G. point because in their math they equated the arm of the main wheels (+3) and the datum point. This was partially offset in that they also made a forty pound error in computing a weight because they used the previous number instead of the one they just obtained.

I know the two are 100% interchangeable. I want some sort of paperwork to toss in the file to show that.

Also I have little confidence in what any firm puts out as sales material. Engineers design things, Craftspeople build things, salesmen tell the customer whatever they want to hear (a polite way of saying lie). Obviously the first propellers that Sensenich made were wood. Obviously they did not mark wood propellers W when all of their propellers were made of wood. They only thought to add an M or W after they began making metal props. Then it made warehousing and shipping easier.*

Sensenich Memo #46 dated December 1976 states "Wood aircraft propellers shipped after April 25, 1968 include "W" prefix." That supports the TCDS (deleted in Revision 24) note concerning the "W" prefix. Sadly that is not the issue here.

*Playing Machiavelli, I bet they deleted the "M" because customers figured out that there was an identical, but less expensive, wooden propeller with the same properties.
 
Last edited:
Per Sensenich: For a W72CK44, "W" is wood, "72" is diameter, "C" is the blade profile, "K" is the drill pattern, "44" is the pitch. I'm less than impressed, because the employee contradicted no less than three previous company memos on the subject.
 
I don’t understand your connection between the TCDS and CRS error?

While weighing a T-Craft the Datum ( Wing Leading Edge) and Main Landing Gear

did not agree with the TCDS ( Spec ).

Later heard the tale of how the “ Unknown Agency” had done such a great

job of splicing 2 fuselages into one!

Paperwork was MIA.
 
From; https://www.sensenich.com/company/: Sensenich Propeller was established in 1932 to manufacture fixed pitch wood aircraft propellers for the growing aviation market. In 1949 we began to manufacture wood propellers for the burgeoning airboat market. Aluminum propellers for aircraft was added to our product line in the 1950’s. During the 1960’s the use of UAV’s became prevalent and Sensenich was right there with propellers for the new industry. In 1999 We began our highly successful line of ground adjustable composite propellers for Airboat, Aircraft and UAV’s.

This fits my view of events: The Army -1 lists a "Sensenich 72x44 propeller," the company produced "MANUAL OF MAINTENANCE" says that the aircraft has a "Sensenich 72x44 wooden propeller" as listed in the performance charts. The Original CAA T.C. (NOT TCDS!!) lists a "Sensenich 72C44 propeller." I submit that the three are the same.

The aircraft was built as an observer for the Army. It never had an engine driven electrical system. It did have a strut mounted wind driven generator, radios, antennas, and batteries that weighed 40 or so pounds. When surplussed, the Army removed the radios. The rest came out when it was civilianized.

(Note: The main wheels are 3” aft of datum, the leading edge of wing, and at flying attitude, the tail wheel is 186” aft of the main wheels or 189" aft of datum-- facts not considered.)

From 1947 Reweigh: CAA form 309:

SECTION I - WEIGHT

A. EMPTY WEIGHT AS WEIGHED IN LEVEL FLYING POSITION
SCALE TARE NET
RIGHT WHEEL 331 0 331 C. G. AFT C.L. AXLE 717.5 / 186 (53.5) = 13.87
LEFT WHEEL 333 0 333 C. G. AXLE AFT L.E. WING = 3
TAIL 58.5 5 53.5 C. G. AS WEIGHED IS AFT L. E. WING = 13.87
TOTAL 723.5 5 717.5

B. EMPTY WEIGHT AS WEIGHED INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
1. Standard Equipment:
ITEM
PROPELLER AND HUB SENSENICH 72C TC 170 SER 11996
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
AIR SPEED
ALTIMETER
OIL PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE GAUGE
TACHOMETER
IGNITION SWITCH
WHEELS AND TIRES (Shinn 6C2HB TC63 Firestone 6.00-6 PLY:2)
TAIL SKID AND SPRING
SAFETY BELTS (2)
SEAT BOTTOM CUSHIONS (2 LEATERETTE)
FIRST AID KIT
AIRCRAFT AND EIGlNE LOG BOOKS

2. Items for which approval as optional equipment is desired:
ITEM WEIGHT ARM
Steerable Tail Wheel 5 195
Brakes 6.8 3
Compass 1 --4
Cabin Heater 1 --28
Engine Primer 1 --11
Carpet 2 9

(The above propeller was not mounted nor included in the sale. And there is another Error, obviously the aircraft doesn't have a tail skid and a tail wheel.)

SECTION II - BALANCE

MOST FORWARD C. G. LOADING CONDITION

ITEM WEIGHT ARM MOMENT

WEIGHT EMPTY 756.8 13.87 10497
OIL ( 1 GAL.) 7.5 --37 --227
FUEL ( 13.5 GAL.) 81 --16 --1296
PILOT 170 35.8 6086
TOTAL 996 15.12 15060

C. G. AFT L. E. M.A.C. 15.12 - .24 = 14.88”
C. G. PERCENT M.A.C. 14.88 x 100 / 59 = 25.22 %

(Hmmm? They weighed the airplane and recorded the empty weight as 717.5 pounds. "B." says, "EMPTY WEIGHT AS WEIGHED INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING," which I believe. Because it's quite close to what it weighs today when changed items are backed out. But then the Balance part lists the empty weight as 756.8, the pre-re-weight empty weight. )

"My" 1942 Taylorcraft (a TG-6 converted to a DCO-65 in 1947) has an ancient 72C44 on it. In spite of what I am told Sensenich didn't prefix wood propellers "W" in 1947. Why would they? They didn't make metal props until the 50's. Those I seek answers from don't know this. And nobody ever taught them to think, just to parrot. They say "we have always..."

No, you haven't, maybe you have since 1958... The FAA is worse, they took the original T.C.s and altered them-- adding material errors. It's a good thing people don't actually follows the rules. That would be unsafe. The "notes" on the paper copies of the Propeller T.C. (thanks Aaron) have been omitted from the electronic version.

On the paper copy the 72C prop is on the airframe approval and the airframe on the prop approval. On a subsequent paper version the nomenclature change is explained. But it is nowhere to be found on the "new official copy."
 
Last edited:
Are you sure the tail wheel is 5 lbs and not +5 lbs net weight change from skid?
 
Are you sure the tail wheel is 5 lbs and not +5 lbs net weight change from skid?
Yes, a Scot 2000 is 5 or 6-ish pounds depending on the tire (also in the day they rounded /estimated a lot) the steel skid with a shoe is pretty heavy. The 3200 is about 8 pounds.
 
Last edited:
This fits my view of events:
You still haven’t answered my questions from Post 9.

Which three specific Sensinich “memos” are you referencing in Post #7 and what do they contradict? I didn’t ask about the aircraft “Army -1, Manual of MX, or the original CAA TC.” However, if you have a copy or a reference to the “original TC document,” post it here as that would be a rare document to see. Also I believe if you look hard enough you’ll find Sensinich, Hartzell, etc. started producing metal props in the late 40s.

And second, what is the point of all this? It has zero affect on the current airworthiness status of your aircraft as all this info becomes moot when a new annual is signed off. So why the multiple threads? A hobby? Simple curiosity?

FYI: given the CAA went through a number of significant changes between 1936 and 1950, your exercise in aircraft specifics will never balance out. Outside a few civilian DMIRs, the CAA inspectors performed all of the annual inspections and reissued new AWCs every year. So there was a wider latitude in field interpretation of the CARs back then. You'll find this in most/all early pre/post war aircraft. Perhaps you may look into buying an aircraft built after 1960 if you want to see a more systematic process to the exercises you are performing with your older aircraft. Something to think about.
 
My understanding of the forum is folks can participate or ignore as they see fit.

I’ve been involved in similar aircraft of this vintage and find some of this

fascinating. Almost makes me want to dig out the old paper Aircraft Listing

or Propeller Listing.

Perhaps the significant thing is that a considerable number of errors are made

and continue along with modifications.

Makes a compelling case for weighing the aircraft and a new Equipment List.
 
Back
Top