Commander-Archive.digest.vol-co
September 29, 2007 - October 26, 2007
are left at the full-rich position for takeoff and climb until well above
12-13,000 feet.
EGTs on these engines generally run in the low 1400s for takeoff and climb and,
therefore, don't need leaning even on fairly hot days. The little extra fuel
pumped in this case will be needed to help cool the en- gine anyway.
The turbocharged Continental fuel system is flown like all other turbo-
charged-supercharged systems, with one exception. Set full rich for take- off,
but for climb, the engine may be leaned to the climb settings on the fuel flow
gauge face.
For top-end longevity, however, keep climb TITs at or under 1400 degrees F This
may give you a fuel flow setting of one to one and a half gallons per hour
higher than book but will pay off in the long run.
Cruise: Cruise is not much differ- ent for any naturally aspirated, fuel
injected engine or pressure carburetor equipped engine but it is worth repeating
here. Set up cruise mixture to no less than 50oF rich of peak at power settings
of 65-70 percent and 75 to 100oF rich at 70-75 percent power.
If you don't have an EGT, run book settings plus one-half to one gallon per hour
more to extend cylinder life. In all cases, hold CHTs to no more than 400oF. At
power settings of 50-65 percent some manufacturers will allow you to run at peak
EGT. This may be OK for 50-55 percent, but it will prove easier on your engine
Land pocKet book) to run 50oF rich of peak at 60-65 percent.
For turbocharged engines add 25oF to the above EGT-TIT figures. The 10-550
series is again an exception here. The book allows the engine to be run lean of
peak at low power settings. The fuel system is designed for the very accurate
fuel distribution required for this type of operation, but must be maintained
well to keep the engine healthy.
Remember, with the standard Continental fuel injection system on naturally
aspirated engines, any altitude change will require a corresponding mixture
adjustment. The Continental engine in the early Piper Malibu (TSIO-520-BE) is an
exception to all of the above. This engine is run either full rich or lean of
peak, no in between. Run it by the POH.
Descent and Landing: For descent, enrichen the mixture about 50 F and maintain
the same EGT while descending. Remember, the metering assembly is leaning the
mixture when you pull back the throttle to maintain the same manifold pressure,
so you will need a corresponding mixture adjustment to keep the EGT the same.
Upon pattern entry, the mixture should be enriched to the approximate position
for a full power setting at that air density (pressure altitude and
temperature), in case full power is needed.
Bendix Fuel Injection
Taxi and Runup: A number of engines with this fuel system like to foul plugs
while taxiing. At the lower RPMs, a fuel valve attached to the throttle valve
system sets the fuel-air ratio.
The fuel servo does not sense air density or flow until the engine gets to about
1,700-2,000 RPM. This necessitates manual leaning until approximately 2,000 RPM
at which point the throttle valve rotates fully open and allows the servo to
regulate the fuel-air ratio.
Leaning the mixture to peak RPM during taxi and runup will keep the plugs clean
and give accurate mag checks at runup.
Takeoff and Climb: This system compensates pretty well for changes in air
density, especially the models with the AMC (Automatic Mixture Control) (almost
exactly the same as the pressure carb).
Most Bendix systems on naturally aspirated engines, however, have no AMC, [just
a simple, pitot-like sensor] to sense ram air pressure in the induction. This
still gives an accurate enough reference for determining air density and does a
pretty good job of controlling air-fuel ratios. Still, some minor mixture
adjustments must still be made for altitude operations (4,000 feet and higher).
Just before [entering] the runway, or just before the takeoff roll, run up to
full or near full power and lean to peak EGT or until the RPM drops slightly.
Enrichen the mixture 200oF (if you have an EGT) or one and one-half GPH for
four-cylinder engines and two to three GPH for sixcylinder engines. This setting
will give best power and cooling combination for takeoff and climb.
During climb, the servo will compensate fairly well for air density changes. A
minor mixture adjustment every 2,000 to 3,000 feet will be needed to keep the
EGT at the same temperature until cruise altitude is reached.
Again, cruise is not much different for any naturally aspirated, fuel injected
or pressure carb equipped engine. Set up cruise mixture as described previously
in this article.
When changing altitudes during cruise with this system, no mixture adjustments
should need to be made unless the change is more than about 2,000 feet.
Descent and Landing: This is also the same as other injected engines except
mixture adjustments during descent are not as frequent as with the Continental
system. Enrichen the mixture 50 F just before descent and adjust to keep it the
same until level off.
Throttle adjustments for descents will need to be made only about every 2,000
feet. If you don't have an EGT installed, enrichen one gallon per hour for four
cylinder engines or one and one half GPH for six cylinders and maintain the same
MAP and fuel flow for descent.
Once in the pattern, adjust the mixture to the approximate position for a full
power setting at that air density (pressure altitude and temperature) in case
full power is needed. Lean for taxi if at high altitude.
Lean of Peak Operation
Most pilot operational handbooks do not address LOP operation. Lycoming '
particularly, does not like it-although they authorize operating at peak EGT in
many engines at a limited power level.
Continental is less against it, since they designed the 10-550BE used in the
original Malibus to operate this way, and have comments on LOP operation in some
of their fuel injected engine handbooks.
Most carbureted engines will not operate very well LOP if at all due to less
than optimum fuel flows to the individual cylinders.
That said, LOP is a viable option for fuel injected engines-even turbos with the
proper engine monito~ing instrumentation (engine monitors) and proper pilot
technique. When done properly, LOP can extend engine life with cooler operating
temps compared to running at high power rich of peak. But again, proper
operational training is key.
One source of such training is offered by Advanced Pilot Seminars,
www.advancedpilot.com. Ph 888359-4264 (this is the phone number for GAMI, in
Ada, Oklahoma who hosts the seminars).
POH Discrepancies
A note about the differences between this article and what you will see in most
POHs. The fuel flows given in the above advice, as most of you have probably
noticed, are a bit richer (higher) than the POH numbers.
The manufacturers, in an effort to give us better performing aircraft, have
usually used numbers that allow for the most performance and/ or the greatest
range for a given flight profile (see illustration below). However, these
numbers often do not lend themselves to long engine life.
There is unfortunately a battle between the marketing department and the
engineering department in a given aircraft manufacturer, and the marketing
people usually prevail. Don't believe for a minute that the numbers listed by
the competition don't significantly influence what ends up in the POH.
Some of the numbers may well be actually obtained by a test pilot in a perfect
airplane with a perfect engine. Then all the other parameters are extrapolated
mathematically.
If you look at the engine maker's fuel flow, and other important engine
operational numbers (as opposed to the airplane manufacturer) in their
performance charts you are more likely to see fuel flow numbers significantly
higher for a given percent of power. Excess fuel in aircraft engines plays a
significant role in cooling the cylinders at high power settings.
There is a high engine longevity price for marginally higher cruise speeds and
climb rates. Remembering who pays that price will help you get the life you want
from your engine, if you fly (not fry) with care.
Reprinted courtesy of LIGHT PLANE MAINTENANCE * APRIL/MAY 2004
To subscribe to LIGHT PLANE MAINTENANCE magazine, send an email to
lightplane[at]palmcoastd.com (replace "[at]" with "@" when ready to mail in
order to reduce spam on the airways)
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137185#137185
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
Glad you mde it home OK JB, Wish I could have been there,
> it is possible to do it, but why??
If you go to this link
http://www.navioneer.org/riprelay/The%20Navion%20Files/Bendix_Carb.pdf
(Link courtesy of Craig C.
you will find an entire installation and operation manual for the PS series pressure
carbs. It is a 12 MB download.
The why is because Mr Bendix says to as evidenced in the page copied from the manual
and attached below. The entire download has description of operation as
well as drawings of the carb and its internal components.
You have frequently mentioned to many of us about cramped budget sell your commander
and "Commander ownership isn't for everybody" That is not a good reason
to continue to operate a plane incorrectly.
Its not a matter of cramped budget. Its a matter of dispelling bad practices that
have been passed on by word of mouth for generations in the face of overwhelming
evidence that refutes them.
It is a matter of changing your ways when they are replaced by something better.
I fly 300 hrs a year that would save me 1200 gallons of fuel or at todays price
$4800. Thats a years tuition for my Sons college, A downpayment on a new car.
A trip to Hawaii. Or it would fund one heckuva Twin Commander flyin.
Those good enough reasons. How about running an engine correctly will make it last
longer. Not an insignificant thing considering how hard parts are to come
by for these old engines.
> not recomended by the manufacture of the carb
But it is as you can see in the attachment below.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137210#137210
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bendix_ps_series_162.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Evening JB,
Why?
Because it is easier on the engine and increases the payload.
I think it is wrong to ever operate any engine richer than it needs to be
operated.
That is not only wasting a precious resource, but it shortens the range or
reduces the allowable payload of our flying machines.
The pressure carburetors we had on our big round engined airliners were as
sophisticated as any that have ever been used on any GA aircraft, but we still
leaned them manually when we had the time and the knowledge to do it
correctly. We all hope for the day when FADEC will allow us to operate our airplanes
the way we operate our automobiles, but none of the AMC equipped airplanes
have ever reached the point where they were as efficient as the manually
operated version IF it was operated properly by a knowledgeable operator.
An engine that has good fuel balance and that is being operated on the lean
side of peak EGT will run cooler and cleaner than that same engine when it is
developing that same power only being run rich of peak. I think you and
everyone else will agree that cooler and cleaner is better!
It does take knowledge and training, but isn't training and knowledge
required for most of our aviation endeavors?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 9/29/2007 9:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
yourtcfg(at)aol.com writes:
Sorry, but I stand by my statement. Manually leaning a properly adjusted
pressure carb is, wrong. As I had stated in an earlier post (and as said in
the referenced article), it is possible to do it, but why??
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
? Obviously I am not going to change any minds.? Tell you what,?fly your Commander?any
way you want, or do any of you guys even?have a Commander??? jb?
-----Original Message-----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 7:32 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Evening JB,
?
Why?
?
Because it is easier on the engine and increases the payload.
?
I think it is wrong to ever operate any engine richer than it needs to be operated.
?
That is not only wasting a precious resource, but it shortens the range or reduces
the allowable payload of our flying machines.
?
The pressure carburetors we had on our big round engined airliners were as sophisticated
as any that have ever been used on any GA aircraft, but we still leaned
them manually when we had the time and the knowledge to do it correctly. We
all hope for the day when FADEC will allow us to operate our airplanes the way
we operate our automobiles, but none of the AMC equipped airplanes have ever
reached the point where they were as efficient as the manually operated version
IF it was operated properly by a knowledgeable operator.
?
An engine that has good fuel balance and that is being operated on the lean side
of peak EGT will run cooler and cleaner than that same engine when it is developing
that same power only being run rich of peak. I think you and everyone
else will agree that cooler and cleaner is better!
?
It does take knowledge and training, but isn't training and knowledge required
for most of our aviation endeavors?
?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
?
In a message dated 9/29/2007 9:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, yourtcfg(at)aol.com
writes:
Sorry, but I stand by my statement.? Manually leaning a properly adjusted pressure
carb is, wrong.? As I had stated in an earlier post (and as said?in the referenced
article), it is possible to do it, but why???
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | COMMANDER560(at)cs.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Hi everyone, I flew a 680E for a company in the 60's , and before that a
straight old 560, and was checked out by a pilot from a commander dealership, I
believe it was Southern Ohiio Aviation, he instructed me as JB said to leave
those mixtures forward, always, worked good, lasted a long time, also proven by
Audie Melton, who flew Bull Hancocks, of Lexington, Ky, (Clairbourne Farms,
race horses )720 thur 4 sets of engines. Just my old two cents worth, Thanks,
Joe Shepherd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
HI MILT Had a great trip home and the fly-in was great too!!? Maybe we are having
a miscommunication.? The PS5C carburetor is a pressure carb, and?does use a
Mixture control.? It is not an auto lean carb.? A PS5C(D) does have an AMC unit
and "Mr. Bendix" does not recommend messing about with that one.? Page 16,
par 2.6 of the Bendix PS manual reads?? "A manual mixture control valve is provided
as a means of correcting for natural enrichment at altitude?on carburetors
without automatic mixture control"? jb?
-----Original Message-----
From: N395V <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 7:27 pm
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Glad you mde it home OK JB, Wish I could have been there,
> it is possible to do it, but why??
If you go to this link
http://www.navioneer.org/riprelay/The%20Navion%20Files/Bendix_Carb.pdf
(Link courtesy of Craig C.
you will find an entire installation and operation manual for the PS series
pressure carbs. It is a 12 MB download.
The why is because Mr Bendix says to as evidenced in the page copied from the
manual and attached below. The entire download has description of operation as
well as drawings of the carb and its internal components.
You have frequently mentioned to many of us about cramped budget sell your
commander and "Commander ownership isn't for everybody" That is not a good
reason to continue to operate a plane incorrectly.
Its not a matter of cramped budget. Its a matter of dispelling bad practices
that have been passed on by word of mouth for generations in the face of
overwhelming evidence that refutes them.
It is a matter of changing your ways when they are replaced by something better.
I fly 300 hrs a year that would save me 1200 gallons of fuel or at todays price
$4800. Thats a years tuition for my Sons college, A downpayment on a new car. A
trip to Hawaii. Or it would fund one heckuva Twin Commander flyin.
Those good enough reasons. How about running an engine correctly will make it
last longer. Not an insignificant thing considering how hard parts are to come
by for these old engines.
> not recomended by the manufacture of the carb
But it is as you can see in the attachment below.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137210#137210
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bendix_ps_series_162.jpg
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
Is Commander ownership a prerequisite to participation in this forum?
I am sure that Sir Barry, Nico, and the good Wing Commander would be distressed
to hear this. Even though they do not currently own Commanders I certainly look
forward to their posts and the information contained therein. Does their lack
of Commander ownership diminish thei contributions or knowledge?
I thought it was here that people interested in Twin Commanders could discuss these
birds and offer opinion.
While I am not a Commander expert having owned 2 different models and flown them
for several hundred hours along with 37 years and many thousands of hours in
the air hrs plus has left me with some experience and knowledge other Commander
owners and operators might find helpful.
Old Bob likewise has a lot of time in Beechcraft with the same engines as the Commanders.
Reading his posts on other forums suggests he has a lot of helpful
information to impart to Commander owners.
In any event you are correct you are not going to change my mind and I will fly
a Commander or any other plane the way I see fit.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137220#137220
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
SORRY MILT, I did not mean to offend.??As you said, it is an important subject
and I needed to set it straight.? Sorry.? jb
I thought it was here that people interested in Twin Commanders could discuss
these birds and offer opinion.
-----Original Message-----
From: N395V <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 8:29 pm
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Is Commander ownership a prerequisite to participation in this forum?
I am sure that Sir Barry, Nico, and the good Wing Commander would be distressed
to hear this. Even though they do not currently own Commanders I certainly look
forward to their posts and the information contained therein. Does their lack of
Commander ownership diminish thei contributions or knowledge?
I thought it was here that people interested in Twin Commanders could discuss
these birds and offer opinion.
While I am not a Commander expert having owned 2 different models and flown them
for several hundred hours along with 37 years and many thousands of hours in the
air hrs plus has left me with some experience and knowledge other Commander
owners and operators might find helpful.
Old Bob likewise has a lot of time in Beechcraft with the same engines as the
Commanders. Reading his posts on other forums suggests he has a lot of helpful
information to impart to Commander owners.
In any event you are correct you are not going to change my mind and I will fly
a Commander or any other plane the way I see fit.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137220#137220
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
JB, Milt and Old Bob,
I what to thank you all for a very interesting discussion about
pressure carbs that are unique to Twin Commanders
I only have a few hours in a 680 and most was in a 500B.
I am looking a owning a 680 at some time and this is the kind of
information that we all need to have.
I do have a questions. Matthew's problem, how do you know the auto
lean is working?
How do you check it? It sounds like the rebuilt side is working and
the older one may not?
The owner of the 680 I am looking at said to leave the mixtures full
forward and pull the throttle back to 2500/ 27in for economy cruse
and it likes to fly at 16,000-18,000 doing 180 kts?
I am glad to see we are all friends on this list.
Tylor Hall
On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:29 PM, N395V wrote:
>
>
> Is Commander ownership a prerequisite to participation in this forum?
>
> I am sure that Sir Barry, Nico, and the good Wing Commander would
> be distressed to hear this. Even though they do not currently own
> Commanders I certainly look forward to their posts and the
> information contained therein. Does their lack of Commander
> ownership diminish thei contributions or knowledge?
>
> I thought it was here that people interested in Twin Commanders
> could discuss these birds and offer opinion.
>
> While I am not a Commander expert having owned 2 different models
> and flown them for several hundred hours along with 37 years and
> many thousands of hours in the air hrs plus has left me with some
> experience and knowledge other Commander owners and operators might
> find helpful.
>
> Old Bob likewise has a lot of time in Beechcraft with the same
> engines as the Commanders. Reading his posts on other forums
> suggests he has a lot of helpful information to impart to Commander
> owners.
>
> In any event you are correct you are not going to change my mind
> and I will fly a Commander or any other plane the way I see fit.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137220#137220
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
HI TYLOR
You can generally tell if the autolean is operating by engine performance.? If
the carb fails, it is designed to fail safe and run super rich.? You can then
manually lean it until it can be repaired.? On the Commander, look for the cyl
temps to run the same on both engines, at climb and cruse.? To check normal operation,
set cruse power and slowly lean the carbs manually (one at a time thank
you)? The levers should travel about 1/2 way with little or?no change in engine
operation.? When the change comes, it should be very quick.? It should go
from running fine to idle cut-off in a very little travel.? Last, check the
color of the exhaust pipes.? They should be a nice ash gray.? jb
I do have a questions. Matthew's problem, how do you know the auto lean is working??
?
How do you check it? It sounds like the rebuilt side is working and the older one
may not??
-----Original Message-----
From: Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 9:46 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
?
JB, Milt and Old Bob,?
I what to thank you all for a very interesting discussion about pressure carbs
that are unique to Twin Commanders?
I only have a few hours in a 680 and most was in a 500B.?
I am looking a owning a 680 at some time and this is the kind of information that
we all need to have.?
?
I do have a questions. Matthew's problem, how do you know the auto lean is working??
?
How do you check it? It sounds like the rebuilt side is working and the older one
may not??
?
The owner of the 680 I am looking at said to leave the mixtures full forward and
pull the throttle back to 2500/ 27in for economy cruse and it likes to fly at
16,000-18,000 doing 180 kts??
?
I am glad to see we are all friends on this list.?
?
Tylor Hall?
?
On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:29 PM, N395V wrote:?
?
>?
> Is Commander ownership a prerequisite to participation in this forum??
>?
> I am sure that Sir Barry, Nico, and the good Wing Commander would > be distressed
to hear this. Even though they do not currently own > Commanders I certainly
look forward to their posts and the > information contained therein. Does
their lack of Commander > ownership diminish thei contributions or knowledge??
>?
> I thought it was here that people interested in Twin Commanders > could discuss
these birds and offer opinion.?
>?
> While I am not a Commander expert having owned 2 different models > and flown
them for several hundred hours along with 37 years and > many thousands of hours
in the air hrs plus has left me with some > experience and knowledge other
Commander owners and operators might > find helpful.?
>?
> Old Bob likewise has a lot of time in Beechcraft with the same > engines as the
Commanders. Reading his posts on other forums > suggests he has a lot of helpful
information to impart to Commander > owners.?
>?
> In any event you are correct you are not going to change my mind > and I will
fly a Commander or any other plane the way I see fit.?
>?
> --------?
> Milt?
> 2003 F1 Rocket?
> 2006 Radial Rocket?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> Read this topic online here:?
>?
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137220#137220?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Tylor,
The way I look at it is like this. Forty years ago, the best we knew how to
do was build a very sophisticated fuel controller which could do a reasonable
job of running our engine with minimal assistance from the pilot.
Even in those days, when adequate instrumentation and inflight personnel
were available to operate the engine more efficiently, manual leaning was done.
The desire has always been to run the engine as safely and efficiently as
possible given what was available.
The three chamber pressure injection carburetor equipped with an Automatic
Mixture Control was the FADEC of it's day.
Since it was the state of the art, there were a number of shops and many
personnel that knew how to maintain it and keep it in good adjustment. Have you
tried to buy new parts for some of that ancient technology equipment?
We no longer have the luxury of having readily available maintenance of that
ancient technology, but we do have much better and more modern engine
instrumentation which will allow us to manually accomplish what the AMC units
were
designed to do. In fact, with that modern instrumentation, we can do a much
better job than any of the automatic equipment was able to do fifty years ago.
We can use all that fancy electronic stuff as a full time flight engineer who
never lets his eyes wander from the engine being monitored.
The low frequency radio range worked well during those same times when we
were using the AMC units. How many of us are still using low frequency radio
ranges as navigation equipment?
The years have given us new tools to work with. The goal has not changed,
but our ability to operate the engines the way the designer wanted them to be
operated has changed a lot.
Personally, I think I have learned a lot in the sixty-one years since I
soloed and I hope to continue to learn and adapt to new technology for what years
I do have left to pilot airplanes.
I like engine monitors and I like GPS.
Low frequency ranges were challenging and satisfying to use, but GPS is
better.
The same analogy works for using ancient fuel controllers or using modern
engine control techniques. The goal is the same. Simple, safe and efficient
operations. Modern equipment allows us to do the job better all the time.
As I said before, it does take an open mind and a bit of education, but
isn't the challenge of aviation one of the reasons we all enjoy it so much?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 9/29/2007 11:41:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
I do have a questions. Matthew's problem, how do you know the auto
lean is working?
How do you check it? It sounds like the rebuilt side is working and
the older one may not?
The owner of the 680 I am looking at said to leave the mixtures full
forward and pull the throttle back to 2500/ 27in for economy cruse
and it likes to fly at 16,000-18,000 doing 180 kts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
And when things become challenged, we remain polite. What a great crowd!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tylor Hall
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
JB, Milt and Old Bob,
I what to thank you all for a very interesting discussion about
pressure carbs that are unique to Twin Commanders
I only have a few hours in a 680 and most was in a 500B.
I am looking a owning a 680 at some time and this is the kind of
information that we all need to have.
I do have a questions. Matthew's problem, how do you know the auto
lean is working?
How do you check it? It sounds like the rebuilt side is working and
the older one may not?
The owner of the 680 I am looking at said to leave the mixtures full
forward and pull the throttle back to 2500/ 27in for economy cruse
and it likes to fly at 16,000-18,000 doing 180 kts?
I am glad to see we are all friends on this list.
Tylor Hall
On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:29 PM, N395V wrote:
>
>
> Is Commander ownership a prerequisite to participation in this forum?
>
> I am sure that Sir Barry, Nico, and the good Wing Commander would
> be distressed to hear this. Even though they do not currently own
> Commanders I certainly look forward to their posts and the
> information contained therein. Does their lack of Commander
> ownership diminish thei contributions or knowledge?
>
> I thought it was here that people interested in Twin Commanders
> could discuss these birds and offer opinion.
>
> While I am not a Commander expert having owned 2 different models
> and flown them for several hundred hours along with 37 years and
> many thousands of hours in the air hrs plus has left me with some
> experience and knowledge other Commander owners and operators might
> find helpful.
>
> Old Bob likewise has a lot of time in Beechcraft with the same
> engines as the Commanders. Reading his posts on other forums
> suggests he has a lot of helpful information to impart to Commander
> owners.
>
> In any event you are correct you are not going to change my mind
> and I will fly a Commander or any other plane the way I see fit.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137220#137220
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Wall" <cwall(at)worldflight2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
I am really bummed that I missed the flyin this year, especially
considering that it was held in the best country in the world, Texas.
I look forward to catching up with everyone at the flyin next year.
I couldn't help but jump in on the Pressure Carb debate. In
Dreamcatcher (560E with GO-480-G1B6) we had 6 cylinder EGT on both
engine and digital Fuel Flow, with Pressure Carbs you have to measure
the flow going to the carb and subtract the flow of fuel that is
returned to the fuel tank from the carb to get a correct reading.
During our flight around the world we leaned the engine using the
mixture controls on every flight and operated LOP. The fuel flow and
the EGTs both confirmed the effects that the mixture controls were
having. At full throttle at 12,000 ft with the props pulled back we
had the fuel flow down to 9 GPH per side which we found gave us the
longest range. With the correct instrumentation and only making
changes to one engine at a time at a safe altitude I would encourage
anyone to try it and see the effects for yourself.
Chris Wall
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
> When I leave the mixture forward The right carb on my 680 leaks about a gallon
or two over night. Since I am a new 680 owner I am trying to learn as much as
I can. Any info would be helpful. Thanks Gil Wingflyer.
>
>
Sorry Gil I missed your earlier post.
You didn't mention where on the carb the fuel leaks from and I really do not know
why it would leak. I would suggest downloading the manual referenced above
and looking down stream from the mixture mechanism. I doubt the leak has anything
to do per se with the mixture control automatic or manual. But if it leaks
on the ground it is probably leaking worse in flight and I would get it corrected
promptly.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137262#137262
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
> had the fuel flow down to 9 GPH per side
Chris,
Considering the distances you flew I often wondered if you did this. How did you
manage to get all the cylinders to hit peak EGT at the same time?
I had replaced the pressure carb on my M14 with an Airflow performance throttle
body with manual mixture control hoping to run LOP but my 1st cylinder to peak
was at a fuel flow 0.8 GPH more than the last cylinder to peak resulting in
the engine really running rough at peak and LOP.
The M14 pressure carbs appear to be factory set to run about 2-300 degrees F ROP
so even though I can't go LOP it still runs the engine a good bit cleaner and
more efficiently although I had to spend a lot of time tweaking the baffling
to keep CHT's under 380
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137263#137263
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MASON CHEVAILLIER" <kamala(at)MSN.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
cw, you were missed at the flyin. did you ever find any of the mango
air stuff. all of this carb talk makes me glad I have fuel injection.
mason
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Wall<mailto:cwall(at)worldflight2000.com>
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:14 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
>
I am really bummed that I missed the flyin this year, especially
considering that it was held in the best country in the world, Texas.
I look forward to catching up with everyone at the flyin next year.
I couldn't help but jump in on the Pressure Carb debate. In
Dreamcatcher (560E with GO-480-G1B6) we had 6 cylinder EGT on both
engine and digital Fuel Flow, with Pressure Carbs you have to measure
the flow going to the carb and subtract the flow of fuel that is
returned to the fuel tank from the carb to get a correct reading.
During our flight around the world we leaned the engine using the
mixture controls on every flight and operated LOP. The fuel flow and
the EGTs both confirmed the effects that the mixture controls were
having. At full throttle at 12,000 ft with the props pulled back we
had the fuel flow down to 9 GPH per side which we found gave us the
longest range. With the correct instrumentation and only making
changes to one engine at a time at a safe altitude I would encourage
anyone to try it and see the effects for yourself.
Chris Wall
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
m/Navigator?Commander-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU!!? Call me at 360-903-6901 on a different topic.? Back to
the carbs.? If all Commanders had a 6 dyl egt and dig fuel flow, maybe it would
be worth messing with.? Yours is the only one I know that is equipped that
way. and?I remember talking to you about the leaning and you said you were running
with the throttles wide open (fuel enrichment valve wide open) so manually
leaning would have made a big difference.? My concern with this thread is that
the poor guy who started this post might try to lean his AMC carbs without
the benefit of that technology.? Like Bob said, this is ancient tech. If your
airplane isn't equipped properly, you can do serious damage to your engines by
messing with the mix and you had better leave it the stink alone.? I am going
to the airport today to get the fuel info from my airplane and check it against
the mfg. fuel flow (I just flew it 16 hours) I'll bet it is within 5%.? GREAT
TO HEAR FROM YOU!!? Lets talk.? jb?
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Wall <cwall(at)worldflight2000.com>
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 7:14 am
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
I am really bummed that I missed the flyin this year, especially
considering that it was held in the best country in the world, Texas.
I look forward to catching up with everyone at the flyin next year.
I couldn't help but jump in on the Pressure Carb debate. In
Dreamcatcher (560E with GO-480-G1B6) we had 6 cylinder EGT on both
engine and digital Fuel Flow, with Pressure Carbs you have to measure
the flow going to the carb and subtract the flow of fuel that is
returned to the fuel tank from the carb to get a correct reading.
During our flight around the world we leaned the engine using the
mixture controls on every flight and operated LOP. The fuel flow and
the EGTs both confirmed the effects that the mixture controls were
having. At full throttle at 12,000 ft with the props pulled back we
had the fuel flow down to 9 GPH per side which we found gave us the
longest range. With the correct instrumentation and only making
changes to one engine at a time at a safe altitude I would encourage
anyone to try it and see the effects for yourself.
Chris Wall
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
This is great!
It hasn't "hit the fan" like this since the "Sump-Gate" days of '01.
bilbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
> HI MILT. I am not picking on you, but need to make one other correction.
Not to worry JB I have a thick skin especially when my espousings are based
on science and data.
This is quite an important topic for any bathtub commander owner and neededs
to be thoroughly discussed.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137190#137190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
"Commander ownership is not for everybody"
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
HI MILT
Sorry, but I stand by my statement. Manually leaning a properly adjusted
pressure carb is, wrong. As I had stated in an earlier post (and as said in
the referenced article), it is possible to do it, but why?? Properly
adjusted, the AMC unit does a great job. I just flew my 680E 2800nm, 16hrs
to the fly-in in TX I fueled the outboard tanks and after about an hour on
the main, switched to them They ran 1.5 hours and just as I was reaching
for the selector switch, the LH engine sputtered. I no sooner switched that
engine tha the RH sputtered. The point is, with properly adj carbs, they
are consistent enough to use exactly he same amount of fuel. Not science,
but imperical information. I have flown many bathtub Commanders and have
yet to fly one with an EGT. Short of that installation, leaning the carbs
would be a random gues s at best. Is it possible to squeeze a couple of
extra gallons per hour out of your engines, maybe. But if your Commander
operating budget is so cramped that three or four GPH will make a
difference, I strongly suggest you sell your Commander. BTW, I don't
believe that running over square is bad, (it happens on every TO), or that
you can shock cool and engine with the throttle (rapid mixture change will
however) or that running LOP is bad in a normally aspirated engine. But
manually leaning you AMC carbs is a bad idea, not recomended by the
manufacture of the carb, engine or airframe and completely unnecessary;-)
jb
-----Original Message-----
From: N395V <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 5:01 pm
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
The following is a reprint from "Light Plane Maintenance"
Discussing aircraft mixture control systems. It is lengthy but a good read,
especially the section on pressure carbs and leaning method by type of fuel
distribution system.
As you can see from the article pressure carbs require manual mixture
adjustment
to get the most out of your engine.
JB I think you are a bit premature with the use of the word "wrong"
I do not doubt that you and many Commander pilots and many older pilots were
taught that the mixture control on PS5 pressure carbs is simply an on off
switch. That concept is just plain wrong and needs to be questioned rather
than
just passed on as gospel.
In the old days fuel was a cheap coolant and leaving a pressure carb at full
rich was acceptable practice. It even made its way into some manuals
although I
do not recall seeing it in a commander manual.
Mr Bendix did not attach the mixture control to a "METERING NEEDLE VALVE"
for
the purpose of on and off. If on/off were his intent he would have put a
ball
valve on the carb inlet.
This concept is just as dated as
Don't run oversquare MP>RPM/1000
Rapid throttle reduction causes shock cooling.. Data clearly shows flight
into
precipitation causes greater mor rapid cooling.
Do not run LOP.. Once again date clearly refutes this.
Any way the article follows.
Mixture Control
by LIGHT PLANE MAINTENANCE staff
Part 1 - Mixture Control Systems
Here we go again, another article on mixture management destined to tell
me
things I already know. Well, maybe. It's entirely possible that some
information
will seem repetitious, but, then again, redundancy in aviation isn't such a
bad
thing either. judging from some reader questions, such a revisit to the
topic is
warranted.
Mixture Control is written from the pilot's perspective, by a professional
test-pilot, and is designed to answer the why, when, where and how of
mixture
control and proper leaning procedure for various fuel delivery systems. It
is an
encyclopedia of fuel management. To the layman, it translates into verse as
"How
to avoid burning a hole in your wallet".
Inspite of the proliferation of digital instrumentation, the Basic EGT is
still
an outstanding instrument for monitoring Fuel Flow vs Percent Power. Most of
the
material in this article is based on this basic level of instrumentation and
control. Units of measurement remain in the original Imperial units (oF, for
example) because over 60% of aircraft in use are more than 50 years old.
Air-Fuel Ratios/Distribution
In general terms, mixture is defined as the ratio of air to fuel by weight
(or
more accurately, mass). Most engines will burn air-fuel ratios of 8:1 to 18:
1.
Eight-to-one being very rich and eighteen-to-one being very lean.
The "chemically correct" (otherwise known as stoichiometric) mixture is
about
15:1. This is the mixture ratio where you would expect to find peak EGT in a
perfect burn, but atomization inefficiencies put the peak EGT ratio probably
closer to 13 or 14 to 1.
You might say, "So what's this gobbledygook about ratios? I don't have a
direct
air-fuel ratio indicator in my plane." That's true, but it will help in
understanding the different leaning procedures on different fuel
metering/distributing systems.
The most common fuel distribution systems found in general aviation are:
carburetor, pressure carb, Continental fuel injection, and Bendix fuel
injection. A brief explanation of the operating principles of each system
will
be important in understanding the flight management portion of the pilot's
duties.
Carburetor
The carburetor is a fairly simple device that meters fuel according to the
pressure difference between the downstream side of the fuel jet and the net
pressure of the fuel in the float bowl (affected by net bowl vent and bowl
fuel
head pressure).
This is accomplished using Bernoulli's Principle (venturi in the carb
throat)
and is affected most by the volume of air flow through the carburetor. The
system is, therefore, not very good at compensating for changes in air
density
(weight) caused by any factor, most noticeably, altitude.
The fuel jet (main jet as it's sometimes called) is calibrated to give the
correct rich mixture for the particular engine at full power, sea level, on
a
standard day. A variable valve in series between the float bowl and the
calibrated jet most usually accomplishes mixture control. (Although some
accomplish mixture control functions by varying the bowl vent pressure,
either
way, the result is the same).
Pressure Carburetor
Don't let it fool you. The name implies similarity to the aforementioned
carburetor but the similarity ends there (as anyone who has had to pay for
one
will tell you).
The pressure carburetor is a fairly complex unit that controls fuel/air
ratios
by sensing pressure differences in a venturi and ram air pressure in what's
called a bullet (for what it does to your pocket book if you have to replace
the
bellows inside).
The ram-air pressure is highly dependent on air density (weight) and is
therefore much better at altitude compensation than the carburetor. Mixture
is
controlled by manual adjustment of an internal air control valve that varies
fuel discharge pressure. This is essentially a single-point fuel injection
system [similar to the Throttle-Body Injection (TBI) system used in GM Astro
Vans, etc]
Continental Fuel Injection
in the naturally aspirated engines (except the 10 & G10-550) this system is
purely mechanical. It determines fuel/air ratios solely by reference to pump
RPM, throttle, and mixture valve position. It, therefore, has no way of
sensing
density altitude whatsoever.
Once the pilot sets up the engine for a particular air density (altitude),
minor
throttle and RPM adjustments will not require a mixture adjustment. Properly
adjusted and rigged, this system provides correct rich mixture for the
particular engine at full power and climb at sea level only.
Any operation at altitude requires the pilot to manually control the mixture
to
the optimum setting for the particular MAP and RPM. This is important; any
significant change in air density (generally altitude) requires a
corresponding
mixture adjustment by the pilot.
Turbocharged versions of the Continental Fuel Injection System use an
aneroid to
sense upper deck pressure and adjust fuel pressure, hence fuel now,
accordingly,
and therefore don't require the constant adjustment with air density
changes.
The GIO and I0-550 use a similar aneroid but sense ambient air (hence
altitude)
instead of upper deck pressure.
Bendix Fuel Injection
These systems are very similar, in operation and design, to the pressure
carburetor (including cost, ouch). Enhancements have been made, however,
that
make them more accurate and easier to operate.
This injection system, like the pressure carburetor, is a fairly complex
unit,
which controls fuel-air ratios by sensing pressure differences in a venturi
and
ram air pressure in the bullet.
Most of these systems, however, do not have the AMC (automatic mixture
control)
bellows in the bullet. This makes the unit somewhat sensitive to air density
(weight) changes, providing some altitude compensation. However, manual
mixture
control is still required by the pilot at altitude for optimum performance.
A few of the Bendix Servos do have the AMC bellows in the bullet (some
turbocharged engines) and compensate almost totally for the air density
changes
encountered from sea level to as high as 30,000 feet and sometimes higher.
Operation Block to Block
So how do these differences in systems affect the way you operate the
engine, in
particular the mixture? Let's go over four basic engine operation phases and
how
to operate each system in each phase.
The four operational phases covered will include; taxi & run-up, takeoff &
climb, cruise, and descent & landing. First, though, let's look at the basic
mixture requirements of each phase from an operational standpoint.
Taxi & Run-up
The main consideration on taxi and run-up mixture control is smooth
operation
and the prevention of spark plug fouling. A properly leaned engine can
easily
mean the difference between a good mag check and a bad one. Fouled plugs or
an
overly rich mixture will decrease power and cause bad mag checks. Ground
leaning
will help keep the plugs clean.
Takeoff and Climb
NOTE: All properly adjusted, supercharged and turbocharged engines are to be
at
full rich for takeoff. There are two major concerns in adjusting and
monitoring
the mixture in takeoff (full power operations) and climb mode. Power and
Exhaust
Gas Temperature (EGT) or Turbine Inlet Temperature (TIT).
Best Power mixture comes at about 125oF. Most general aviation engines have
the
capability to carry away the heat generated at Best Power mixtures up to
about
70-75 percent power. Above this power setting, very few, if any, of the
engines
and engine installations we operate can use this mixture setting because of
the
high levels of heat energy being passed through the engine.
This is especially true for takeoff and climb. The higher RPM and manifold
pressures increase the heat passing through the engine in a given time frame
(i.e. more combustion and exhaust scavenge events per second), putting more
heat
into the engine.
There are two ways to decrease this heat and cool things down. Reduce power
(fewer combustion-exhaust scavenge events) or cool the charge in the
combustion
and exhaust events. The idea of takeoff and climb is power, therefore, the
first
option is not so desirable.
By default, the other option becomes the method of choice-cooling the
combustion-exhaust event. This is done nowadays by enriching the mixture.
Some
of the "tried and true" will remember ADI systems (Anti Detonant
Injection-usually a mixture of water and alcohol) in some of the old round
engines and V-12s. ADI does the same thing as enriching the mixture.
At high or emergency power settings, ADI fluid was injected into the intake
air.
Some models of the R-2800 (e.g. F4-U and P-47D) could pull about 80 in. Hg
MAP
with the ADI system engaged and only about 55-60 in. Hg with it off. It got
them
an extra 300 to 400 horsepower when it was needed most.
Contrary to popular belief, actual EGT or TIT temperatures are important to
monitor, especially at takeoff and climb. Many an engine has annealed the
rings
because combustion temperatures got too hot. Rings are annealed (lose their
hardness) by prolonged and elevated temperatures.
As temperatures in an iron alloy (used in piston rings) increase, the time
to
anneal the alloy decreases. Therefore, the less time spent at elevated
temperatures, the better. In practical engine operating terms, keep CHT's
below
400oF and TIT's below 1425oF for this phase.
EGT temps will vary according to probe placement, but a good rule of thumb
in
climb settings is to set the mixture 200oF rich of the peak mixture
temperature
you would get at the 70 percent power setting. This will give good power but
adequate cooling for climb.
Those of you running intercooler systems on your turbocharged engine take
note:
If your fuel system does not fully compensate for changes in air density,
the
fuel system must be set up again after installation of the intercooler.
Fuel systems that do not sense air density from the intercooler will run the
mixture too lean in takeoff end climb (in the neighborhood of 1500oF or
higher)
and will anneal the rings in 50 to 100 hours (oil consumption starts to go
up
and compressions start to drop).
These systems must be set to give a full fuel flow at an equivalent full
power
MAP (generally 3-4 in. Hg below redline). This compensates for the higher
air
density brought by the intercooler. I have brought many a plane back to the
shop
to pull all six cylinders for this very reason.
Cruise
Best Power is used mainly in cruise when you want speed and is shown in
power
charts under the "Best Power" curve. There is also a "Best Economy" curve
that
is a leaner mixture used with the same power setting and gives slightly less
power than the "Best Power" setting (by experience, somewhere around 2-3
percent
lower fuel flow or 3 to 5 knot airspeed loss).
The name is as implied. It gives the best economy for the chosen power
setting
but also gives higher EGTs. "Best Economy" mixture settings generally are
not
given for power settings above 65 percent because of the potential for
preignition and detonation.
Safe EGT levels vary directly with the engine power setting. At low power
settings (65 percent and less) the mixture may be adjusted to give best
economy
because of the engine's ability to carry away the heat energy' at these
lower
settings.
At higher power settings, the mixture is adjusted to allow for extra fuel to
help cool the engine. This is because of the engine's inability to carry
away
the heat energy developed at lean mixtures with high power settings (70
percent
and higher).
This is also the reason most operating handbooks specify seemingly overly
rich
mixtures for climb and high cruise power settings, especially on the larger
engines.
Descent and Landing
Descent is similar to climb in that the mixture must be watched closely in
systems which don't compensate well for changes in air density (carburetors
and
naturally aspirated Continental Fuel Injection systems). The main problem
here
is the reverse of climb: mixture becoming too lean as air density increases
with
a decrease in altitude.
In descents to the pattern altitude from 10,000 to 12,000 feet, if the
mixture
is not increased, opening of the throttle at level-off can be accompanied by
spits and sputters and possibly an engine that quits from fuel starvation.
Good rule of thumb here: set the mixture to maintain the same EGT/TIT as
cruise
minus 50oF to the rich side in high power descents (65 percent or higher)
and
smooth engine running in low power descents (50-60 percent). If you don't
have
an EGT gauge, enrich the mixture to keep the engine smooth plus a little
extra,
as you enter the pattern or level off.
Most normal descents are accomplished at low power (50-60 percent) where
running
close to peak EGT (25oF) isn't a problem because of the lower temps. A
smooth
engine is a happy engine and temps are kept up to help stave off the "shock"
cooling gremlin.
Density compensating systems will do a much better job of mixture control in
descent but still need monitoring and an occasional adjustment. For landing,
the
mixture should be set for a position that will allow for full power
operation
for the particular system. This is to provide sufficient fuel for an
immediate
response if a go-around or evasive maneuver is needed.
Flight and Mixture Control
In [the next section], we'll go through these four flight phases for each
particular fuel system. Keep in mind the time delay (5-10 seconds) for an
EGT or
TIT system reading to stabilize wherever accurate mixture adjustments are
required. Also note that it is important to have your EGT or TIT gauge
calibrated regularly.
Have it checked at each annual if possible, and sooner if you fly more than
150
hours between inspections. This is especially important for turbocharged
engines
and naturally aspirated engines that fly regularly at altitudes below 5,000
feet
MSL.
Or those of you who have Lycoming engines, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get
a
copy of S.I. 1094D, fuel mixture leaning procedure, and look over the
procedures
for your particular engine. You'll find that this Instruction will vary
substantially from the POH or Airplane Flight Manual for larger,
high-horsepower
engines.
2. Mixture Control by Type
[In Part 1] we gave a general mixture operational overview. In parttwo of
this
effort, we will detail the power settings and leaning procedures for each
fuel
system type in various flight modes. Note that this was written by a very
experienced test pilot of GA aircraft, but mixture management is still an
area
of some debate.
Carburetors
Note: The following advice is for naturally aspirated engines only. All
turbocharged and turbo-normalized, carbureted engines must be at full rich
for
takeoff.
Taxi and Runup: Leaning during taxi is sometimes required to prevent plug
fouling and/or to provide smooth operation, especially at highaltitude
airports.
At altitude (3000 feet and higher), leaning is definitely required to get an
accurate mag check.
Rich mixtures can give mag drops of 200 RPM and of only 75 to 100 RPM when
leaned. To find the best mixture for mag checks, lean until the engine gets
rough then enrichen back to highest RPM. Readjust the throttle to the
mag-check
RPM and do your check.
Some carburetor systems provide some challenges to this simple procedure in
cold
weather. The most common example that comes to mind is the 0-470 in the C180
and
C182. This is a great engine/airframe combination but can get cantankerous
in
very cold weather.
The carburetor sits down away from the engine where it can't pick up much
heat.
Therefore, it will ice up a little easier and in very cold weather (low
teens
and subzero) has some problem getting the fuel to atomize once it is
distributed
into the induction airflow.
This can cause lean mixtures of sufficient magnitude to give really rotten
mag
drops; bad enough to fool some into thinking that the mag has just gone
south
with the geese. The best way to compensate for this malady is to pull the
carb
heat on, lean the mixture as previously described, adjust throttle to the
mag
check RPM and try again, all with carb heat "on."
The mag drop will be a little higher than normal (125-150 instead of
75-100),
but will be smooth if everything with the mags is okay. This is to be
expected
because of the hotter induction air (causing lower engine power) with carb
heat
in the "on" position. (Carb heat in for TO.)
Takeoff and Climb: Leaning for takeoff (non-turbo) is a very important
pre-takeoff item at high-altitude airports (higher than 3,000 feet).
Unfortunately this is a practice still not exercised by some. Proper leaning
at
takeoff will shorten takeoff rolls and increase climb rates.
At the high-altitude airports in the Rockies, for example, proper leaning
can
mean the difference between a successful takeoff or ending up in the trees
at
the end of the runway. Proper high-altitude leaning can shorten takeoff
rolls by
500 feet and increase climb rates by 200-300 feet per minute.
Leaning should be accomplished just before the takeoff roll. At full or near
full throttle, lean to peak RPM then enrichen only slightly (barely enough
to
see an RPM drop, no more than 25).
This will be best power for takeoff, plus just a little extra fuel for
cooling
(cooling isn't quite as much of a problem because of the lower temperatures
produced at the lower power found at higher altitudes). The same procedure
should be used for fixed-pitch or constant-speed props. If an EGT is used,
it
should be set for about 150oF rich of peak. At sea level, of course, go full
rich.
Climb is not much different. The idea here is to keep the mixture at best
power
plus about 50oF Mixture adjustment (re-leaning) is required about every
2,000
feet of altitude change for maximum performance and smooth operation above
5,000
feet density altitude.
As altitude increases, and engine power decreases to 65 percent or lower,
the
mixture can be leaned much closer to peak EGT (within 50oF). This will help
maintain power at the lower settings where best power mixture gets closer to
peak EGT.
Cruise: This is the easy part. Set cruise power and lean to 50-75oF rich of
peak
for settings of 65 percent or greater and 25-50oF rich of peak for settings
below 65 percent. This will give you the best mixture setting for longevity
of
your engine and good performance for cruise.
As always, if the engine gets rough before you reach peak EGT, enrichen the
mixture until the engine gets smooth again and then enrichen a little more.
This
is also the procedure to follow if you don't have an EGT gauge. This will
put
you slightly on the rich side of peak EGT.
If your engine is turbocharged (TR182, for example) run 75oF rich of peak
TIT at
65 percent power or greater, and 50oF rich of peak below 65 percent.
Anything
above 75 percent power, should be at least 200oF rich of peak or full rich,
and
no hotter than 1500 F, whichever comes first.
Running at peak EGT anywhere above 55 percent power is not recommended
because
of uneven fuel distribution and this high temperature operating zone has the
smallest margin for mixture errors.
Again, some engines can be very difficult in subzero (Fahrenheit) weather.
You
may have to fly your 0-470 with the carb heat on just to get the mixture to
atomize and the engine to run smooth. This is where a Carb Air Temp gauge
comes
in real handy.
Descent and Landing: Since the carburetor is rotten at air density sensing,
the
mixture will need to be enriched every 2,000 feet or so during the descent.
If
you have an EGT gauge, you can enrichen the EGT 50oF lower than cruise and
maintain this EGT all the way to the pattern.
Once you level Off, enrichen the mixture to the approximate position (by
your
own experience) that you would need if you were taking off at the same
airport.
>From here on out, the mixture can stay where it is until shutdown.
Pressure Carburetors
Taxi and runup isn't much different than normal carbureted engines. Lean for
smooth running to prevent plug fouling and follow the same runup procedures.
At
mag-check RPM, lean the mixture until the engine gets rough or loses RPM,
whichever comes first, then enrichen back to highest RPM. Readjust the
throttle
to the mag-check RPM and do your check.
Takeoff and Climb: For all high-power operations (75 percent power or
greater)
below 5,000 feet density altitude, the mixture control should be full rich.
All
takeoffs (except density altitudes of about 8,000 feet or higher) should
also be
full rich.
The pressure carb is pretty good at sensing actual air density and adjusting
mixture accordingly for fulland high-power. For climbing at higher density
altitudes where power is limited to below 75 percent, the mixture can be
leaned.
For long cylinder/piston/ring life, keep EGTs at 1425oF or lower, preferably
around 1350oF and do not exceed 400oF cylinder head temp.
Cruise: Setup cruise mixture to no less than 50oF rich of peak at power
settings
of 65-70 percent and 75 to 100oF rich at 70-75 percent power. If you don't
have
an EGT, run book settings plus one-half to one gallon per hour more to
extend
cylinder life. In all cases hold CHTs no more than 400oF.
At power settings of 50-65 percent some manufacturers will allow you to run
at
peak EGT. This may be okay for 50-55 percent, but it will prove easier on
your
engine (and pocket book) to run, at minimum, 50oF rich of peak at 60-65
percent.
For supercharged or turbocharged engines add 25oF to the above EGT/TIT
figures
at minimum.
Descent: For descent, subtract 50oF from the cruise EGT-TIT by enriching the
mixture. The AMC bellows should keep the air-fuel ratio pretty stable
throughout
the entire descent.
Some slight adjustment may be required occasionally, but a healthy pressure
carb
will compensate for air density changes, hence altitude, marvelously. Before
applying power at level off, or once in the pattern, enrich the mixture to
the
setting needed for full power at that density altitude.
Some leaning may be required for taxi at high density altitude airports.
Lean as
you would for taxi before takeoff unless extra cooling before shutdown is
required.
Continental Fuel Injection
Taxi and runup will be almost exactly the same as carbureted engines due to
this
system's lack of air density sensing capability. Lean for smooth running
during
taxi and lean the same as the carburetors for runupset mag-check RPM, lean
until
the engine looses RPM, then enrichen back to highest RPM. Readjust the
throttle
to the mag check RPM and do your check.
During this procedure the engine should lose RPM before it gets rough. If it
doesn't this is usually an indication that the system needs a little
attention
(dirty nozzles or injector line obstructions). This is true of injected
engines
in any flight phase.
If it's really noticeable (like a low frequency rumble or panel vibration
that
comes and goes), it would be a good idea to get it checked out before you go
any
further. Obstructions in a line or nozzle can destroy a cylinder in less
than an
hour and may even cause complete piston failure in the takeoff or climb
phase.
Takeoff and Climb: Naturally aspirated engines, as stated in the
description,
have no air density sensing mechanism (exceptions are the 10 and GIO-550,
addressed later). For takeoffs from sea level to 3,000 feet density
altitude,
use full rich mixture. For takeoff at density altitudes of 4,000 feet or
higher,
adhere to the altitude fuel flow settings on the face of the fuel flow
gauge. If
its not marked, consult the POH.
Be sure to use density altitude. Using only pressure altitude will give
inaccurate air-fuel ratios on all but standard temperature days. If for some
reason your flow gauge or POH doesn't give these figures (some old
installations
don't) lean as follows: Just before takeoff, at full or near full throttle,
lean
to peak RPM then enrichen 2-1/2 to 3 gallons per hour (if your gauge is
calibrated only in psi, enrichen two psi).
If you have an EGT, enrich 150oF rich of peak. If your en- gine reaches
red-line
(constant-speed prop) before you get to full throttle, pull the throttle
back to
100 RPM below red-line and follow the above procedure. This will give you
best
power for takeoff and climb for the first one or two thousand feet.
For best climb performance, the mixture will need to be monitored and
adjusted
every 1,000 feet. If you have an EGT gauge, keep the EGT at the same
temperature
it was on take-off. This will give you good perfor- mance and an economical
climb up to about 10,000 feet. At this point re- check peak and adjust for
about
50oF rich of peak for 10,000 feet and higher.
The I0- and GIO-550 series engines have a bellows similar to the aneroid
bellows
on the turbocharged fuel pumps that compensate for changes in air pressure.
If
set up properly, these 550 systems do a pretty good job of mixture control
and
are left at the full-rich position for takeoff and climb until well above
12-13,000 feet.
EGTs on these engines generally run in the low 1400s for takeoff and climb
and,
therefore, don't need leaning even on fairly hot days. The little extra fuel
pumped in this case will be needed to help cool the en- gine anyway.
The turbocharged Continental fuel system is flown like all other turbo-
charged-supercharged systems, with one exception. Set full rich for take-
off,
but for climb, the engine may be leaned to the climb settings on the fuel
flow
gauge face.
For top-end longevity, however, keep climb TITs at or under 1400 degrees F
This
may give you a fuel flow setting of one to one and a half gallons per hour
higher than book but will pay off in the long run.
Cruise: Cruise is not much differ- ent for any naturally aspirated, fuel
injected engine or pressure carburetor equipped engine but it is worth
repeating
here. Set up cruise mixture to no less than 50oF rich of peak at power
settings
of 65-70 percent and 75 to 100oF rich at 70-75 percent power.
If you don't have an EGT, run book settings plus one-half to one gallon per
hour
more to extend cylinder life. In all cases, hold CHTs to no more than 400oF.
At
power settings of 50-65 percent some manufacturers will allow you to run at
peak
EGT. This may be OK for 50-55 percent, but it will prove easier on your
engine
Land pocKet book) to run 50oF rich of peak at 60-65 percent.
For turbocharged engines add 25oF to the above EGT-TIT figures. The 10-550
series is again an exception here. The book allows the engine to be run lean
of
peak at low power settings. The fuel system is designed for the very
accurate
fuel distribution required for this type of operation, but must be
maintained
well to keep the engine healthy.
Remember, with the standard Continental fuel injection system on naturally
aspirated engines, any altitude change will require a corresponding mixture
adjustment. The Continental engine in the early Piper Malibu (TSIO-520-BE)
is an
exception to all of the above. This engine is run either full rich or lean
of
peak, no in between. Run it by the POH.
Descent and Landing: For descent, enrichen the mixture about 50 F and
maintain
the same EGT while descending. Remember, the metering assembly is leaning
the
mixture when you pull back the throttle to maintain the same manifold
pressure,
so you will need a corresponding mixture adjustment to keep the EGT the
same.
Upon pattern entry, the mixture should be enriched to the approximate
position
for a full power setting at that air density (pressure altitude and
temperature), in case full power is needed.
Bendix Fuel Injection
Taxi and Runup: A number of engines with this fuel system like to foul plugs
while taxiing. At the lower RPMs, a fuel valve attached to the throttle
valve
system sets the fuel-air ratio.
The fuel servo does not sense air density or flow until the engine gets to
about
1,700-2,000 RPM. This necessitates manual leaning until approximately 2,000
RPM
at which point the throttle valve rotates fully open and allows the servo to
regulate the fuel-air ratio.
Leaning the mixture to peak RPM during taxi and runup will keep the plugs
clean
and give accurate mag checks at runup.
Takeoff and Climb: This system compensates pretty well for changes in air
density, especially the models with the AMC (Automatic Mixture Control)
(almost
exactly the same as the pressure carb).
Most Bendix systems on naturally aspirated engines, however, have no AMC,
[just
a simple, pitot-like sensor] to sense ram air pressure in the induction.
This
still gives an accurate enough reference for determining air density and
does a
pretty good job of controlling air-fuel ratios. Still, some minor mixture
adjustments must still be made for altitude operations (4,000 feet and
higher).
Just before [entering] the runway, or just before the takeoff roll, run up
to
full or near full power and lean to peak EGT or until the RPM drops
slightly.
Enrichen the mixture 200oF (if you have an EGT) or one and one-half GPH for
four-cylinder engines and two to three GPH for sixcylinder engines. This
setting
will give best power and cooling combination for takeoff and climb.
During climb, the servo will compensate fairly well for air density changes.
A
minor mixture adjustment every 2,000 to 3,000 feet will be needed to keep
the
EGT at the same temperature until cruise altitude is reached.
Again, cruise is not much different for any naturally aspirated, fuel
injected
or pressure carb equipped engine. Set up cruise mixture as described
previously
in this article.
When changing altitudes during cruise with this system, no mixture
adjustments
should need to be made unless the change is more than about 2,000 feet.
Descent and Landing: This is also the same as other injected engines except
mixture adjustments during descent are not as frequent as with the
Continental
system. Enrichen the mixture 50 F just before descent and adjust to keep it
the
same until level off.
Throttle adjustments for descents will need to be made only about every
2,000
feet. If you don't have an EGT installed, enrichen one gallon per hour for
four
cylinder engines or one and one half GPH for six cylinders and maintain the
same
MAP and fuel flow for descent.
Once in the pattern, adjust the mixture to the approximate position for a
full
power setting at that air density (pressure altitude and temperature) in
case
full power is needed. Lean for taxi if at high altitude.
Lean of Peak Operation
Most pilot operational handbooks do not address LOP operation. Lycoming '
particularly, does not like it-although they authorize operating at peak EGT
in
many engines at a limited power level.
Continental is less against it, since they designed the 10-550BE used in the
original Malibus to operate this way, and have comments on LOP operation in
some
of their fuel injected engine handbooks.
Most carbureted engines will not operate very well LOP if at all due to less
than optimum fuel flows to the individual cylinders.
That said, LOP is a viable option for fuel injected engines-even turbos with
the
proper engine monito~ing instrumentation (engine monitors) and proper pilot
technique. When done properly, LOP can extend engine life with cooler
operating
temps compared to running at high power rich of peak. But again, proper
operational training is key.
One source of such training is offered by Advanced Pilot Seminars,
www.advancedpilot.com <http://www.advancedpilot.com/> . Ph 888359-4264 (this
is the phone number for GAMI, in
Ada, Oklahoma who hosts the seminars).
POH Discrepancies
A note about the differences between this article and what you will see in
most
POHs. The fuel flows given in the above advice, as most of you have probably
noticed, are a bit richer (higher) than the POH numbers.
The manufacturers, in an effort to give us better performing aircraft, have
usually used numbers that allow for the most performance and/ or the
greatest
range for a given flight profile (see illustration below). However, these
numbers often do not lend themselves to long engine life.
There is unfortunately a battle between the marketing department and the
engineering department in a given aircraft manufacturer, and the marketing
people usually prevail. Don't believe for a minute that the numbers listed
by
the competition don't significantly influence what ends up in the POH.
Some of the numbers may well be actually obtained by a test pilot in a
perfect
airplane with a perfect engine. Then all the other parameters are
extrapolated
mathematically.
If you look at the engine maker's fuel flow, and other important engine
operational numbers (as opposed to the airplane manufacturer) in their
performance charts you are more likely to see fuel flow numbers
significantly
higher for a given percent of power. Excess fuel in aircraft engines plays a
significant role in cooling the cylinders at high power settings.
There is a high engine longevity price for marginally higher cruise speeds
and
climb rates. Remembering who pays that price will help you get the life you
want
from your engine, if you fly (not fry) with care.
Reprinted courtesy of LIGHT PLANE MAINTENANCE * APRIL/MAY 2004
To subscribe to LIGHT PLANE MAINTENANCE magazine, send an email to
lightplane[at]palmcoastd.com (replace "[at]" with "@" when ready to mail in
order to reduce spam on the airways)
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137185#137185
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WINGFLYER1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Milt thanks for the info. It is leaking from the bottom of the carb. I
think it is the carb over flow port. For example, when you prime the carb too
much you see the fuel drip from the carb. The left carb is fine. Thanks Gil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
OH NO!! You said the "S" word!!? ;_)? jb
"Sump-Gate"
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Bow <bowing74(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 5:05 pm
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
This is great!
It hasn't "hit the fan" like this since the "Sump-Gate" days of '01.
bilbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
> HI MILT. I am not picking on you, but need to make one other correction.
Not to worry JB I have a thick skin especially when my espousings are based
on science and data.
This is quite an important topic for any bathtub commander owner and neededs
to be thoroughly discussed.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137190#137190
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew J. Hawkins" <hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Wow! I had no idea my pressure carburetor question would spur this kind of discussion!
It's a good one though - quite important is seems.
N2760B is a very basic machine. CHT only on one cylinder for each engine - nothing
else. No EGT. No fuel transfer system. Sounds to me like best approach is
to run with mixtures "full rich" and let the pressure carb do it's job. Leave
mixtures "the stink" alone.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:05 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
-->
This is great!
It hasn't "hit the fan" like this since the "Sump-Gate" days of '01. bilbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
> HI MILT. I am not picking on you, but need to make one other
> correction.
Not to worry JB I have a thick skin especially when my espousings are based on
science and data.
This is quite an important topic for any bathtub commander owner and neededs to
be thoroughly discussed.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137190#137190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew J. Hawkins" <hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Jb-
Thanks for this! Perfect description of what we're seeing.
Left engine (with properly re-built carb) does exactly as you say - rapid c
hange in engine operation as you get close to idle/cut-off. Right engine
seemed to lean somewhat like a "regular" engine. I'll double-check that th
is week. Right engine is the one that always seemed to run rich and foul p
lugs too.
We'll have a look at this when we can. Glad to hear that when "auto lean"
is not working properly the fallback in the design is to lean manually. Ma
kes good sense. In the short term, sounds like we just need to be aware of
whether or not the auto lean is running properly or not.
Good news is that all exhaust pipes are a nice ash grey - no black soot/res
idue. Perhaps engines are still bedding in?
What's your thought on the wire-type plugs?
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
HI TYLOR
You can generally tell if the autolean is operating by engine performance.
If the carb fails, it is designed to fail safe and run super rich. You ca
n then manually lean it until it can be repaired. On the Commander, look f
or the cyl temps to run the same on both engines, at climb and cruse. To c
heck normal operation, set cruse power and slowly lean the carbs manually (
one at a time thank you) The levers should travel about 1/2 way with littl
e or no change in engine operation. When the change comes, it should be ve
ry quick. It should go from running fine to idle cut-off in a very little
travel. Last, check the color of the exhaust pipes. They should be a nice
ash gray. jb
I do have a questions. Matthew's problem, how do you know the auto lean is
working?
How do you check it? It sounds like the rebuilt side is working and the old
er one may not?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Matt,
That may very well be the best answer for you and your airplane.
However, may I point out that even fifty years ago there were some who did
learn how to operate those engines safely and efficiently by judicious use of
the mixture control.
May I first ask just what style of Pressure Carburetor your engine has?
Does it have an AMC unit?
There seems to be a lot of mention about pressure carburetors implying that
all pressure carburetors have Automatic Mixture Controls installed.
That is definitely NOT true.
As was mentioned by Milt, the PS5c is not one that will provide any altitude
compensation at all, yet it is probably the most commonly used pressure
carburetor in the GA fleet.
The designers of the fuel controls had to be people who fully understood the
vagaries of engine operation.
They knew the difficulties present in trying to get even distributor of fuel
and air to each and every cylinder as well as the necessity for each
cylinder to be manufactured to close enough tolerances so that the compression
of
each cylinder was as close as possible to being identical and so that the
breathing efficiencies of the intake systems were identical.
They then designed a fuel delivery system that would work adequately for
engines that were at the edges of acceptability when evaluated for cylinder to
cylinder consistencies.
Have you ever heard a reference to the "Shaky Jakes", when one is discussing
Jacobs Aircraft Engines?
The reason they were described as shaky was because the early Jakes had a
very simple fuel delivery system that caused the lower cylinders to get a LOT
more fuel than the upper ones. Most of the later development of the Jacobs
engines were directed toward improving that mixture distribution.
Later, more modern, round engines used many schemes to provide better
distribution. It was thought by all, that it would be best if the pilot did not
have to operate any controls that would affect that mixture.
The development of the pressure injection carburetor with an AMC unit was an
effort toward simplifying the operation for the pilots of the day. It was
never completely successful. The best units that were ever made were those
that were fitted to the latest P&W R-2800s and the Curtiss Wright R-3350s which
were the engines that powered the last of the piston airline fleet.
When those engines were used in four engine long range airplanes, they
almost always had flight engineers assigned to operating the engines so that
adequate and proper leaning procedures could be used. For short haul airplanes,
the pilots normally just used the Auto Lean and Auto Rich functions. On those
rare occasions when range or endurance became an important consideration, even
we lowly aviators would do a bit of manual leaning.
What point am I trying to make?
You can do manual leaning of your aircraft even if you don't have the modern
equipment, but it takes a much greater understanding of the potential
vagaries of the combustion process than is generally made available to we aviators
in our basic training.
JB mentioned monitoring the tail pipes to ascertain whether or not the
mixtures being provided by your fuel delivery unit are adequate.
That was, and still is, certainly one of the clues, but there are many
others.
Attendance at a good engine course such as is provided by The Advanced
Pilot's Seminar folks will provide the basics, but they start off by saying there
is no reason to try to learn the basics if the airplane is not equipped with
modern monitoring devices.
Having been an active aviator during the days when such stuff was not
available, I do have a few techniques which I can use to make a decision as to
whether or not it will be practical to operate at any setting other than full
rich.
Let's forget about what you are flying now, and consider whatever airplane
you used when you were a student pilot. Let's say it was a Piper Cherokee 140.
Once you were set up in cruise, you may have been taught to lean the engine
until it got rough, then richen until the operations smoothed. You were
probably also told not to lean at all below some pre selected altitude.
That method has good science behind it!
Before you can decide how much fuel is needed for the total engine, you must
determine how even the mixture is from cylinder to cylinder.
A very easy way to check on that when flying that Cherokee was to monitor
the RPM while leaning. If the engine got rough before any RPM drop was noted,
the mixture distribution was atrocious.
If you were able to get a fifty to sixty RPM drop before any roughness
occurred, the mixture distribution was reasonable.
As an aside, that DID NOT mean you should operate it with the fifty RPM
drop, that was merely a way to check for good distribution.
Cessna formerly recommended that the 170 with a fixed pitch propellor be
leaned until it encountered a two MPH drop in airspeed. That was a good method
of finding a point just barely on the lean side of best power and it would
probably have given an EGT reading of about fifty rich of peak had we had EGT
gauges back then. For any GA engine being operated at 65 per cent power or less,
there is nothing you can do with the mixture control that will hurt the
engine, so Cessna's method worked well and was very simple.
Back to the Cherokee!
If the engine kept operating smoothly all the way until all four cylinders
quit running, the mixture distribution was perfect.
With a constant speed propellor, the same sort of test can be performed by
watching the airspeed. Obviously, the air must be smooth and the pilot capable
of holding altitude and attitude very closely while performing the check, but
it did, and still does, work quite well.
If the distribution is good, you should be able to perceive an increase in
power by noting the increase in airspeed as the engine is leaned. Peak airspeed
will occur when the engine is developing peak power. That is, it will be
getting as much power as is possible from the fuel and air being delivered to
the engine.
For what it is worth, most small normally aspirated piston engine get their
peak power when the mixture is at a point corresponding to an EGT temperature
that is approximately eighty degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the peak EGT
number and on the rich side thereof.
Reason would tell us that the engine will run at it's hottest when the most
power is being developed, but tests have shown that to not be true. The CHTs
will be hottest when the engine is operated with an EGT set to somewhere
around fifty degrees rich of the Peak EGT temperature.
If we do not have an engine monitor, we cannot tell precisely where the
temperature is being set, but we can evaluate the performance of the airplane.
If we lean the engine so that the airplane is going just as fast as it will
go with the RPM and manifold pressure being used, the engine will be at the
best power mixture setting and it will be just a wee bit richer than the point
where the CHTs will be the hottest!
This is certainly NOT meant as a primer on how to lean your engine.
I just wanted to point out that there is no easy cake recipe style of
approach. If you wish to rely on the efficacy of the installed fuel control, that
is great, but you should understand the process well enough so that you can
determine whether or not your system is working as it was designed to work.
That part of the equation is very difficult if you DO NOT have modern engine
monitoring equipment. The potential for finding a mechanic with a proper
flow bench and all the skill and knowledge to use it well is very slim.
It has been ten to fifteen years since I last priced a rebuild on one of
those fancy fully automatic carburetors for an Aero Commander, but I was quoted
a price of fifteen thousand dollars per carburetor. The owner elected to
donate the aircraft to a mechanics school as it was not economically viable to
overhaul those units.
I have no idea whether or not any alternative carburetors were available for
that airplane, but installing a simple PS5c and modern monitoring equipment
would have been a lot cheaper alternative. The rub would be whether or not
it was FAA approved!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 6:24:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu writes:
N2760B is a very basic machine. CHT only on one cylinder for each engine -
nothing else. No EGT. No fuel transfer system. Sounds to me like best
approach is to run with mixtures "full rich" and let the pressure carb do it's
job. Leave mixtures "the stink" alone.
Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Hey Chris! How you doin??? Dave Owens here with Aerial Viewpoint... Haven't
heard from you since your visit here at Hooks a few years back... Did
Dreamcatcher get sold or scrapped??? I heard stories. Looking forward to
hearing from you.
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew J. Hawkins" <hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob-
That's definitely something I've gleaned from this discussion. All pressur
e carbs are NOT created equal. I'll check on exactly what I have and let y
ou know.
Milt's view seems sound - if it can be leaned - you should do it. No sense
in wasting fuel/$$ However, seems like I don't have the engine monitorin
g systems to do it accurately or efficiently.
Next time we're up on a smooth day we'll try the airspeed method you sugges
t below.
Your description of manual leaning is exactly what I learned as a student p
ilot - and still use on a plane with no EGT. In fact, it's what my pilot w
ho flies the Commander was trying to do on the ground when engines were (ap
parently) running too rich. Sounds like we need to do it differently with
the constant speed prop.
Everything ran GREAT on our flight last week - think Summit got the final a
djustments right. Good mag checks, not rough running, nice grey ash in the
tubes (no black soot). Only question is whether or not the auto lean is w
orking on the right engine - and exactly what carbs we have (i.e. should it
have auto lean?).
The shop that did the final "tweak" on the left carb (and got it right) cha
rged us $795. Guess we did OK!
Milt sent me Chris Schuermanns PDF file that listed the other two recommend
ed shop in case we need for the right engine. We'll see.
I'm also going to check to see if we have the black gaskets or the newer or
ange.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Matt,
May I first ask just what style of Pressure Carburetor your engine has?
Does it have an AMC unit?
There seems to be a lot of mention about pressure carburetors implying that
all pressure carburetors have Automatic Mixture Controls installed.
That is definitely NOT true.
>
>
Let's forget about what you are flying now, and consider whatever airplane
you used when you were a student pilot. Let's say it was a Piper Cherokee 1
40. Once you were set up in cruise, you may have been taught to lean the en
gine until it got rough, then richen until the operations smoothed. You wer
e probably also told not to lean at all below some pre selected altitude.
That method has good science behind it!
>
>
With a constant speed propellor, the same sort of test can be performed by
watching the airspeed. Obviously, the air must be smooth and the pilot capa
ble of holding altitude and attitude very closely while performing the chec
k, but it did, and still does, work quite well.
If the distribution is good, you should be able to perceive an increase in
power by noting the increase in airspeed as the engine is leaned. Peak airs
peed will occur when the engine is developing peak power. That is, it will
be getting as much power as is possible from the fuel and air being deliver
ed to the engine.
>
>
I just wanted to point out that there is no easy cake recipe style of appr
oach. If you wish to rely on the efficacy of the installed fuel control, th
at is great, but you should understand the process well enough so that you
can determine whether or not your system is working as it was designed to w
ork.
>
>
It has been ten to fifteen years since I last priced a rebuild on one of th
ose fancy fully automatic carburetors for an Aero Commander, but I was quot
ed a price of fifteen thousand dollars per carburetor. The owner elected to
donate the aircraft to a mechanics school as it was not economically viabl
e to overhaul those units.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Matt,
Sounds great!
Learning and sharing knowledge is what it is all about.
You may well have a pressure carburetor that is not easy to manually lean.
After all, that WAS the goal of the folks who designed it.
In any case, I urge you to read and study the data that is readily
available. A good start is to read John Deakin's articles on general engine
management.
I doubt if you will find very many folks who have current experience with
the fuel controllers on your airplane.
It is obvious that JB does have current information because he is so
insistent that your particular unit should only be leaned in an emergency.
I have no gripe with that philosophy, but I do think it is important that an
operator of such a unit be very knowledgeable as to just what it is supposed
to be doing.
I strongly recommend that you do instrument the engine so that you will be
able to ascertain whether or not the automatic controls are doing what they
were designed to do!
I believe checking it using the airspeed method is quite a bit beyond what
you should be doing with your current level of experience and lack of on board
monitoring equipment.. Those are highly stressed and sophisticated engines.
Treat them gently!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 11:50:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu writes:
That's definitely something I've gleaned from this discussion. All pressure
carbs are NOT created equal. I'll check on exactly what I have and let you
know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew J. Hawkins" <hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good advise! Burning a bit of extra fuel won't hurt me too badly in the sh
ort term.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
I believe checking it using the airspeed method is quite a bit beyond what
you should be doing with your current level of experience and lack of on bo
ard monitoring equipment.. Those are highly stressed and sophisticated engi
nes.
Treat them gently!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob;
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound
engines, but its been a long time.
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I
recall being told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25%
of their fuel for cooling. At what point in leaning do we get to where
we save fuel, but shorten the engine life? And where is the crossover
point.
Thanks, Don
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Matt,
That may very well be the best answer for you and your airplane.
However, may I point out that even fifty years ago there were some who
did learn how to operate those engines safely and efficiently by
judicious use of the mixture control.
May I first ask just what style of Pressure Carburetor your engine
has?
Does it have an AMC unit?
There seems to be a lot of mention about pressure carburetors implying
that all pressure carburetors have Automatic Mixture Controls installed.
That is definitely NOT true.
As was mentioned by Milt, the PS5c is not one that will provide any
altitude compensation at all, yet it is probably the most commonly used
pressure carburetor in the GA fleet.
The designers of the fuel controls had to be people who fully
understood the vagaries of engine operation.
They knew the difficulties present in trying to get even distributor
of fuel and air to each and every cylinder as well as the necessity for
each cylinder to be manufactured to close enough tolerances so that the
compression of each cylinder was as close as possible to being identical
and so that the breathing efficiencies of the intake systems were
identical.
They then designed a fuel delivery system that would work adequately
for engines that were at the edges of acceptability when evaluated for
cylinder to cylinder consistencies.
Have you ever heard a reference to the "Shaky Jakes", when one is
discussing Jacobs Aircraft Engines?
The reason they were described as shaky was because the early Jakes
had a very simple fuel delivery system that caused the lower cylinders
to get a LOT more fuel than the upper ones. Most of the later
development of the Jacobs engines were directed toward improving that
mixture distribution.
Later, more modern, round engines used many schemes to provide better
distribution. It was thought by all, that it would be best if the pilot
did not have to operate any controls that would affect that mixture.
The development of the pressure injection carburetor with an AMC unit
was an effort toward simplifying the operation for the pilots of the
day. It was never completely successful. The best units that were ever
made were those that were fitted to the latest P&W R-2800s and the
Curtiss Wright R-3350s which were the engines that powered the last of
the piston airline fleet.
When those engines were used in four engine long range airplanes, they
almost always had flight engineers assigned to operating the engines so
that adequate and proper leaning procedures could be used. For short
haul airplanes, the pilots normally just used the Auto Lean and Auto
Rich functions. On those rare occasions when range or endurance became
an important consideration, even we lowly aviators would do a bit of
manual leaning.
What point am I trying to make?
You can do manual leaning of your aircraft even if you don't have the
modern equipment, but it takes a much greater understanding of the
potential vagaries of the combustion process than is generally made
available to we aviators in our basic training.
JB mentioned monitoring the tail pipes to ascertain whether or not the
mixtures being provided by your fuel delivery unit are adequate.
That was, and still is, certainly one of the clues, but there are many
others.
Attendance at a good engine course such as is provided by The Advanced
Pilot's Seminar folks will provide the basics, but they start off by
saying there is no reason to try to learn the basics if the airplane is
not equipped with modern monitoring devices.
Having been an active aviator during the days when such stuff was not
available, I do have a few techniques which I can use to make a decision
as to whether or not it will be practical to operate at any setting
other than full rich.
Let's forget about what you are flying now, and consider whatever
airplane you used when you were a student pilot. Let's say it was a
Piper Cherokee 140. Once you were set up in cruise, you may have been
taught to lean the engine until it got rough, then richen until the
operations smoothed. You were probably also told not to lean at all
below some pre selected altitude.
That method has good science behind it!
Before you can decide how much fuel is needed for the total engine,
you must determine how even the mixture is from cylinder to cylinder.
A very easy way to check on that when flying that Cherokee was to
monitor the RPM while leaning. If the engine got rough before any RPM
drop was noted, the mixture distribution was atrocious.
If you were able to get a fifty to sixty RPM drop before any roughness
occurred, the mixture distribution was reasonable.
As an aside, that DID NOT mean you should operate it with the fifty
RPM drop, that was merely a way to check for good distribution.
Cessna formerly recommended that the 170 with a fixed pitch propellor
be leaned until it encountered a two MPH drop in airspeed. That was a
good method of finding a point just barely on the lean side of best
power and it would probably have given an EGT reading of about fifty
rich of peak had we had EGT gauges back then. For any GA engine being
operated at 65 per cent power or less, there is nothing you can do with
the mixture control that will hurt the engine, so Cessna's method worked
well and was very simple.
Back to the Cherokee!
If the engine kept operating smoothly all the way until all four
cylinders quit running, the mixture distribution was perfect.
With a constant speed propellor, the same sort of test can be
performed by watching the airspeed. Obviously, the air must be smooth
and the pilot capable of holding altitude and attitude very closely
while performing the check, but it did, and still does, work quite well.
If the distribution is good, you should be able to perceive an
increase in power by noting the increase in airspeed as the engine is
leaned. Peak airspeed will occur when the engine is developing peak
power. That is, it will be getting as much power as is possible from the
fuel and air being delivered to the engine.
For what it is worth, most small normally aspirated piston engine get
their peak power when the mixture is at a point corresponding to an EGT
temperature that is approximately eighty degrees Fahrenheit cooler than
the peak EGT number and on the rich side thereof.
Reason would tell us that the engine will run at it's hottest when the
most power is being developed, but tests have shown that to not be true.
The CHTs will be hottest when the engine is operated with an EGT set to
somewhere around fifty degrees rich of the Peak EGT temperature.
If we do not have an engine monitor, we cannot tell precisely where
the temperature is being set, but we can evaluate the performance of the
airplane.
If we lean the engine so that the airplane is going just as fast as it
will go with the RPM and manifold pressure being used, the engine will
be at the best power mixture setting and it will be just a wee bit
richer than the point where the CHTs will be the hottest!
This is certainly NOT meant as a primer on how to lean your engine.
I just wanted to point out that there is no easy cake recipe style of
approach. If you wish to rely on the efficacy of the installed fuel
control, that is great, but you should understand the process well
enough so that you can determine whether or not your system is working
as it was designed to work.
That part of the equation is very difficult if you DO NOT have modern
engine monitoring equipment. The potential for finding a mechanic with a
proper flow bench and all the skill and knowledge to use it well is very
slim.
It has been ten to fifteen years since I last priced a rebuild on one
of those fancy fully automatic carburetors for an Aero Commander, but I
was quoted a price of fifteen thousand dollars per carburetor. The owner
elected to donate the aircraft to a mechanics school as it was not
economically viable to overhaul those units.
I have no idea whether or not any alternative carburetors were
available for that airplane, but installing a simple PS5c and modern
monitoring equipment would have been a lot cheaper alternative. The rub
would be whether or not it was FAA approved!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 6:24:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
hawkins(at)cms.udel.edu writes:
N2760B is a very basic machine. CHT only on one cylinder for each
engine - nothing else. No EGT. No fuel transfer system. Sounds to me
like best approach is to run with mixtures "full rich" and let the
pressure carb do it's job. Leave mixtures "the stink" alone.
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/1/2007 6:59 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Evening Don,
I have never heard that particular number and I believe we would have to
better define the terms before we could either disagree or agree with that 25%
assertion.
As to where does leaning cause additional wear, that is another tough one.
Running any engine too lean at high powers will cause big troubles. However
running one leaner than optimum at low powers will not hurt it all, but it
will burn more fuel per horsepower developed than is possible when the engine
is run so as to attain optimum BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption).
I do not know the number used by your airline to lean the Turbo Compound
R-3350, but most users utilized a ten percent BMEP drop from the peak BMEP.
The procedure used by my airline was as follows. We would first chose a
desired BMEP number from the power charts. Just for kicks, let's say that the
desired cruise BMEP was 254. We would start out with the mixture in Auto Rich.
The mixture would be slowly leaned until the BMEP started to rise. When it went
above 254, we would throttle back until it was at 254, then continue to lean
until it was steady at 254 and where any further leaning would take the BMEP
reading below 254. That procedure determined the peak BMEP (Peak power) for
the manifold pressure being used. At that time, we would continue leaning
the engine until the BMEP was reading 254 minus 24.5 or approximately 228 BMEP.
Once that spot ten percent leaner than peak power was found, the throttle
was used to add manifold pressure so as to bring the BMEP back to the desired
cruise power. We then checked the manifold pressure to be sure we were still
below the maximum allowed manifold pressure for the desired cruise power.
Sound familiar?
If we leaned the engine further, it would just lose power, but no harm was
done. However, if we richened it up a bit, the engine would overheat and it may
even go into mild detonation. It needed to be well lean of peak power to
cool properly.
I don't know if you recall, but there is a shaft on the rear of the engine
which connects the two fuel injection controllers together. One unit is for the
front row and the other feeds the rear. That shaft would occasionally slip.
When that happened, one row would be running substantially leaner than the
other. The one that was getting more fuel would be carrying more of the load
that was being developed by the engine. That row would burn the valves and
sometimes even have holes burned in the pistons while the row which was not
getting enough fuel would be running clean and comfortable.
The place where any engine is most likely to develop engine problems are
when the mixture is at that point where the peak BMEP or peak engine power is
being developed. If the engine is run at that same power with a richer than
needed fuel mixture, the extra fuel will slow down the rate of burn and move the
point of peak combustion pressure to a point where the engine is able to
operate relatively cool.
That function is what is normally referred to as cooling the engine with
fuel and it is how we kept our cool during takeoff and climb regimes!
Another way to cool the engine is to cool it with additional combustion air.
That is what happens when the engine is run well lean of best power. (Note
that I said best power, not Peak EGT. They do NOT occur at the same point) When
we leaned that nice big R-3350 ten percent lean of best power, we were
running at a mixture that was well lean of the best power point and the engine
was
being cooled by that surplus combustion air.
Normal cruise power for the 3350 was around 55 to 60 percent of rated power.
We were really running it quite conservatively. If we richened it without
reducing the manifold pressure, we defeated the air cooling effect and it would
overheat and cause all sorts of problems.
Leaner is cleaner and leaner is cooler. Cleaner and cooler is generally
considered to be better, is it not?
So, if you want to extend engine life, run it at relatively low power
settings and run the mixture on the lean side of best power!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
Bob;
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound engines,
but its been a long time.
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I recall
being told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25% of their fuel
for cooling. At what point in leaning do we get to where we save fuel, but
shorten the engine life? And where is the crossover point.
Thanks, Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Evening Bob;
I flew the Connie on the Shuttle Backup out of DCA, and yes it does
sound familiar. But that was a long, long time ago,(67) I was in the
last class of Connie engineers. I have all three ratings of F/E which
with about $ 5 will get you a cup of coffee at most Starbucks. I only
slid off the wings ( 14 ft.) twice in the winter snow, now it would
break my leg, then it just 'stung' like crazy. I remember we were
always happy to get a G as it had gas heaters and we could pre heat the
cabin. I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel
and climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have
changed. But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all
this stuff? My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I
tried to forget it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them
confused.
As to the 25% it is probably just a figure that some one once told me,
hanger talk, might be true at one particular power setting, might be
false, not sure. I always figured that was part of the reason aircraft
engines were not very efficient in a power verses specific fuel
consumption. Now that aught to start another discussion!
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Evening Don,
I have never heard that particular number and I believe we would have
to better define the terms before we could either disagree or agree with
that 25% assertion.
As to where does leaning cause additional wear, that is another tough
one.
Running any engine too lean at high powers will cause big troubles.
However running one leaner than optimum at low powers will not hurt it
all, but it will burn more fuel per horsepower developed than is
possible when the engine is run so as to attain optimum BSFC (Brake
Specific Fuel Consumption).
I do not know the number used by your airline to lean the Turbo
Compound R-3350, but most users utilized a ten percent BMEP drop from
the peak BMEP.
The procedure used by my airline was as follows. We would first chose
a desired BMEP number from the power charts. Just for kicks, let's say
that the desired cruise BMEP was 254. We would start out with the
mixture in Auto Rich. The mixture would be slowly leaned until the BMEP
started to rise. When it went above 254, we would throttle back until it
was at 254, then continue to lean until it was steady at 254 and where
any further leaning would take the BMEP reading below 254. That
procedure determined the peak BMEP (Peak power) for the manifold
pressure being used. At that time, we would continue leaning the engine
until the BMEP was reading 254 minus 24.5 or approximately 228 BMEP.
Once that spot ten percent leaner than peak power was found, the
throttle was used to add manifold pressure so as to bring the BMEP back
to the desired cruise power. We then checked the manifold pressure to be
sure we were still below the maximum allowed manifold pressure for the
desired cruise power.
Sound familiar?
If we leaned the engine further, it would just lose power, but no harm
was done. However, if we richened it up a bit, the engine would overheat
and it may even go into mild detonation. It needed to be well lean of
peak power to cool properly.
I don't know if you recall, but there is a shaft on the rear of the
engine which connects the two fuel injection controllers together. One
unit is for the front row and the other feeds the rear. That shaft would
occasionally slip. When that happened, one row would be running
substantially leaner than the other. The one that was getting more fuel
would be carrying more of the load that was being developed by the
engine. That row would burn the valves and sometimes even have holes
burned in the pistons while the row which was not getting enough fuel
would be running clean and comfortable.
The place where any engine is most likely to develop engine problems
are when the mixture is at that point where the peak BMEP or peak engine
power is being developed. If the engine is run at that same power with a
richer than needed fuel mixture, the extra fuel will slow down the rate
of burn and move the point of peak combustion pressure to a point where
the engine is able to operate relatively cool.
That function is what is normally referred to as cooling the engine
with fuel and it is how we kept our cool during takeoff and climb
regimes!
Another way to cool the engine is to cool it with additional
combustion air. That is what happens when the engine is run well lean of
best power. (Note that I said best power, not Peak EGT. They do NOT
occur at the same point) When we leaned that nice big R-3350 ten percent
lean of best power, we were running at a mixture that was well lean of
the best power point and the engine was being cooled by that surplus
combustion air.
Normal cruise power for the 3350 was around 55 to 60 percent of rated
power. We were really running it quite conservatively. If we richened it
without reducing the manifold pressure, we defeated the air cooling
effect and it would overheat and cause all sorts of problems.
Leaner is cleaner and leaner is cooler. Cleaner and cooler is
generally considered to be better, is it not?
So, if you want to extend engine life, run it at relatively low power
settings and run the mixture on the lean side of best power!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
Bob;
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound
engines, but its been a long time.
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I
recall being told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25%
of their fuel for cooling. At what point in leaning do we get to where
we save fuel, but shorten the engine life? And where is the crossover
point.
Thanks, Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/1/2007 6:59 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
> which with about $ 5 will get you a cup of coffee at most Starbucks.
Heck Don,
I'll pay you $5 and feed you starbucks all day if you'll tell me Connie stories.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137578#137578
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does reflect on
reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand a bit about my
background and why it is that I am able to recall some of those details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I started as a
DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid expansion and by early
1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and had gotten fairly senior in
that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies were vying for the title of Queen of
the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go faster and
carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in and out of
slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading edge of
technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet engine would
never
work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had ended my
very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate. That gave me e
a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be qualified in
the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used those fabulous new
Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine was enough different that
we had several days of specialty training given by Curtiss Wright engineers
before we even went to type specific training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a DC-6
type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training for the
transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital Airlines, the
Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given three bounces and turned
loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the mechanic ranks,
but had decided to start using pilots for that function. While I was way too
senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight Engineer, my mechanic background
made me decide that I should get the rating as a matter of professional
qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight engineers
back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self study. That meant
getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study regime,
passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take the flight
test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight checks to student
engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when all of the regular engineer
trainees had finished their flight checks, I was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all that new
information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it was not
only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power, but why it was
imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine books I had been
studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even started to experiment with lean
side operations in my 1947, PS5c equipped, Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of operating
piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has proven to be
very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a civilian
A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and irrelevant
details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot Seminars, I
eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that everything they taught
dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty years earlier and they explained
a
lot of the technology that I had not previously fully understood. I am sure
I have a lot more to learn, but one of the main things I HAVE learned is
that the theories of engine combustion and mixture control have been well known
and agreed to since well before Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing simplified
methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and climbing
out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have changed. But your
procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all this stuff? My hard drive
gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I tried to forget it so I could remember
the new aircraft and not get them confused.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moe - Ross Racing Pistons" <moe(at)rosspistons.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob,
Thank you very much for a post which explains rich and lean very well. This
is the most literate thing that I have read in quite some time on the
subject.
Best regards,
Moe
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Evening Don,
I have never heard that particular number and I believe we would have to
better define the terms before we could either disagree or agree with that
25% assertion.
As to where does leaning cause additional wear, that is another tough one.
Running any engine too lean at high powers will cause big troubles. However
running one leaner than optimum at low powers will not hurt it all, but it
will burn more fuel per horsepower developed than is possible when the
engine is run so as to attain optimum BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel
Consumption).
I do not know the number used by your airline to lean the Turbo Compound
R-3350, but most users utilized a ten percent BMEP drop from the peak BMEP.
The procedure used by my airline was as follows. We would first chose a
desired BMEP number from the power charts. Just for kicks, let's say that
the desired cruise BMEP was 254. We would start out with the mixture in Auto
Rich. The mixture would be slowly leaned until the BMEP started to rise.
When it went above 254, we would throttle back until it was at 254, then
continue to lean until it was steady at 254 and where any further leaning
would take the BMEP reading below 254. That procedure determined the peak
BMEP (Peak power) for the manifold pressure being used. At that time, we
would continue leaning the engine until the BMEP was reading 254 minus 24.5
or approximately 228 BMEP. Once that spot ten percent leaner than peak power
was found, the throttle was used to add manifold pressure so as to bring the
BMEP back to the desired cruise power. We then checked the manifold pressure
to be sure we were still below the maximum allowed manifold pressure for the
desired cruise power.
Sound familiar?
If we leaned the engine further, it would just lose power, but no harm was
done. However, if we richened it up a bit, the engine would overheat and it
may even go into mild detonation. It needed to be well lean of peak power to
cool properly.
I don't know if you recall, but there is a shaft on the rear of the engine
which connects the two fuel injection controllers together. One unit is for
the front row and the other feeds the rear. That shaft would occasionally
slip. When that happened, one row would be running substantially leaner than
the other. The one that was getting more fuel would be carrying more of the
load that was being developed by the engine. That row would burn the valves
and sometimes even have holes burned in the pistons while the row which was
not getting enough fuel would be running clean and comfortable.
The place where any engine is most likely to develop engine problems are
when the mixture is at that point where the peak BMEP or peak engine power
is being developed. If the engine is run at that same power with a richer
than needed fuel mixture, the extra fuel will slow down the rate of burn and
move the point of peak combustion pressure to a point where the engine is
able to operate relatively cool.
That function is what is normally referred to as cooling the engine with
fuel and it is how we kept our cool during takeoff and climb regimes!
Another way to cool the engine is to cool it with additional combustion air.
That is what happens when the engine is run well lean of best power. (Note
that I said best power, not Peak EGT. They do NOT occur at the same point)
When we leaned that nice big R-3350 ten percent lean of best power, we were
running at a mixture that was well lean of the best power point and the
engine was being cooled by that surplus combustion air.
Normal cruise power for the 3350 was around 55 to 60 percent of rated power.
We were really running it quite conservatively. If we richened it without
reducing the manifold pressure, we defeated the air cooling effect and it
would overheat and cause all sorts of problems.
Leaner is cleaner and leaner is cooler. Cleaner and cooler is generally
considered to be better, is it not?
So, if you want to extend engine life, run it at relatively low power
settings and run the mixture on the lean side of best power!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
Bob;
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound engines,
but its been a long time.
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I recall
being told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25% of their
fuel for cooling. At what point in leaning do we get to where we save fuel,
but shorten the engine life? And where is the crossover point.
Thanks, Don
_____
See what's new at Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:22:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
moe(at)rosspistons.com writes:
Bob,
Thank you very much for a post which explains rich and lean very well. This
is the most literate thing that I have read in quite some time on the
subject.
Best regards,
Moe
N680RR
680F(p)
Thank you very kindly Moe,
Knowing your background, that is especially heartwarming.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Glad to have all the conversation on the list. Good stuff......
I've mentioned before that we've been running LOP for a number of years.
We finally pulled the right engine last month, 450 or so hours past TBO,
after finding some slivers in the oil filter. A couple of the lobes that
pull double duty had spalled followers that had begun to nibble at the
cam.
The right jugs were still reading 80/80 at 1900 something hours when we
pulled the engine.
I know comparing the pressure carb to running an injection system, with
GAMI injectors, is a little of an apples to oranges comparison, but if
you're able to run LOP, we're satisfied it's beneficial to the engine.
at the normal power settings we run. At 75% we're running it on the rich
side.
Still, there's too many variables for this to be a good experiment, and
it is an anecdotal report. For example, the jugs are never allowed to
get real hot, and this must have some to do with the good service we're
getting.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does reflect
on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand a bit
about my background and why it is that I am able to recall some of those
details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I started
as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid expansion
and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and had gotten
fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies were vying
for the title of Queen of the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go faster
and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in and
out of slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading edge
of technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate.
That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine
was enough different that we had several days of specialty training
given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to type specific
training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a
DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training for
the transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital Airlines,
the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given three bounces
and turned loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the mechanic
ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that function. While I
was way too senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight Engineer, my
mechanic background made me decide that I should get the rating as a
matter of professional qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight
engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self
study. That meant getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take
the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight
checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when
all of the regular engineer trainees had finished their flight checks, I
was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all that
new information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it was
not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power, but
why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine books I
had been studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even started to
experiment with lean side operations in my 1947, PS5c equipped,
Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has
proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a
civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
irrelevant details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot Seminars,
I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that everything
they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty years earlier
and they explained a lot of the technology that I had not previously
fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more to learn, but one of the
main things I HAVE learned is that the theories of engine combustion and
mixture control have been well known and agreed to since well before
Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing simplified
methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and
climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have changed.
But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all this stuff?
My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I tried to forget
it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Team,
If we are going to OK next year, we should see about taking a tour of
the GAMI plant at Ada, OK and see an engine running on their test
stand. I have seen it and it is very educational.
Steve,
Which engine are you running?
Tylor Hall
On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Steve at Col-East wrote:
> Glad to have all the conversation on the list. Good stuff......
>
> I've mentioned before that we've been running LOP for a number of
> years.
>
> We finally pulled the right engine last month, 450 or so hours past
> TBO, after finding some slivers in the oil filter. A couple of the
> lobes that pull double duty had spalled followers that had begun to
> nibble at the cam.
>
> The right jugs were still reading 80/80 at 1900 something hours
> when we pulled the engine.
>
> I know comparing the pressure carb to running an injection system,
> with GAMI injectors, is a little of an apples to oranges
> comparison, but if you're able to run LOP, we're satisfied it's
> beneficial to the engine. at the normal power settings we run. At
> 75% we're running it on the rich side.
>
> Still, there's too many variables for this to be a good experiment,
> and it is an anecdotal report. For example, the jugs are never
> allowed to get real hot, and this must have some to do with the
> good service we're getting.
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
>
> Good Morning Don,
>
> I should be taking this response off list, but since it does
> reflect on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will
> expand a bit about my background and why it is that I am able to
> recall some of those details!
>
> It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I
> started as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very
> rapid expansion and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6
> copilot and had gotten fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the
> early Connies were vying for the title of Queen of the airways.
>
> The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go
> faster and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could
> get in and out of slightly smaller airports.
>
> They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading
> edge of technology.
>
> Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
> knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
> engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
>
> I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
> ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians
> Mate. That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
>
> In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
> qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
> those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that
> engine was enough different that we had several days of specialty
> training given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to
> type specific training for the airplane.
>
> Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a
> DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training
> for the transition.
>
> Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital
> Airlines, the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given
> three bounces and turned loose with the airplane.
>
> Back to 1952!
>
> My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the
> mechanic ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that
> function. While I was way too senior to ever be required to fly as
> a Flight Engineer, my mechanic background made me decide that I
> should get the rating as a matter of professional qualification.
>
> Since the only training courses that were available for flight
> engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to
> self study. That meant getting the books from the library and
> studying!
>
> By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
> regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me
> take the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give
> flight checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as
> copilot, and when all of the regular engineer trainees had finished
> their flight checks, I was allowed to complete mine.
>
> When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all
> that new information.
>
> After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it
> was not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best
> power, but why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to
> those engine books I had been studying to firm that thought in my
> mind. I even started to experiment with lean side operations in my
> 1947, PS5c equipped, Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
>
> It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
> operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7
> school has proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater
> knowledge.
>
> It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a
> civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
>
> That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
> irrelevant details.
>
> When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot
> Seminars, I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that
> everything they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from
> fifty years earlier and they explained a lot of the technology that
> I had not previously fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more
> to learn, but one of the main things I HAVE learned is that the
> theories of engine combustion and mixture control have been well
> known and agreed to since well before Lindbergh's time.
>
> The major problem with mixture control has been developing
> simplified methods of applying that knowledge!
>
> All that make any sense at all?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
> I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and
> climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have
> changed. But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember
> all this stuff? My hard drive gets full, and when I left an
> aircraft, I tried to forget it so I could remember the new aircraft
> and not get them confused.
>
>
> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://
> forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Tylor,
We're running just straight IO-540's, narrow deck.
If a trip to GAMI was included, we'd probably try to make it. How about
a seminar for the Commander bunch?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Tylor Hall
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Team,
If we are going to OK next year, we should see about taking a tour of
the GAMI plant at Ada, OK and see an engine running on their test stand.
I have seen it and it is very educational.
Steve,
Which engine are you running?
Tylor Hall
On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Steve at Col-East wrote:
Glad to have all the conversation on the list. Good stuff......
I've mentioned before that we've been running LOP for a number of
years.
We finally pulled the right engine last month, 450 or so hours past
TBO, after finding some slivers in the oil filter. A couple of the lobes
that pull double duty had spalled followers that had begun to nibble at
the cam.
The right jugs were still reading 80/80 at 1900 something hours when
we pulled the engine.
I know comparing the pressure carb to running an injection system,
with GAMI injectors, is a little of an apples to oranges comparison, but
if you're able to run LOP, we're satisfied it's beneficial to the
engine. at the normal power settings we run. At 75% we're running it on
the rich side.
Still, there's too many variables for this to be a good experiment,
and it is an anecdotal report. For example, the jugs are never allowed
to get real hot, and this must have some to do with the good service
we're getting.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does
reflect on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand
a bit about my background and why it is that I am able to recall some of
those details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I
started as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid
expansion and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and
had gotten fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies
were vying for the title of Queen of the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go
faster and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in
and out of slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading
edge of technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate.
That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine
was enough different that we had several days of specialty training
given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to type specific
training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had
a DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training
for the transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital
Airlines, the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given
three bounces and turned loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the
mechanic ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that function.
While I was way too senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight
Engineer, my mechanic background made me decide that I should get the
rating as a matter of professional qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight
engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self
study. That meant getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take
the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight
checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when
all of the regular engineer trainees had finished their flight checks, I
was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all
that new information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it
was not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power,
but why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine
books I had been studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even
started to experiment with lean side operations in my 1947, PS5c
equipped, Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has
proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for
a civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
irrelevant details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot
Seminars, I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that
everything they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty
years earlier and they explained a lot of the technology that I had not
previously fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more to learn, but
one of the main things I HAVE learned is that the theories of engine
combustion and mixture control have been well known and agreed to since
well before Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing
simplified methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel
and climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have
changed. But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all
this stuff? My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I
tried to forget it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them
confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h
ttp://forums.matronics.com - The Commander-List Email -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List - NEW
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - class="Apple-converted-space"> -->
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
Great explanation, thanks.? jb
-----Original Message-----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Evening Don,?
?
I have never heard that particular number and I believe we would have to better
define the terms before we could either disagree or agree with that 25% assertion.
?
As to where does leaning cause additional wear, that is another tough one.
?
Running any engine too lean at high powers will cause big troubles.? However running
one leaner than optimum at low powers will not hurt it all, but it will
burn more fuel per horsepower developed than is possible when the engine is run
so as to attain optimum BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption).
?
I do not know the number used by your airline to lean the Turbo Compound R-3350,
but most users utilized a ten percent BMEP drop from the peak BMEP.
?
The procedure used by my airline was as follows. We would first chose a desired
BMEP number from the power charts. Just for kicks, let's say that the desired
cruise BMEP was 254. We would start out with the mixture in Auto Rich. The mixture
would be slowly leaned until the BMEP started to rise. When it went above
254, we would throttle back until it was at 254, then continue to lean until
it was steady at 254 and where any further leaning would take the BMEP reading
below 254. That procedure determined the peak BMEP (Peak power) for the manifold
pressure being used.? At that time, we would continue leaning the engine
until the BMEP was reading 254 minus 24.5 or approximately 228 BMEP. Once that
spot ten percent leaner than peak power was found, the throttle was used to add
manifold pressure so as to bring the BMEP back to the desired cruise power.?We
then checked the manifold pressure to be sure we were still below the maximum
allowed manifold pressure for the desired cruise
power.
?
Sound familiar?
?
If we leaned the engine further, it would just lose power, but no harm was done.
However, if we richened it up a bit, the engine would overheat and it may even
go into mild detonation. It needed to be well lean of peak power to cool properly.
?
I don't know if you recall, but there is a shaft on the rear of the engine which
connects the two fuel injection controllers together. One unit is for the front
row and the other feeds the rear. That shaft would occasionally slip. When
that happened, one row would be running substantially leaner than the other.
The one that was getting more fuel would be carrying more of the load that was
being developed by the engine.? That row would burn the valves and sometimes
even have holes burned in the pistons while the row which was not getting enough
fuel would be running clean and comfortable.
?
The place where any engine is most likely to develop engine problems are when the
mixture is at that point where the peak BMEP or peak engine power is being
developed. If the engine is run at that same power with a richer than needed fuel
mixture, the extra fuel will slow down the rate of burn and move the point
of peak combustion pressure to a point where the engine is able to operate relatively
cool.
?
That function is what is normally referred to as cooling the engine with fuel and
it is how we kept our cool during takeoff and climb regimes!
?
Another way to cool the engine is to cool it with additional combustion air. That
is what happens when the engine is run well lean of best power. (Note that
I said best power, not Peak EGT. They do NOT occur at the same point) When we
leaned that nice big R-3350 ten percent lean of best power, we were running at
a mixture that was well lean of the best power point and the engine was being
cooled by that surplus combustion air.
?
Normal cruise power for the 3350 was around 55 to 60 percent of rated power. We
were really running it quite conservatively. If we richened it without reducing
the manifold pressure, we defeated the air cooling effect and it would overheat
and cause all sorts of problems.
?
Leaner is cleaner and leaner is cooler.?Cleaner and cooler is generally considered
to be better, is it not?
?
So, if you want to extend engine life, run it at relatively low power settings
and run?the mixture?on the lean side of best power!
?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
?
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dongirod(at)bellsouth.net
writes:
Bob;
?
I used to sit sideways in a Connie running R-3360 Turbo compound engines, but its
been a long time.?
?
My question is this, since you remember more about those things, I recall being
told some where that aircraft engines use approximately 25% of their fuel for
cooling.? At what point in leaning do we get to where we save fuel, but shorten
the engine life?? And where is the crossover point.
?
Thanks, Don
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Once More Don,
You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather sluffed over
that point.
This may not directly address your specific question, but one possible
consideration might be the points made by Continental and Lycoming.
Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when using less
than 75 percent power.
Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT unless we
are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures are a bit tough to pin
down and both manufacturers have conflicting advice in various publications,
but it is a good starting point.
Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of their
engines.
While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of peak EGT
(Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of our aircraft
engines will be destroyed if we try it.
So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
sixty-five percent power?
At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do any
damage to the engine via the mixture control!
Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high power than
are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise powers.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
And where is the crossover point.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob,
IIRC from John Deakin's articles, there is only a very narrow range of
EGT that can cause damage to any engine at any power setting, right? I
took Deakin's writings to heart a few years ago, and with the
installation of a JPI engine monitor in my Commander, I run LOP in
pretty much all phases of flight except climbout. At cruise, since I'm
turbocharged, I can run at 75% power up high and run LOP while at that
power setting. I have one engine that is a bit past TBO and one that is
about 1/2 way to TBO. Both engines run very well LOP. Both engines run
very cool. I'm always in a hurry, so I don't care too much about saving
fuel, but now, LOP, I'm saving avgas too.
I remember that the "big mixture pull" upon reaching cruise altitude is
something that should be done rather quickly to get past the potential
high cyl pressure/detonation point, but other than that, there's not
much to worry about.
I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree with
Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!" as I
think I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've only
changed a cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year. I don't
think an engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool . Whether
cooled by air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter. Also, when LOP,
the peak cylinder pressure point happens later in the cycle, putting far
less pressure on pistons etc.
I've had my 500B since 1999. Prior to the JPI, I would do the "lean it
til it gets rough, then push forward a skosh on the red levers" and that
worked fine. In fact, once I got my JPI in, it confirmed that that
strategy results in LOP operation, so it looks like I've been running
LOP for the whole time I've had the airplane. I also used to lean til
rough, push a tad forward, and then shut off a mag. If it ran fine on
both mags but rough on one (with rpm drop), I could pretty much assume I
was running it as lean as possible for that power setting.
Also, I'm fuel injected, so I think I can count on more consistency with
fuel distribution than most carbureted engines.
Cheers,
/John
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Once More Don,
>
> You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather sluffed
> over that point.
>
> This may not directly address your specific question, but one possible
> consideration might be the points made by Continental and Lycoming.
>
> Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when using
> less than 75 percent power.
>
> Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT unless
> we are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures are a bit
> tough to pin down and both manufacturers have conflicting advice in
> various publications, but it is a good starting point.
>
> Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of
> their engines.
>
> While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of
> peak EGT (Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of
> our aircraft engines will be destroyed if we try it.
>
> So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
> sixty-five percent power?
>
> At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do
> any damage to the engine via the mixture control!
>
> Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high power
> than are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise powers.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>
> And where is the crossover point.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Afternoon John,
It seems you have done broke de code!!
The turbo-charger (or many other superchargers for that matter) does allow
operation at quite high powers when lean of peak.
The key is a thorough understanding of the combustion process combined with
a method to evaluate the efficacy of the method chosen to attain the desired
state.
Glad you found the truth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 2:06:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
john(at)vormbaum.com writes:
I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree with
Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!" as I
think I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've only
changed a cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year. I don't
think an engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool . Whether
cooled by air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter. Also, when LOP,
the peak cylinder pressure point happens later in the cycle, putting far
less pressure on pistons etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve @ Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
John,
I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness and all
of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch between mags
and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one engine lean, and one
engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one is swilling fuel, and one
isn't........
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
Carburetor?
>
> Bob,
>
> IIRC from John Deakin's articles, there is only a very narrow range of EGT
> that can cause damage to any engine at any power setting, right? I took
> Deakin's writings to heart a few years ago, and with the installation of a
> JPI engine monitor in my Commander, I run LOP in pretty much all phases of
> flight except climbout. At cruise, since I'm turbocharged, I can run at
> 75% power up high and run LOP while at that power setting. I have one
> engine that is a bit past TBO and one that is about 1/2 way to TBO. Both
> engines run very well LOP. Both engines run very cool. I'm always in a
> hurry, so I don't care too much about saving fuel, but now, LOP, I'm
> saving avgas too.
>
> I remember that the "big mixture pull" upon reaching cruise altitude is
> something that should be done rather quickly to get past the potential
> high cyl pressure/detonation point, but other than that, there's not much
> to worry about.
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
> experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree with
> Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!" as I think
> I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've only changed a
> cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year. I don't think an
> engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool . Whether cooled by
> air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter. Also, when LOP, the peak
> cylinder pressure point happens later in the cycle, putting far less
> pressure on pistons etc.
>
> I've had my 500B since 1999. Prior to the JPI, I would do the "lean it til
> it gets rough, then push forward a skosh on the red levers" and that
> worked fine. In fact, once I got my JPI in, it confirmed that that
> strategy results in LOP operation, so it looks like I've been running LOP
> for the whole time I've had the airplane. I also used to lean til rough,
> push a tad forward, and then shut off a mag. If it ran fine on both mags
> but rough on one (with rpm drop), I could pretty much assume I was running
> it as lean as possible for that power setting.
>
> Also, I'm fuel injected, so I think I can count on more consistency with
> fuel distribution than most carbureted engines.
>
> Cheers,
>
> /John
>
> BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning Once More Don,
>> You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather sluffed
>> over that point. This may not directly address your specific question,
>> but one possible consideration might be the points made by Continental
>> and Lycoming.
>> Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when using
>> less than 75 percent power.
>> Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT unless
>> we are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures are a bit
>> tough to pin down and both manufacturers have conflicting advice in
>> various publications, but it is a good starting point.
>> Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of
>> their engines.
>> While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of peak
>> EGT (Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of our
>> aircraft engines will be destroyed if we try it.
>> So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
>> sixty-five percent power?
>> At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do any
>> damage to the engine via the mixture control!
>> Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high power
>> than are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise powers.
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>> AKA
>> Bob Siegfried
>> Ancient Aviator
>> Stearman N3977A
>> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>> 630 985-8503
>> In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>>
>> And where is the crossover point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
I never thought about the diagnostic bonus (for bad mags) of running the
engines where I do, but that sounds like a handy fringe benefit!
/J
Steve @ Col-East wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness
> and all of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch
> between mags and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one
> engine lean, and one engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one
> is swilling fuel, and one isn't........
>
> Steve
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
> Carburetor?
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> IIRC from John Deakin's articles, there is only a very narrow range
>> of EGT that can cause damage to any engine at any power setting,
>> right? I took Deakin's writings to heart a few years ago, and with
>> the installation of a JPI engine monitor in my Commander, I run LOP
>> in pretty much all phases of flight except climbout. At cruise, since
>> I'm turbocharged, I can run at 75% power up high and run LOP while at
>> that power setting. I have one engine that is a bit past TBO and one
>> that is about 1/2 way to TBO. Both engines run very well LOP. Both
>> engines run very cool. I'm always in a hurry, so I don't care too
>> much about saving fuel, but now, LOP, I'm saving avgas too.
>>
>> I remember that the "big mixture pull" upon reaching cruise altitude
>> is something that should be done rather quickly to get past the
>> potential high cyl pressure/detonation point, but other than that,
>> there's not much to worry about.
>>
>> I guess what I'm saying is that based on empirical data & a few years
>> experience, and running an engine past TBO, I'll have to disagree
>> with Lycoming that "LOP operation is bad for your Lycoming engine!"
>> as I think I have proven otherwise. In about 600 hrs. of flight, I've
>> only changed a cylinder on each engine, and that was just this year.
>> I don't think an engine cares WHY it's cool, as long as it runs cool
>> . Whether cooled by air or excess fuel, it doesn't seem to matter.
>> Also, when LOP, the peak cylinder pressure point happens later in the
>> cycle, putting far less pressure on pistons etc.
>>
>> I've had my 500B since 1999. Prior to the JPI, I would do the "lean
>> it til it gets rough, then push forward a skosh on the red levers"
>> and that worked fine. In fact, once I got my JPI in, it confirmed
>> that that strategy results in LOP operation, so it looks like I've
>> been running LOP for the whole time I've had the airplane. I also
>> used to lean til rough, push a tad forward, and then shut off a mag.
>> If it ran fine on both mags but rough on one (with rpm drop), I could
>> pretty much assume I was running it as lean as possible for that
>> power setting.
>>
>> Also, I'm fuel injected, so I think I can count on more consistency
>> with fuel distribution than most carbureted engines.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> /John
>>
>> BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>> Good Morning Once More Don,
>>> You asked: "And where is the crossover point?" And I rather
>>> sluffed over that point. This may not directly address your specific
>>> question, but one possible consideration might be the points made by
>>> Continental and Lycoming.
>>> Lycoming occasionally tells us we can run lean of peak EGT when
>>> using less than 75 percent power.
>>> Continental tends to recommend that we not run lean of peak EGT
>>> unless we are at 65 percent power or less. Both of those figures
>>> are a bit tough to pin down and both manufacturers have conflicting
>>> advice in various publications, but it is a good starting point.
>>> Neither manufacturer recommends lean side operation on very many of
>>> their engines.
>>> While any engine can be run at full rated power on the lean side of
>>> peak EGT (Automobiles do it often to meet EPA requirements) most of
>>> our aircraft engines will be destroyed if we try it.
>>> So, could we say that the conservative "crossover point" is around
>>> sixty-five percent power?
>>> At that, or any lower, power, you will find it very difficult to do
>>> any damage to the engine via the mixture control!
>>> Many more engines are damaged by not running rich enough at high
>>> power than are damaged by running too lean at moderate to low cruise
>>> powers.
>>> Happy Skies,
>>>
>>> Old Bob
>>> AKA
>>> Bob Siegfried
>>> Ancient Aviator
>>> Stearman N3977A
>>> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>> 630 985-8503
>>> In a message dated 10/1/2007 7:35:20 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>> dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
>>>
>>> And where is the crossover point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Evening Steve,
Just out of curiosity, what was the occasion that had you operating one
engine on the lean side and the other one on the rich side!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 6:03:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2(at)sover.net writes:
I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness and all
of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch between mags
and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one engine lean, and one
engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one is swilling fuel, and one
isn't........
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a taildragger.?
Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
?
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Taildraggers |
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:09:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
yourtcfg(at)aol.com writes:
Taildragger Taildragger
Good Evening JB,
That is a very fine rendition of tailwheel checkout problems. However, it
does emphasize one of the problems that pilots are experiencing when
transitioning from tri-gear to conventional gear aircraft.
All that the author discusses is the use of rudder to keep the airplane on
the desired course.
There is not even one suggestion about the steering force that can be used
via the advantageous use of adverse yaw generated by the old fashioned aileron
which is used for roll control on most older flying machines.
In the thirties and early forties, that was well understood and thoroughly
taught, but very few pilots other than some fortunate sea plane pilots and a
few very fortunate glider pilots are ever taught how effective the adverse yaw
can be in keeping the airplane on the straight and narrow.
On some aircraft, specifically the Twin Beech, the use of proper aileron is
much more effective and of much greater importance than the use of rudder.
Another one of those ancient truths that have been designed out of modern
airplanes. Nothing wrong with what the designers have done, but when we fly that
ancient equipment, it behooves us to know, understand, and use the ancient
techniques!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James T. Addington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
BB, is that one of those airplanes with a training wheel in the back? HeHeHe
Jim
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com> |
Old Bob-
I'll drink to that!
Learning to fly the T-6 made me a better airline pilot. Also improved my
landings..
Some of the old equipment might not be as "sexy" as all the new stuff(to the
uninitiated) but it sure is more fun!
Robert Randazzo
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Taildraggers
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:09:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
yourtcfg(at)aol.com writes:
Taildragger Taildragger
Good Evening JB,
That is a very fine rendition of tailwheel checkout problems. However, it
does emphasize one of the problems that pilots are experiencing when
transitioning from tri-gear to conventional gear aircraft.
All that the author discusses is the use of rudder to keep the airplane on
the desired course.
There is not even one suggestion about the steering force that can be used
via the advantageous use of adverse yaw generated by the old fashioned
aileron which is used for roll control on most older flying machines.
In the thirties and early forties, that was well understood and thoroughly
taught, but very few pilots other than some fortunate sea plane pilots and a
few very fortunate glider pilots are ever taught how effective the adverse
yaw can be in keeping the airplane on the straight and narrow.
On some aircraft, specifically the Twin Beech, the use of proper aileron is
much more effective and of much greater importance than the use of rudder.
Another one of those ancient truths that have been designed out of modern
airplanes. Nothing wrong with what the designers have done, but when we fly
that ancient equipment, it behooves us to know, understand, and use the
ancient techniques!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
_____
See what'set="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
__________ NOD32 2567 (20071002) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
No they are in the middle.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James T.
Addington
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
BB, is that one of those airplanes with a training wheel in the back? HeHeHe
Jim
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com> |
Hey Bill,
Now what airline is it that saw fit to turn over their prized quinticycle to
you?
Robert Randazzo
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
__________ NOD32 2567 (20071002) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Thanks, Milt.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:43 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
>
>
> > which with about $ 5 will get you a cup of coffee at most Starbucks.
>
>
> Heck Don,
>
> I'll pay you $5 and feed you starbucks all day if you'll tell me Connie
stories.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=137578#137578
>
>
> --
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Carburetor? |
Thanks, Bob.
Not to start an argument with anyone, but my experience with most things
mechanical is, "If you are willing to work at it, sometimes pretty hard,
you can do a better job doing it manually than with something automatic"
There are exceptions of course like the new A/P used in CAT III
landings, but then it takes 3 A/P's to do the job correctly with lots of
redundancy. But the automatic procedures sure makes it easier for the
ones that don't need or care to work that hard, and they do a good job.
I have never understood all the negative talk about 'geared engines', I
flew two seats on the Electra and do remember that there are seventeen
systems to prevent Negative Torque (NTSing) with the prop running the
engine, so a geared engine was never a big deal for me.
Thanks for sharing your experiences and how you got them. And I second
the comment about how we may have different views but we all stay
'civil', very few things that can only be done one way. That is why I
feel most people on the list enjoy it, lots of very valuable experience.
As for the tail dragger comments, I am grandfathered, I have a rating in
a DC-3, but sure would hate to try and fly one now.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Pressure Carburetor?
Good Morning Don,
I should be taking this response off list, but since it does reflect
on reasons why we are involved in this discussion, I will expand a bit
about my background and why it is that I am able to recall some of those
details!
It has to do with my age and lack of experience at the time. I started
as a DC-3 copilot in 1951, but that was a time of very rapid expansion
and by early 1952, I was checked out as a DC-6 copilot and had gotten
fairly senior in that slot. The DC-6 and the early Connies were vying
for the title of Queen of the airways.
The Connie was winning in the looks department, but we could go faster
and carry a bigger payload on less fuel. The Connies could get in and
out of slightly smaller airports.
They were both wonderful airplanes and definitely at the leading edge
of technology.
Jet transports were merely wild dreams and there were many very
knowledgeable pundits who often expanded on the idea of why the jet
engine would never work on a transport style aircraft.
I had trained while in the USMC to be an aircraft mechanic and had
ended my very short military career as an Aviation Electricians Mate.
That gave me e a very strong interest in things mechanical.
In the spring of 1954, I was assigned to the first class to be
qualified in the brand new state of the art Douglas DC-7 which used
those fabulous new Turbo Compound R-3350s. The operation of that engine
was enough different that we had several days of specialty training
given by Curtiss Wright engineers before we even went to type specific
training for the airplane.
Even though the DC-7 was authorized to be flown by anyone who had a
DC-6 type rating, my airline did send us to a full week of training for
the transition.
Five years, later, when United Air Lines merged with Capital Airlines,
the Capital pilots that held DC-6 type ratings were given three bounces
and turned loose with the airplane.
Back to 1952!
My airline had been getting their Flight Engineers from the mechanic
ranks, but had decided to start using pilots for that function. While I
was way too senior to ever be required to fly as a Flight Engineer, my
mechanic background made me decide that I should get the rating as a
matter of professional qualification.
Since the only training courses that were available for flight
engineers back then were the ones run by the airlines, I had to self
study. That meant getting the books from the library and studying!
By the time I went to DC-7 training, I had completed my home study
regime, passed the writtens, and conned the company into letting me take
the flight test in an airplane that was being flown to give flight
checks to student engineers. I volunteered to fly as copilot, and when
all of the regular engineer trainees had finished their flight checks, I
was allowed to complete mine.
When I attended DC-7 training, I was like a sponge soaking up all that
new information.
After listening to those Curtiss Wright engineers explain why it was
not only best to operate the R-3350 on the lean side of best power, but
why it was imperative that we do so, I went back to those engine books I
had been studying to firm that thought in my mind. I even started to
experiment with lean side operations in my 1947, PS5c equipped,
Continental E185 powered, Bonanza.
It was the beginning of a life long interest in the fine points of
operating piston engines and the stuff that I learned in DC-7 school has
proven to be very helpful in my quest for greater knowledge.
It also helped me greatly when I finally finished my training for a
civilian A&P and eventually, my IA certification.
That is why I can still remember those undoubtedly mundane and
irrelevant details.
When the folks in Ada started to offer their Advanced Pilot Seminars,
I eagerly attended one of the first classes. I found that everything
they taught dovetailed nicely with my training from fifty years earlier
and they explained a lot of the technology that I had not previously
fully understood. I am sure I have a lot more to learn, but one of the
main things I HAVE learned is that the theories of engine combustion and
mixture control have been well known and agreed to since well before
Lindbergh's time.
The major problem with mixture control has been developing simplified
methods of applying that knowledge!
All that make any sense at all?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 1:27:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
I was so happy to get out of the wing walking to check the fuel and
climbing out on the engine to check the oil, times sure have changed.
But your procedures sound familiar, how do you remember all this stuff?
My hard drive gets full, and when I left an aircraft, I tried to forget
it so I could remember the new aircraft and not get them confused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Jacqui Thompson" <RnJThompson(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | 2007 TCFG Fky-In |
Greetings all,
Just got back to a hot and windy Sydney. Once again a great Fly-in. It was
wonderful seeing you all again. Both Jacqui and I really enjoyed it. Pity
some of you missed it. John your excuse is acceptable, well done. Take heed
of Captain Dan's warning about planning. We missed you. Some great new
people showed up and had a ball, hopefully we will be seeing them in the
future. Once again Jim & Sue did a great job. The standards of aircraft
management on the ground were exceptional. So much so that the GOLDEN PEDAL
AWARD was not awarded for sins committed at T82 but for sins committed at
Canyonland Airport, Moab, Utah, a little way to the NNW. It now sits proudly
in my lounge.
Cheers All.
See you next year.
Richard (custodian of the GOLDEN PEDAL)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
andrew.bridget(at)telus.net
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2007 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: 2007 TCFG Fky-In
Congratulations, John!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve @ Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Bob,
In the past couple years we've had a number of mag failures. The last
time a coil went bad. We go through them every 500 hours or so, but
still have a problem now and again. Once I see the loss in CHT/EGT, or
feel it, I goose that side to rich so I'm not running cylinders where I
don't want them, and work the rest of the day with the split.
I don't know what other folks have found, but we've found one thing
about LOP, and that is it's very intolerant of any faults..... Ignition,
induction..... Everything needs to be in tip top shape. I think a lot of
things you might not notice otherwise when running these things on the
rich side, shows up LOP.
The six probe EGT is an amazing gizmo. I've looked over and seen a spike
in one jug and thought, now what? Cycle through the mags and find a bad
plug, and confirm it on the ground.
A cracked flange on an induction tube.... Shows up on the EGT.
A lot of this stuff you can feel, even when its really subtle, but the
EGT helps you find it.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
Carburetor?
Good Evening Steve,
Just out of curiosity, what was the occasion that had you operating
one engine on the lean side and the other one on the rich side!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/2/2007 6:03:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2(at)sover.net writes:
I've found pretty quickly I've lost a mag when I feel some roughness
and all
of a sudden see a spike in EGT/CHT. Sure enough, I'll switch between
mags
and find a dead one. Interesting coming home with one engine lean,
and one
engine rich. Both have similar EGT/CHT, but one is swilling fuel,
and one
isn't........
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve @ Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Taildraggers |
Nobody ever taught me that one...... So after you've stuck yourself to
the ground you're cross-controlling? I'm not sure I'm smart enough to do
that. Some days it's all I can do to turn the controls the right
direction.
I remember a lesson I had as a kid with Tom Murphy, one of the original
Pepsi skywriters. He was a neat old guy. We lined up on an old drive in
movie theatre screen, and did dutch rolls over and over with and without
aileron. I still remember the nose of the ratty old Cub slewing from
side to side.
Never thought about it on the ground.....
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Taildraggers
In a message dated 10/2/2007 9:09:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
yourtcfg(at)aol.com writes:
Taildragger Taildragger
Good Evening JB,
That is a very fine rendition of tailwheel checkout problems. However,
it does emphasize one of the problems that pilots are experiencing when
transitioning from tri-gear to conventional gear aircraft.
All that the author discusses is the use of rudder to keep the
airplane on the desired course.
There is not even one suggestion about the steering force that can be
used via the advantageous use of adverse yaw generated by the old
fashioned aileron which is used for roll control on most older flying
machines.
In the thirties and early forties, that was well understood and
thoroughly taught, but very few pilots other than some fortunate sea
plane pilots and a few very fortunate glider pilots are ever taught how
effective the adverse yaw can be in keeping the airplane on the straight
and narrow.
On some aircraft, specifically the Twin Beech, the use of proper
aileron is much more effective and of much greater importance than the
use of rudder. Another one of those ancient truths that have been
designed out of modern airplanes. Nothing wrong with what the designers
have done, but when we fly that ancient equipment, it behooves us to
know, understand, and use the ancient techniques!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what'set="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Steve,
Your experience directly parallels mine. The modern engine monitor
consisting of all cylinder EGT and CHT indications combined with a good electronic
fuel flow is not only a great aid in diagnosing problems, but it really helps
train us in how the engine really operates!
The ignition system needs to be in excellent shape. It is not unusual to
find brand new spark plugs that fail a high power lean of peak magneto check
right out of the box. I now consider my inflight, high power, magneto check to
be much more important than the one traditionally performed before takeoff.
It is a fact that many engines which do not run well lean of peak will be
found to have small induction leaks.
With an unsupercharged engine a comparison of a careful lean check performed
at altitude and one done down low will generally find that leak.
Do you use a lean spread check such as the one recommended by the GAMI folks?
While I have been running on the lean side and working to balance my fuel
nozzles and/or intake systems for well over fifty years, I had never thought of
doing their lean check procedure before I bought my GAMI balanced fuel
nozzles. That knowledge alone was well worth the purchase price.
I still feel very comfortable struggling along without a good engine
monitor, but it is one of the first places that I would spend my money if I bought
a
'new to me' airplane. It is a lot more than just a nice toy.
The saving of fuel via more precise control is nice, but much more important
is the ability to catch minor engine problems easily and to be able to pin
point the location of those impending difficulties.
Having said all that, this is why I asked the question:
Did you consider running your engine on the lean side after that one magneto
failed? All that running on one mag does is retard the point of peak
combustion pressure. Kinda like retarding the spark just a bit. Shouldn't be any
problem at all.
If you wanted to pick the power back up a bit, rechecking the peak on the
one magneto and going on from there to your normal lean operating point should
work just fine.
Any thoughts?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/3/2007 5:55:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2(at)sover.net writes:
I don't know what other folks have found, but we've found one thing about
LOP, and that is it's very intolerant of any faults..... Ignition,
induction..... Everything needs to be in tip top shape. I think a lot of things
you might
not notice otherwise when running these things on the rich side, shows up
LOP.
The six probe EGT is an amazing gizmo. I've looked over and seen a spike in
one jug and thought, now what? Cycle through the mags and find a bad plug,
and confirm it on the ground.
A cracked flange on an induction tube.... Shows up on the EGT.
A lot of this stuff you can feel, even when its really subtle, but the EGT
helps you find it.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Taildraggers |
Good Morning Once Again Steve,
I do not recommend doing it as a quick correction, but setting the controls
in that manner as a conscious effort well in advance of the need.
Most pilots are taught to use aileron into the wind for crosswind takeoff
and landings. It is generally taught that doing so will keep the wing down. No
doubt that is one effect, but the much more important result is that the
adverse yaw being generated by that action is a primary aid to directional
control. Consequently, most pilots do exactly what I suggest in a strong crosswind.
However, when the wind is on the nose, turning the wheel in the opposite
direction to correct for a swerve is not a natural move.
It does need to be trained for and practiced to be effective.
Where the problem usually occurs in the Twin Beech is just at that time that
the tail is being raised during the takeoff. The combination of
engine/propellor torque and the gyroscopic precession of the propellors uses up
all the
right rudder that is available and the pilot may try to steer the airplane
back to the right just like he/she would his/her car.
The control wheel is turned to the right.
That provokes the adverse yaw which turns the airplane to the left and the
airplane runs off the left side of the runway.
The longer one flys without considering the effect of adverse yaw, the
tougher it is to learn to use it properly.
Add in a bit of experience with an airplane that uses spoilers for roll
control and things can really get dicey!
Modern airplanes don't have the problem, but for those of us who enjoy the
older machines, it is a point that should at least be recognized. If nothing
else, I tell folks to avoid any extra aileron input if they are not absolutely
positive which way it should be turned!
The plus side is that even a modern airplane that uses aileron for roll
control will benefit from the use of adverse yaw while on the ground. If you are
flying one that uses spoiler for roll control, it is not only no good at all,
it is detrimental!
So much for standardization!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/3/2007 6:05:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2(at)sover.net writes:
Nobody ever taught me that one...... So after you've stuck yourself to the
ground you're cross-controlling? I'm not sure I'm smart enough to do that.
Some days it's all I can do to turn the controls the right direction.
I remember a lesson I had as a kid with Tom Murphy, one of the original
Pepsi skywriters. He was a neat old guy. We lined up on an old drive in movie
theatre screen, and did dutch rolls over and over with and without aileron. I
still remember the nose of the ratty old Cub slewing from side to side.
Never thought about it on the ground.....
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JTAddington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
I for got you are on a real airplane the B-747.
Jim
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
No they are in the middle.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James T.
Addington
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
BB, is that one of those airplanes with a training wheel in the back? HeHeHe
Jim
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
That's great!
I have taken my "sleek and clean" quintacycle (5 legs) out and burned up
399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have used "a
little of rudder, not too much" and been successful. It's time to go home
before it's "my own tail" going by.
bb
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger. Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Taildraggers |
In a message dated 10/3/2007 8:39:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
jtaddington(at)verizon.net writes:
I for got you are on a real airplane the B-747.
Jim
There is nothing else that quite compares with driving an eighteen wheeler!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Old Bob,
Affirmative on the GAMI test.
We're pretty close to perfect on fuel injection balance, but not quite
there. We've got the smallest injectors GAMI will give us on number 1,
and the largest on 5 and 6. But pulling the mixture back has the fire
going out in number 5 first, on both engines.
We've speculated that there is something about this engine installation
on the Commander that is harder to balance. The spider is all the way
forward, and number 5 has the longest and kinkiest run of the fuel
injection line.
We did the test with having each of the injectors piddle into a Coke
bottle. 5 lags just a little behind the others. (As an aside, a couple
years ago that's how we found the rebuilt engine's fuel pump had had a
chunk of thread come off and run through the pump, distributing chunks
into the spider.) We even found the fuel injection line had nipple ends
with different internal diameters, and changed the long number 5 and 6
lines to match the new style. It helped, but didn't totally cure it.
Pulling the mixture, way way back, or losing a mag, has the engine
(especially our left engine) run with a little bit of vibes. I've got
sitting on my desk a left side intake gasket that obviously wasn't
making the same good contact all the way around. We just last week
replaced the last of the old chintzy intake tubes, with newer heavier
gauge ones. I'm eager to get in the air to see if we've had an
undiagnosed small intake leak.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
Carburetor?
Good Morning Steve,
Your experience directly parallels mine. The modern engine monitor
consisting of all cylinder EGT and CHT indications combined with a good
electronic fuel flow is not only a great aid in diagnosing problems, but
it really helps train us in how the engine really operates!
The ignition system needs to be in excellent shape. It is not unusual
to find brand new spark plugs that fail a high power lean of peak
magneto check right out of the box. I now consider my inflight, high
power, magneto check to be much more important than the one
traditionally performed before takeoff.
It is a fact that many engines which do not run well lean of peak will
be found to have small induction leaks.
With an unsupercharged engine a comparison of a careful lean check
performed at altitude and one done down low will generally find that
leak.
Do you use a lean spread check such as the one recommended by the GAMI
folks?
While I have been running on the lean side and working to balance my
fuel nozzles and/or intake systems for well over fifty years, I had
never thought of doing their lean check procedure before I bought my
GAMI balanced fuel nozzles. That knowledge alone was well worth the
purchase price.
I still feel very comfortable struggling along without a good engine
monitor, but it is one of the first places that I would spend my money
if I bought a 'new to me' airplane. It is a lot more than just a nice
toy.
The saving of fuel via more precise control is nice, but much more
important is the ability to catch minor engine problems easily and to be
able to pin point the location of those impending difficulties.
Having said all that, this is why I asked the question:
Did you consider running your engine on the lean side after that one
magneto failed? All that running on one mag does is retard the point of
peak combustion pressure. Kinda like retarding the spark just a bit.
Shouldn't be any problem at all.
If you wanted to pick the power back up a bit, rechecking the peak on
the one magneto and going on from there to your normal lean operating
point should work just fine.
Any thoughts?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/3/2007 5:55:06 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2(at)sover.net writes:
I don't know what other folks have found, but we've found one thing
about LOP, and that is it's very intolerant of any faults..... Ignition,
induction..... Everything needs to be in tip top shape. I think a lot of
things you might not notice otherwise when running these things on the
rich side, shows up LOP.
The six probe EGT is an amazing gizmo. I've looked over and seen a
spike in one jug and thought, now what? Cycle through the mags and find
a bad plug, and confirm it on the ground.
A cracked flange on an induction tube.... Shows up on the EGT.
A lot of this stuff you can feel, even when its really subtle, but
the EGT helps you find it.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Good Morning Steve
It is an interesting new world when we get good instrumentation, isn't it?
I am not at all familiar with the intake tubes on the 540. Is there any
possibility of an "Occult" (as George calls it) fuel transfer with your intake
pipes?
Always something new to be learned.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/3/2007 9:39:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
steve2(at)sover.net writes:
We did the test with having each of the injectors piddle into a Coke bottle.
5 lags just a little behind the others. (As an aside, a couple years ago
that's how we found the rebuilt engine's fuel pump had had a chunk of thread
come off and run through the pump, distributing chunks into the spider.) We even
found the fuel injection line had nipple ends with different internal
diameters, and changed the long number 5 and 6 lines to match the new style.
It
helped, but didn't totally cure it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Flap hanger corrosion |
Gentlemen,
I am going through an annual, (again), and am badly in need of a Flap
hanger due to corrosion.
The part number is; 5240001-515,
the location is (good luck); Left wing, Inboard flap, Outboard hanger,
Outboard side.
If anyone can get me one of those (in very good condition) this week
please call me as soon as able, cell; 604-649-9320 (Vancouver, Canada).
Thanks all,
Tom Fisher
C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
I was just watching TV and saw an old Twilight Zone episode called "The arri
val" about a DC-3 that arrived with no one aboard.=C2- In one of the early
scenes, you can clearly hear the sound of a pair of geared Lycs taking off,
COOL!!=C2- jb
-----Original Message-----
From: James T. Addington <jtaddington(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 9:17 pm
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
BB, is that one of those airplanes with a training wheel in the back? HeHeHe
Jim
=C2-
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list
-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bow
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Taildraggers
=C2-
That=99s great!=C2-
I have taken my =9Csleek and clean=9D quintacycle (5 legs) out a
nd burned up 399,200 lbs. (59,582 gallons) of kerosene this week. And I have
used =9Ca little of rudder, not too much=9D and been successful
.=C2- It=99s time to go home before it=99s =9Cmy own tai
l=9D going by.
bb
=C2-
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list
-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Taildraggers
=C2-
Thought you guys could appreciate this since many of you learned to fly in a
taildragger.=C2- Enjoy!
Taildragger Taildragger
=C2-
Taildragger, I hate your guts,
I have the license, ratings and such.
But to make you go straight is driving me nuts.
With hours of teaching and the controls in my clutch.
It takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
You see, I learned to fly in a trycycle gear
with one up front and two in the rear.
She was sleek and clean and easy to steer
But this miserasble thing with tires and struts
Takes a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
It demands your attention on the take-off roll
or it heads towards Jone's as you pour on the coal.
Gotta hang loose, don't over control.
This wicked little plane is just too much.
With a lot of zigzagging and words obscene
I think I've mastered this slippery machine
It's not that bad if you have the touch
Just a little rudder, easy, that's too much.
I relax for a second and from the corner of my eye,
I suddenly realize with a gasp and a cry
That's my own tail that's going by.
You grounding looping wreck; I hate your guts,
Give a little rudder, Great Scott, THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Author Unknown
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
-= - The Commander-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
-========================
-= - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content now also available via the Web Forums!
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-========================
-= - The Commander-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
-========================
-= - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content now also available via the Web Forums!
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-========================
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http
://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com> |
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
HI DON.? The sound was just running in the background, as airport "white noise"
I thinks DC-3s are geared however.? jb
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Owens <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com>
Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 7:56 am
Subject: Re: Commander-List: GREAT SOUND
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
?
?
?
?
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moe - Ross Racing Pistons" <moe(at)rosspistons.com> |
Assuming that the DC3 had Curtiss-Wright R-1820 engines, they had prop
reduction gears.
Moe
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: GREAT SOUND
HI DON. The sound was just running in the background, as airport "white
noise" I thinks DC-3s are geared however. jb
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Owens <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com>
Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 7:56 am
Subject: Re: Commander-List: GREAT SOUND
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com> |
But of course they did!
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan" <swperk(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Arnie's 560 Commander |
Hi All,
This is probably more of a question for Sir Barry, but I thought it might
also be of general interest:
I just got my October/November copy of Private Air magazine, and their cover
story is about Arnold Palmer and his history with private aviation. Of
interest, the article mentions that he once leased a Jet Commander, but
before that, and more importantly to us, he owned a 560 Commander. There are
three black and white photos of the 560, including one interior shot with
Arnie sitting in the pilot's seat. The caption that accompanies the photos
mis-identifies the 560 as "the hefty Rockwell Jet Commander"(!)
What became of that 560?
Regards,
Stan
N681SP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
Aren't all OR most round engines geared? At least that was my
impression.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: yourtcfg(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: GREAT SOUND
HI DON. The sound was just running in the background, as airport
"white noise" I thinks DC-3s are geared however. jb
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Owens <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com>
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 7:56 am
Subject: Re: Commander-List: GREAT SOUND
But a DC-3 doesnt have geared lycs, so they used some other sound?
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/4/2007 8:59 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Good Evening Don,
Most all of the larger ones are, but the ubiquitous R-985 and R-1340 are
almost exclusively direct drive.
There were a very few 985s that had gearing. Not sure if they were
certificated or not, but at least one 985 with gearing for the propellor was used
in
a racing version of the Beechcraft Model 17.
A high percentage of the 1340s were geared. Many of them were used in the
Boeing 247 and the Nordyn Norseman, but the 1340s in all the production Harvards
and Texans were all direct drive though many have had geared versions
installed.
That nice little Russian engine is built both ways!
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 10/4/2007 8:37:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dongirod(at)bellsouth.net writes:
Aren't all OR most round engines geared? At least that was my impression.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
Video inside a working cylinder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5815350492893860613
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138200#138200
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
WAY COOL!!? jb
-----Original Message-----
From: N395V <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 7:07 pm
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor?
Video inside a working cylinder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5815350492893860613
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138200#138200
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
That's very nice, Milt.
Did you notice how far BTDC the ignition fires? I was looking for valve
overlap but the footage cuts at the precise moment that it should happen.
Although there is one frame where the inlet valve starts to open while the
exhaust valve is completely closed, indicating that his particular engine
doesn't have valve overlap. That technique to increase power without any
penalty somewhere else, has been developed in the late 60's or so and then
only in very exclusive high-performance engines. My guess is that this
engine is of a pre-1960's design; it is probably an aircraft engine.
Nico
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N395V
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
Carburetor?
Video inside a working cylinder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5815350492893860613
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138200#138200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure Carburetor? |
Where are the gerbils?
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:07 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Lean side or rich side? Was: Pressure
Carburetor?
>
>
> Video inside a working cylinder
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5815350492893860613
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138200#138200
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Anyone like the GOOSE? |
Hi all,
Being a huge Grumman Goose fan, I was excited to see this company
emerge: http://www.gooseseaplanes.com/
Anyone heard of these guys? Think they'll make it?
Cheers,
/John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JTAddington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Anyone like the GOOSE? |
One of my favorite planes.
Thanks
Jim Addington
N444BD
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:24 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Anyone like the GOOSE?
Hi all,
Being a huge Grumman Goose fan, I was excited to see this company
emerge: http://www.gooseseaplanes.com/
Anyone heard of these guys? Think they'll make it?
Cheers,
/John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone like the GOOSE? |
A fellow pilot friend of mine has a Goose, previously owned by Alaska
Airlines, which he let me fly. Was an experience, another friend has a
Widgeon which I have flown in the USCG Aug. and down to Sun n Fun. Both
were fun, I can imagine how a goose with PT 6 turbo props on would get up on
plane in a hurry. However not many lakes in GA will let you TO and LND. So
will stay with the Commander.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "JTAddington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Anyone like the GOOSE?
>
> One of my favorite planes.
> Thanks
> Jim Addington
> N444BD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Vormbaum
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:24 PM
> To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Commander-List: Anyone like the GOOSE?
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Being a huge Grumman Goose fan, I was excited to see this company
> emerge: http://www.gooseseaplanes.com/
>
> Anyone heard of these guys? Think they'll make it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> /John
>
>
> --
6:53 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Arnie's 560 Commander |
Hi Stan,
Apologies for the delay, but I only returned home last Friday and have
been a couple of days getting over the jet-lag effect.
My database reflects Arnie Palmer owning two Commanders, but neither was
a straight 560.
First one was a Model 500, s/n 685, N6285B. This he bought second-hand
from Youngwood Metals Co Inc., of Youngwood, Pennsylvania on September
6th 1961 and on November 27th 1963 it was traded in to the Aero
Commander Division, of Rockwell-Standard Corp for his next one, a Model
560F. There's a photo somewhere on "the net" of Arnie flying the 500 in
formation with a few of the Blue Angels team. It is now in the Bahamas,
as C6-BFS, with Abaco Air Ltd., of Marsh Harbour, Abaco. I've told them
about its pedigree!
The 560F was s/n 1364-64, N701AP although he re-registered it as N551VM
just prior to a sale to Vasco Metals Corp.,of Latrobe, Pennsylvania on
January 14th 1966. Presumably, the 1121 Jet Commander was acquired at
this time, being s/n 52, also registered N701AP.
Off his website, I emailed Arnie some years ago, asking for his
recollections on flying the Commanders for the book, but he didn't
reply.
I similarly emailed Jack Nicklaus with the same result.
May their drives never hit the fairway and their putts miss by yards ;-)
Do the photos show a 560? If so, I'd certainly be interested in seeing
them.
I'm wondering though whether they are of the 500 (would have 2-blade
props), or the captions have omitted the "F" from "560F".
Great seeing you and Bob again at the Fly-In and hope you will both make
it again next year!
Very Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:00 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Arnie's 560 Commander
Hi All,
This is probably more of a question for Sir Barry, but I thought it
might also be of general interest:
I just got my October/November copy of Private Air magazine, and their
cover story is about Arnold Palmer and his history with private
aviation. Of interest, the article mentions that he once leased a Jet
Commander, but before that, and more importantly to us, he owned a 560
Commander. There are three black and white photos of the 560, including
one interior shot with Arnie sitting in the pilot's seat. The caption
that accompanies the photos mis-identifies the 560 as "the hefty
Rockwell Jet Commander"(!)
What became of that 560?
Regards,
Stan
N681SP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deneal Schilmeister" <deneals(at)deneals.com> |
| Subject: | Arnie's 560 Commander |
___________________________
Deneal Schilmeister, ATP LearJet
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500
http://deneals.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Collman
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Arnie's 560 Commander
Hi Stan,
Apologies for the delay, but I only returned home last Friday and have
been
a couple of days getting over the jet-lag effect.
My database reflects Arnie Palmer owning two Commanders, but neither was
a
straight 560.
First one was a Model 500, s/n 685, N6285B. This he bought second-hand
from
Youngwood Metals Co Inc., of Youngwood, Pennsylvania on September 6th
1961
and on November 27th 1963 it was traded in to the Aero Commander
Division,
of Rockwell-Standard Corp for his next one, a Model 560F. There's a
photo
somewhere on "the net" of Arnie flying the 500 in formation with a few
of
the Blue Angels team. It is now in the Bahamas, as C6-BFS, with Abaco
Air
Ltd., of Marsh Harbour, Abaco. I've told them about its pedigree!
The 560F was s/n 1364-64, N701AP although he re-registered it as N551VM
just
prior to a sale to Vasco Metals Corp.,of Latrobe, Pennsylvania on
January
14th 1966. Presumably, the 1121 Jet Commander was acquired at this time,
being s/n 52, also registered N701AP.
Off his website, I emailed Arnie some years ago, asking for his
recollections on flying the Commanders for the book, but he didn't
reply.
I similarly emailed Jack Nicklaus with the same result.
May their drives never hit the fairway and their putts miss by yards ;-)
Do the photos show a 560? If so, I'd certainly be interested in seeing
them.
I'm wondering though whether they are of the 500 (would have 2-blade
props),
or the captions have omitted the "F" from "560F".
Great seeing you and Bob again at the Fly-In and hope you will both make
it
again next year!
Very Best Regards,
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Arnie's 560 Commander |
Hi Deneal,
The picture on the left is obviously, with the 2-blade props., his Model
500.
The picture on the right is his 560F.
Are these the same photos that were published in the magazine?
Thanks Deneal!
Very Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Deneal Schilmeister
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Arnie's 560 Commander
___________________________
Deneal Schilmeister, ATP LearJet
St. Louis - Cincinnati
1997 SL500
http://deneals.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Collman
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:43 AM
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Arnie's 560 Commander
Hi Stan,
Apologies for the delay, but I only returned home last Friday and have
been a couple of days getting over the jet-lag effect.
My database reflects Arnie Palmer owning two Commanders, but neither
was a straight 560.
First one was a Model 500, s/n 685, N6285B. This he bought second-hand
from Youngwood Metals Co Inc., of Youngwood, Pennsylvania on September
6th 1961 and on November 27th 1963 it was traded in to the Aero
Commander Division, of Rockwell-Standard Corp for his next one, a Model
560F. There's a photo somewhere on "the net" of Arnie flying the 500 in
formation with a few of the Blue Angels team. It is now in the Bahamas,
as C6-BFS, with Abaco Air Ltd., of Marsh Harbour, Abaco. I've told them
about its pedigree!
The 560F was s/n 1364-64, N701AP although he re-registered it as
N551VM just prior to a sale to Vasco Metals Corp.,of Latrobe,
Pennsylvania on January 14th 1966. Presumably, the 1121 Jet Commander
was acquired at this time, being s/n 52, also registered N701AP.
Off his website, I emailed Arnie some years ago, asking for his
recollections on flying the Commanders for the book, but he didn't
reply.
I similarly emailed Jack Nicklaus with the same result.
May their drives never hit the fairway and their putts miss by yards
;-)
Do the photos show a 560? If so, I'd certainly be interested in seeing
them.
I'm wondering though whether they are of the 500 (would have 2-blade
props), or the captions have omitted the "F" from "560F".
Great seeing you and Bob again at the Fly-In and hope you will both
make it again next year!
Very Best Regards,
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Arnie's 560 Commander |
| From: | Deneal Schilmeister <deneals(at)deneals.com> |
Yes indeed, Barry.
I should have sent the link so everyone can enjoy the story:
http://www.privateairdaily.com/magazine/article/10558.html
Thanks to Stan for pointing me in the proper direction!
--
Deneal Schilmeister ATP Learjet
St. Louis, Missouri USA
http://deneals.com
" Being involved in aviation is like meeting a beautiful woman you never
forget"
....Cliff Robertson
On 10/8/07 10:09 AM, "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
wrote:
> Hi Deneal,
>
> The picture on the left is obviously, with the 2-blade props., his Model 500.
>
> The picture on the right is his 560F.
>
> Are these the same photos that were published in the magazine?
>
> Thanks Deneal!
>
> Very Best Regards,
> Barry
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Folks, this is not an aviation related thing (although I hope it will turn
into one in the near future), but I thought since we have common bonds and
are members of the Commander family, that it wouldn't offend if I share a
new business venture with you. Much like sharing my passion for Commanders
with my aviation-disinterested brother, who is totally over the wall about
his ski boat.
Take a look www.faithmugs.com <http://www.faithmugs.com/> - critique is
welcome.
Thanks for your indulgence.
Nico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MASON CHEVAILLIER <kamala(at)MSN.COM> |
brock lorber, pls call or fwd phone #. tnx gmc 817-517-4977
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ray Mansfield" <hcourier(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part |
Clear DayHello again,
I am in need of three trim tab parts for the Aero Commander 680 FLP I
fly. The part description and part nos. are as follows:
PN 2835YC - Actuator
PN 2440016-3 - Bracket
PN 2440016-5 - Screw/pivot (need 2)
The FBO maintenance folks who work on our plane have looked around and
found the items but at an excessively high price. (I know, the market
drives the price, but the word rip-off comes to mind in this case)
If you have such parts available please let me know. I can get a
diagram of the mechanism if needed, but these part numbers come from
that diagram.
Many of you have been helpful in the past...THANKS.
Ray Mansfield
850-217-5185
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike floyd <floydgm(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part |
Ray,
Central Air Southwest, John Towner, sent a flyer out offering a PMA trim a
ctuator.
This is their contact info.
Kansas City Office-Satellite Corporate Office411 Lou Holland Dr.Kansas City
, MO64116(816) 472-7711Fax (816) 472-1682
Mike
From: hcourier(at)cox.netTo: commander-list(at)matronics.comSubject: Commander-Li
st: Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab PartDate: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:34:35 -05
00
Hello again,
I am in need of three trim tab parts for the Aero Commander 680 FLP I fly.
The part description and part nos. are as follows:
PN 2835YC - Actuator
PN 2440016-3 - Bracket
PN 2440016-5 - Screw/pivot (need 2)
The FBO maintenance folks who work on our plane have looked around and foun
d the items but at an excessively high price. (I know, the market drives t
he price, but the word rip-off comes to mind in this case)
If you have such parts available please let me know. I can get a diagram o
f the mechanism if needed, but these part numbers come from that diagram.
Many of you have been helpful in the past...THANKS.
Ray Mansfield
850-217-5185
_________________________________________________________________
!
ilnews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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moe - Ross Racing Pistons" <moe(at)rosspistons.com> |
| Subject: | Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part |
Hi Ray,
Jack Chappell probably has them, but apparently he doesn't monitor this
forum. His phone is 951.371.7513
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray
Mansfield
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:35 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part
Hello again,
I am in need of three trim tab parts for the Aero Commander 680 FLP I fly.
The part description and part nos. are as follows:
PN 2835YC - Actuator
PN 2440016-3 - Bracket
PN 2440016-5 - Screw/pivot (need 2)
The FBO maintenance folks who work on our plane have looked around and found
the items but at an excessively high price. (I know, the market drives the
price, but the word rip-off comes to mind in this case)
If you have such parts available please let me know. I can get a diagram of
the mechanism if needed, but these part numbers come from that diagram.
Many of you have been helpful in the past...THANKS.
Ray Mansfield
850-217-5185
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <hcourier(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part |
Thanks Moe, I'll check with Jack.
RM
---- Moe - Ross Racing Pistons wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ray,
>
>
>
> Jack Chappell probably has them, but apparently he doesn't monitor this
> forum. His phone is 951.371.7513
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Moe Mills
>
> N680RR
>
> 680F(p)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ray
> Mansfield
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:35 AM
> To: Matronics List
> Subject: Commander-List: Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part
>
>
>
> Hello again,
>
>
>
> I am in need of three trim tab parts for the Aero Commander 680 FLP I fly.
> The part description and part nos. are as follows:
>
>
>
> PN 2835YC - Actuator
>
> PN 2440016-3 - Bracket
>
> PN 2440016-5 - Screw/pivot (need 2)
>
>
>
> The FBO maintenance folks who work on our plane have looked around and found
> the items but at an excessively high price. (I know, the market drives the
> price, but the word rip-off comes to mind in this case)
>
>
>
> If you have such parts available please let me know. I can get a diagram of
> the mechanism if needed, but these part numbers come from that diagram.
>
> Many of you have been helpful in the past...THANKS.
>
> Ray Mansfield
>
> 850-217-5185
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James T. Addington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her battle
with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at
Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the funeral will be
at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Jacqui Thompson" <RnJThompson(at)aol.com> |
Jim,
Jacqui and I send you our most sincere condolences.
Cheers from OZ
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James T.
Addington
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her battle
with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at
Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the funeral will be
at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
So sorry.
Steve Welebny
----- Original Message -----
From: James T. Addington
To: James T. Addington
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:29 AM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her
battle with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to
8:00 at Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the
funeral will be at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <andrew.bridget(at)telus.net> |
Jim, so sad to hear this. You are still in our prayers.
God bless,
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: James T. Addington
To: James T. Addington
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her
battle with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to
8:00 at Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the
funeral will be at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Fisher" <tfisher(at)commandergroup.bc.ca> |
So sorry Jim, I hope she was at peace in her final moments.
Tom Fisher
C-GISS 680FLP (Mr.RPM)
----- Original Message -----
From: James T. Addington
To: James T. Addington
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:29 PM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her
battle with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to
8:00 at Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the
funeral will be at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JTAddington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
Thanks, my daughter, granddaughter and I will need all the prayers we can
get.
Thanks
Jim
N444BD
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
andrew.bridget(at)telus.net
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List:
Jim, so sad to hear this. You are still in our prayers.
God bless,
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: James T. <mailto:jtaddington(at)verizon.net> Addington
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her battle
with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at
Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the funeral will be
at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JTAddington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
Thanks, and I did enjoy meeting you at the flyin
Jim N444BD
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard &
Jacqui Thompson
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:52 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List:
Jim,
Jacqui and I send you our most sincere condolences.
Cheers from OZ
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James T.
Addington
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her battle
with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at
Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the funeral will be
at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Donnie Rose <aquadiver99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mander-List: |
Jim, my most sincere condolences to you.=0A =0ADonnie Rose =0A205/492-8444
=0A =0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: James T. Addington <jtaddi
ngton(at)verizon.net>=0ATo: James T. Addington =0ASen
t: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:29:39 AM=0ASubject: Commander-List: =0A=0A
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her batt
le with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at M
ulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the funeral will be
at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.=0A Thanks=0A Jim Addin
==== =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A_________________________________
___________________________________________________=0ABe a better Heartthro
b. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Our deepest condolences, Jim. We mourn but not as if we are without hope.
May the Lord comfort you and your family.
Sincerely
Nico
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James T.
Addington
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:30 AM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her battle
with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at
Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the funeral will be
at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mander-List: |
Jim, Our condolences to you & your family for your loss.
/John & Sarah
James T. Addington wrote:
>
> I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her
> battle with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to
> 8:00 at Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the
> funeral will be at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Addingon
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MASON CHEVAILLIER <kamala(at)MSN.COM> |
brock lorber, please call or fwd your phone #. mason 817-517-4977
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
Jim;
I am sorry to hear about your loss. You have my condolences.
I am glad you have you family with you.
Keep the faith, I lost my wife during the EAL fiasco, remember the poem,
"Footprints in the Sand", just hang on to God's hand and he will get you
through it. Never is easy, but time helps.
Will keep you and your family in my prayers. I firmly believe, if you
are a Christian, Heaven is a reward.
God Bless, Don
----- Original Message -----
From: James T. Addington
To: James T. Addington
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:29 AM
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her
battle with cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to
8:00 at Mulkey Mason Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX and the
funeral will be at the First Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/12/2007 11:10 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
Jim,
So sorry to hear of your loss of your wife.? She fought a good battle.? Our prayers
are with you and your family.? Let us know if there is anything we can do
for you.
Warm Regards,
Jim & Sue Metzger
-----Original Message-----
From: James T. Addington <jtaddington(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:29 am
Subject: Commander-List:
I want to thank those that said a prayer for my wife but she lost her battle with
cancer Wednesday morning. Visitation is Friday at 6:00 to 8:00 at Mulkey Mason
Funeral Home,705 N Locust, Denton, TX ?and the funeral will be at the First
Baptist Church 1100 Malone, Denton.
Thanks
Jim Addingon
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com> |
I am so sorry for your loss, Jim.
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rlegg(at)austarnet.com.au> |
Dear Jim,
My sincere condolences to you and your family at this very difficult time. My
thoughts are with you over the forthcoming days and weeks.
Please take great care.
Cheers
Russell
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Quest Aviation - Lake City,Florida |
Re: Commander-List: Arnie's 560 CommanderHi All,
Is anyone on the list near Lake City, Florida?
If so and they've got some time to spare, I'd like to know whether the
wings of what was a Commander 680E are there with Quest Aviation, marked
with Colombian registration "HK-2173". This was Serial Number 666-10.
However, this is believed to have been confiscated in Mexico and was
possibly with their Navy, as serial 'MT-1802' with a technical school at
Veracruz. Last noted there in December 2001, "HK-2173" was reportedly
noted with Quest Aviation in April 2004.
I've Emailed several guys there off Quest's website 'Contact us'
facility, but nobody has replied.
Very Best Regards,
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harry Merritt" <avtec2(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part |
Clear DayHarry think he has thim !
321 267-3141
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Mansfield
To: Matronics List
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:34 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Aero Commander 680 FLP Trim Tab Part
Hello again,
I am in need of three trim tab parts for the Aero Commander 680 FLP I
fly. The part description and part nos. are as follows:
PN 2835YC - Actuator
PN 2440016-3 - Bracket
PN 2440016-5 - Screw/pivot (need 2)
The FBO maintenance folks who work on our plane have looked around and
found the items but at an excessively high price. (I know, the market
drives the price, but the word rip-off comes to mind in this case)
If you have such parts available please let me know. I can get a
diagram of the mechanism if needed, but these part numbers come from
that diagram.
Many of you have been helpful in the past...THANKS.
Ray Mansfield
850-217-5185
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Quest Aviation - Lake City,Florida |
I fly that way every Tuesday and Wednesday
Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Folks,
I am considering grafting a pilot door into ZK-DCF, a 500A.
The door and surrounding structure will come from a written -
off 500S, I am told the internal structure around the area is the
same, does anybody know any different, or are there any serious
practical pitfalls in such a modification.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
Hi Bill,
I'm pretty sure the structure on your -A would be the same as the -B and
-S models. I'm sure Jimbob or similar will chime in quickly and set me
straight if I'm wrong!
Mostly I'm chiming in because I saw that you were quoted in our US AOPA
Magazine back in June, in an article called "A Cautionary Tale" about
user fees, CASA, and the state of GA down under. It mentioned your
tireless support of a strong GA environment there, and your success in
Light Sport without onerous CASA oversight. We're going to have to take
some lessons from you here in the US if things keep going the way
they're going...
Sorry to hijack your posting,
/John
W J R HAMILTON wrote:
> Folks,
> I am considering grafting a pilot door into ZK-DCF, a 500A.
> The door and surrounding structure will come from a written - off
> 500S, I am told the internal structure around the area is the same,
> does anybody know any different, or are there any serious practical
> pitfalls in such a modification.
> Cheers,
> Bill Hamilton
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Bill,
The person that knows how to put doors in 500B is John Towner.
All of his 35+ aircraft have the front door. Most of his aircraft
are 500B that did not come with front doors. The are used to haul
freight at night.
The door is the easy part. It is the door frame that you need to
remove from the other aircraft.
I have flown a 500 with out and one with and the front door is a
great feature.
Tylor Hall
On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:15 PM, W J R HAMILTON wrote:
> Folks,
> I am considering grafting a pilot door into ZK-DCF, a 500A.
> The door and surrounding structure will come from a written - off
> 500S, I am told the internal structure around the area is the same,
> does anybody know any different, or are there any serious practical
> pitfalls in such a modification.
> Cheers,
> Bill Hamilton
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Tyler,
Thanks for that, we are (if we go ahead) going take a complete piece
out of the wrecked 500S, door and frame.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 14:11 17/10/2007, you wrote:
>Bill,
>The person that knows how to put doors in 500B is John Towner.
>All of his 35+ aircraft have the front door. Most of his aircraft
>are 500B that did not come with front doors. The are used to haul
>freight at night.
>The door is the easy part. It is the door frame that you need to
>remove from the other aircraft.
>I have flown a 500 with out and one with and the front door is a
>great feature.
>Tylor Hall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
John,
Thanks for the kind words, it is a continuous battle, but at least
the grass roots end, Recreational Aviation, is alive and well.
Given some of the recent recruitment to CASA, we seem to be dealing
with industrial grade Indian bureaucracy layered on top of an already
Have a look at http://www.auf.asn.au/, aircraft `like the Jabiru
(1200 + sold) do everything a C-152 does, but they are 20kt faster,
about a third the cost to operate, and 10,000 h airframes in flying
school service are showing no sign of deterioration --- a testimony
to wet layup, instead of pre-pregs.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
----------
At 14:01 17/10/2007, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>I'm pretty sure the structure on your -A would be the same as the -B
>and -S models. I'm sure Jimbob or similar will chime in quickly and
>set me straight if I'm wrong!
>
>Mostly I'm chiming in because I saw that you were quoted in our US
>AOPA Magazine back in June, in an article called "A Cautionary Tale"
>about user fees, CASA, and the state of GA down under. It mentioned
>your tireless support of a strong GA environment there, and your
>success in Light Sport without onerous CASA oversight. We're going
>to have to take some lessons from you here in the US if things keep
>going the way they're going...
>
>Sorry to hijack your posting,
>
>/John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
Bill;
I had nothing to do with it but, N2707B a 560E has had a pilot door
installed and it works great. A big convenience.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: W J R HAMILTON
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Pilot Door.
Folks,
I am considering grafting a pilot door into ZK-DCF, a 500A.
The door and surrounding structure will come from a written - off
500S, I am told the internal structure around the area is the same, does
anybody know any different, or are there any serious practical pitfalls
in such a modification.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/16/2007 2:14 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillLeff1(at)aol.com |
No Problem, the structure is the same. I put a front door in my 560F. Lot of
work but well worth it. FYI the front door was originally developed for the
military. The Aero Commander was the first aircraft used to develop Side
Looking Radar for the Army. It blocked the cabin door so they need the front door
to get in the aircraft.
Bill Leff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Failures Update |
Back in February, I reported to the group my experience in losing
the left engine in my 680F while experiencing trouble with the
right engine - at the same time. Heres an update.
After losing oil through the breather, with serious loss of oil
pressure, the left engine threw a rod (the rod separated at the
crank). The right engine lost 2-3 gallons through the breather
during the previous one hour leg, and made so much metal it must
be re-built. Heres the scenario - both engines lost a huge
amount of oil through the breathers (the crank cases became
pressurized), both incidents occurred at the same time, at 5.5.
hrs after the annual inspection. Both engines had cylinders
replaced during the annual inspection (2 on the right, 1 on the
left).
I cannot believe that these episodes are a coincidence.
My mechanic (ex-mechanic now), Morris Kernick (who has maintained
the airplane for the past 7 years) did not put the required
break-in oil in the engines after cylinder replacement (as
specifically recommended by Lycoming). He says that it is not
necessary. Several engine experts who have examined the rings in
the replaced cylinders indicate that they look too used to be
5.5. hours old. Morris and the cylinder shop deny that they are
used. Central Cylinder in Omaha, NE is currently re-building the
engines (at $50K each). They indicate that the cylinder walls
are glazed, which is caused by over heating, and can be a cause
of excessive blow-by and crankcase pressurization. I have
always been very careful about temps, so the only time the
engines could be overheated is during a ground test run. Morris
Kernick has not taken any responsibility for the situation. I
have been very disappointed in his lack of support and
accountability. He has been virtually silent since the incident.
I have had to call him each time to discuss the situation. He has
not called me once. He says that nothing he did caused the
failures. Whether or not Morris caused the problems, I would
have expected him to stand behind his work and to at least do his
best to trouble shoot the problems and help me with a solution.
We still do not know definitely what caused the failures. Morris
did give me an engine core, which I would value at around
$15-20K. I believe that he is hoping that the engine core will
be a cheap way out of being accountable for the work leaving his
shop. At this time, I am still analyzing options to recover some
of the significant expenses incurred because of this incident.
In any case, I wanted to share my story. I have always liked
Morris, and have appreciated his vast knowledge about Commanders.
Morris does not have an A&P license, and relies on his employee
to sign off all work done in his shop. I believe this situation
may be a result of his conviction for falsifying maintenance
records. Because of these factors, and my recent experience, I
cannot trust him to provide me with competent service service
that is so important to the safety and lives of the people that I
carry in my airplane. I feel obligated to share these details
with my fellow Commander owners, so that you can make your own
conclusions.
The engines should be completed in several more weeks, and will
be shipped to SNS and installed on the airplane by Dave Teeters
at Airmotive Specialties. I am looking forward to getting N6253X
back in the air. Its been a long 7 months.
Randy Dettmer, AIA
680F/N6253X
663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865
http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/
<http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Failures Update |
Sorry to hear the results but I'm not surprised.
bilbo
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy
Dettmer, AIA
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
Back in February, I reported to the group my experience in losing the left
engine in my 680F while experiencing trouble with the right engine - at the
same time. Here's an update.
After losing oil through the breather, with serious loss of oil pressure,
the left engine threw a rod (the rod separated at the crank). The right
engine lost 2-3 gallons through the breather during the previous one hour
leg, and made so much metal it must be re-built. Here's the scenario - both
engines lost a huge amount of oil through the breathers (the crank cases
became pressurized), both incidents occurred at the same time, at 5.5. hrs
after the annual inspection. Both engines had cylinders replaced during the
annual inspection (2 on the right, 1 on the left).
I cannot believe that these episodes are a coincidence.
My mechanic (ex-mechanic now), Morris Kernick (who has maintained the
airplane for the past 7 years) did not put the required break-in oil in the
engines after cylinder replacement (as specifically recommended by
Lycoming). He says that it is not necessary. Several engine experts who
have examined the rings in the replaced cylinders indicate that they look
too "used" to be 5.5. hours old. Morris and the cylinder shop deny that
they are used. Central Cylinder in Omaha, NE is currently re-building the
engines (at $50K each). They indicate that the cylinder walls are glazed,
which is caused by over heating, and can be a cause of excessive "blow-by"
and crankcase pressurization. I have always been very careful about temps,
so the only time the engines could be overheated is during a ground test
run. Morris Kernick has not taken any responsibility for the situation. I
have been very disappointed in his lack of support and accountability. He
has been virtually silent since the incident. I have had to call him each
time to discuss the situation. He has not called me once. He says that
nothing he did caused the failures. Whether or not Morris caused the
problems, I would have expected him to stand behind his work and to at least
do his best to trouble shoot the problems and help me with a solution. We
still do not know definitely what caused the failures. Morris did give me
an engine core, which I would value at around $15-20K. I believe that he is
hoping that the engine core will be a cheap way out of being accountable for
the work leaving his shop. At this time, I am still analyzing options to
recover some of the significant expenses incurred because of this incident.
In any case, I wanted to share my story. I have always liked Morris, and
have appreciated his vast knowledge about Commanders. Morris does not have
an A&P license, and relies on his employee to sign off all work done in his
shop. I believe this situation may be a result of his conviction for
falsifying maintenance records. Because of these factors, and my recent
experience, I cannot trust him to provide me with competent service -
service that is so important to the safety and lives of the people that I
carry in my airplane. I feel obligated to share these details with my
fellow Commander owners, so that you can make your own conclusions.
The engines should be completed in several more weeks, and will be shipped
to SNS and installed on the airplane by Dave Teeters at Airmotive
Specialties. I am looking forward to getting N6253X back in the air. It's
been a long 7 months.
Randy Dettmer, AIA
680F/N6253X
663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865
<http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/> http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Bill,
Very interesting historic note, thanks for that.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 14:58 20/10/2007, you wrote:
>No Problem, the structure is the same. I put a front door in my
>560F. Lot of work but well worth it. FYI the front door was
>originally developed for the military. The Aero Commander was the
>first aircraft used to develop Side Looking Radar for the Army. It
>blocked the cabin door so they need the front door to get in the aircraft.
>
>Bill Leff
>
>
>----------
>See what's
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failures Update |
Randy,
Thank you for sharing your experience with your 680F, If it will make
you feel better I, also have had three "UN-EXPLAINED" oil loss on the
left side of my 680F, I know it is the breather system for sure, but I
find that it happens within :20 of take-off on a cold day? Beware of
your Mechanic he may be hazardous to your health.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Dettmer, AIA
To: Commander Chat
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
Back in February, I reported to the group my experience in losing the
left engine in my 680F while experiencing trouble with the right engine
- at the same time. Here's an update.
After losing oil through the breather, with serious loss of oil
pressure, the left engine threw a rod (the rod separated at the crank).
The right engine lost 2-3 gallons through the breather during the
previous one hour leg, and made so much metal it must be re-built.
Here's the scenario - both engines lost a huge amount of oil through the
breathers (the crank cases became pressurized), both incidents occurred
at the same time, at 5.5. hrs after the annual inspection. Both engines
had cylinders replaced during the annual inspection (2 on the right, 1
on the left).
I cannot believe that these episodes are a coincidence.
My mechanic (ex-mechanic now), Morris Kernick (who has maintained the
airplane for the past 7 years) did not put the required break-in oil in
the engines after cylinder replacement (as specifically recommended by
Lycoming). He says that it is not necessary. Several engine experts
who have examined the rings in the replaced cylinders indicate that they
look too "used" to be 5.5. hours old. Morris and the cylinder shop deny
that they are used. Central Cylinder in Omaha, NE is currently
re-building the engines (at $50K each). They indicate that the cylinder
walls are glazed, which is caused by over heating, and can be a cause of
excessive "blow-by" and crankcase pressurization. I have always been
very careful about temps, so the only time the engines could be
overheated is during a ground test run. Morris Kernick has not taken
any responsibility for the situation. I have been very disappointed in
his lack of support and accountability. He has been virtually silent
since the incident. I have had to call him each time to discuss the
situation. He has not called me once. He says that nothing he did
caused the failures. Whether or not Morris caused the problems, I would
have expected him to stand behind his work and to at least do his best
to trouble shoot the problems and help me with a solution. We still do
not know definitely what caused the failures. Morris did give me an
engine core, which I would value at around $15-20K. I believe that he
is hoping that the engine core will be a cheap way out of being
accountable for the work leaving his shop. At this time, I am still
analyzing options to recover some of the significant expenses incurred
because of this incident.
In any case, I wanted to share my story. I have always liked Morris,
and have appreciated his vast knowledge about Commanders. Morris does
not have an A&P license, and relies on his employee to sign off all work
done in his shop. I believe this situation may be a result of his
conviction for falsifying maintenance records. Because of these
factors, and my recent experience, I cannot trust him to provide me with
competent service - service that is so important to the safety and lives
of the people that I carry in my airplane. I feel obligated to share
these details with my fellow Commander owners, so that you can make your
own conclusions.
The engines should be completed in several more weeks, and will be
shipped to SNS and installed on the airplane by Dave Teeters at
Airmotive Specialties. I am looking forward to getting N6253X back in
the air. It's been a long 7 months.
Randy Dettmer, AIA
680F/N6253X
663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865
http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Failures Update |
Gents-
For someone who has never heard of this phenomenon- can anyone give a good
technical explanation of what exactly is happening to cause the oil to blow
out the breather system- and how does one check for it- prevent it, etc?
I'm running TCM engines on the 685, but I'm assuming it can happen there as
well?
Robert S.Randazzo
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
Sprayberry
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
Randy,
Thank you for sharing your experience with your 680F, If it will make you
feel better I, also have had three "UN-EXPLAINED" oil loss on the left side
of my 680F, I know it is the breather system for sure, but I find that it
happens within :20 of take-off on a cold day? Beware of your Mechanic he may
be hazardous to your health.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy <mailto:rcdettmer(at)charter.net> Dettmer, AIA
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
Back in February, I reported to the group my experience in losing the left
engine in my 680F while experiencing trouble with the right engine - at the
same time. Here's an update.
After losing oil through the breather, with serious loss of oil pressure,
the left engine threw a rod (the rod separated at the crank). The right
engine lost 2-3 gallons through the breather during the previous one hour
leg, and made so much metal it must be re-built. Here's the scenario - both
engines lost a huge amount of oil through the breathers (the crank cases
became pressurized), both incidents occurred at the same time, at 5.5. hrs
after the annual inspection. Both engines had cylinders replaced during the
annual inspection (2 on the right, 1 on the left).
I cannot believe that these episodes are a coincidence.
My mechanic (ex-mechanic now), Morris Kernick (who has maintained the
airplane for the past 7 years) did not put the required break-in oil in the
engines after cylinder replacement (as specifically recommended by
Lycoming). He says that it is not necessary. Several engine experts who
have examined the rings in the replaced cylinders indicate that they look
too "used" to be 5.5. hours old. Morris and the cylinder shop deny that
they are used. Central Cylinder in Omaha, NE is currently re-building the
engines (at $50K each). They indicate that the cylinder walls are glazed,
which is caused by over heating, and can be a cause of excessive "blow-by"
and crankcase pressurization. I have always been very careful about temps,
so the only time the engines could be overheated is during a ground test
run. Morris Kernick has not taken any responsibility for the situation. I
have been very disappointed in his lack of support and accountability. He
has been virtually silent since the incident. I have had to call him each
time to discuss the situation. He has not called me once. He says that
nothing he did caused the failures. Whether or not Morris caused the
problems, I would have expected him to stand behind his work and to at least
do his best to trouble shoot the problems and help me with a solution. We
still do not know definitely what caused the failures. Morris did give me
an engine core, which I would value at around $15-20K. I believe that he is
hoping that the engine core will be a cheap way out of being accountable for
the work leaving his shop. At this time, I am still analyzing options to
recover some of the significant expenses incurred because of this incident.
In any case, I wanted to share my story. I have always liked Morris, and
have appreciated his vast knowledge about Commanders. Morris does not have
an A&P license, and relies on his employee to sign off all work done in his
shop. I believe this situation may be a result of his conviction for
falsifying maintenance records. Because of these factors, and my recent
experience, I cannot trust him to provide me with competent service -
service that is so important to the safety and lives of the people that I
carry in my airplane. I feel obligated to share these details with my
fellow Commander owners, so that you can make your own conclusions.
The engines should be completed in several more weeks, and will be shipped
to SNS and installed on the airplane by Dave Teeters at Airmotive
Specialties. I am looking forward to getting N6253X back in the air. It's
been a long 7 months.
Randy Dettmer, AIA
680F/N6253X
663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865
<http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/> http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failures Update |
In a message dated 21-Oct-07 17:56:38 Pacific Daylight Time,
rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes:
For someone who has never heard of this phenomenon- can anyone give a good
technical explanation of what exactly is happening to cause the oil to blow
out the breather system- and how does one check for it- prevent it, etc?
Robert,
This will be a (poor) explanation of either very loose science, or, very
tight magic.
I watched the crew at Down Town Airpark place an airspeed indicator rigged
to a tube that was placed over the crank case breather of an IGSO-540 on an
AC-680-FL.
They were literally measuring the "wind" coming out of the breather. Sorry
that I can not recall what value was used for the diagnostic, but a certain
"airspeed" meant that rings were bad on cylinders and letting the compression
stroke leak past the piston and pressurize the crank case.
Based on this test, one engine was top overhauled after this check and
ended up being the only strong engine on the airplane.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
Gentlemen!
After sending this link to a select few of my friends, I decided this web
site is just too good not to pass on to everyone in aviation that I know.
I have my opinion as to which of these are proper cockpits, but as the
French would say, "Each to his own fish."
Enjoy!
_Special Cockpit Issue First Quarter 2007_
(http://www.codeonemagazine.com/test/archives/2007/articles/jan_07/cockpits/cockpits.html)
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert S. Randazzo" <rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Failures Update |
WCG-
Thanks for the explanation- that actually does help my understanding of what
issue is taking place.
Every time I think I know my piston engines- something like this comes up-
and I start thinking turbines are a better idea. :-p
Robert
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
In a message dated 21-Oct-07 17:56:38 Pacific Daylight Time,
rsrandazzo(at)precisionmanuals.com writes:
For someone who has never heard of this phenomenon- can anyone give a good
technical explanation of what exactly is happening to cause the oil to blow
out the breather system- and how does one check for it- prevent it, etc?
Robert,
This will be a (poor) explanation of either very loose science, or, very
tight magic.
I watched the crew at Down Town Airpark place an airspeed indicator rigged
to a tube that was placed over the crank case breather of an IGSO-540 on an
AC-680-FL.
They were literally measuring the "wind" coming out of the breather. Sorry
that I can not recall what value was used for the diagnostic, but a certain
"airspeed" meant that rings were bad on cylinders and letting the
compression stroke leak past the piston and pressurize the crank case.
Based on this test, one engine was top overhauled after this check and
ended up being the only strong engine on the airplane.
Wing Commander Gordon
_____
__________ NOD32 2605 (20071022) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Sprayberry" <capnspray_611(at)hotmail.com> |
CDR.
Thanks, for keeping me up so late. I saved them all for reference when I
do my next Panel up-grade.
Nice hearing from you.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: CloudCraft(at)aol.com
To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Cockpits!
Gentlemen!
After sending this link to a select few of my friends, I decided this
web site is just too good not to pass on to everyone in aviation that I
know.
I have my opinion as to which of these are proper cockpits, but as the
French would say, "Each to his own fish."
Enjoy!
Special Cockpit Issue First Quarter 2007
Wing Commander Gordon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
--> http://forums.matronics.com
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failures Update |
| From: | "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com> |
Depending on where you place the tip of the overboard dump and how you cut the
tip can determine whether or not you suck oil out.
As WCG mentioned bad pistos willl pressurize the case. Placement of the drain end
in a low pressure airflow will "suck" the oil out.
Another common problem is overfilling with oil those dip sticks aren't exactly
precise and sometimes running a quart less than you have been can fix the problem.
The tip of the tube needs to be placed in a high pressure area and cut at a 45
deg angle facing forward so as to provide a slight back pressure.
Robert dont worry 414C ain't gonna siphon. If you start blowing oil you have an
engine problem.
It does sound though like Randy's problem was dueto something unrelated to the
above.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=141071#141071
________________________________________________________________________________
I am a complete ignorant as compared to all of you, but in 20 years of
aviation I had been told by most mechanics that is not necessary to use mineral
oil, after tops. I just did one 20 hours ago and used 100 like always, will
take your advice under consideration.
Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failures Update |
Another way you can lose oil.....
Some years ago I was flying a turbo 206 for photo survey work. It was
bitterly cold and the engine was preheated. We were sitting there just
slowly warming up when I thought I saw something out of the corner of my
eye. I turned around (the 206 has back window) and I saw clouds of smoke
blowing out the exhaust.
The aircraft's owner was running an air oil seperator, to recover oil to try
to keep the camera lens clean. (I no longer believe in agressive crankcase
vapor recover, for a number of reasons.) Even with the engine preheat, the
seperator remained cold enough to freeze solid from water vapor exiting the
crankcase. The crankcase built up so much pressure it blew a quart or two of
oil out of the engine in no time. I've heard of engines blowing out the
front seal from this. (I think my dad had this happen in a C-180. I'll have
to ask.) I thought this was the reason that the 500 series relocated the
breather to out the top near the exhaust, instead of the original system.
I did think about the failure of those two engines with the replaced jugs. I
can't imagine the type of engine oil as being responsible for losing a rod
on a new jug. Ring clearance too tight?
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <airboss(at)excaliburaviation.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:31 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: Engine Failures Update
>
>
> Depending on where you place the tip of the overboard dump and how you cut
> the tip can determine whether or not you suck oil out.
>
> As WCG mentioned bad pistos willl pressurize the case. Placement of the
> drain end in a low pressure airflow will "suck" the oil out.
>
> Another common problem is overfilling with oil those dip sticks aren't
> exactly precise and sometimes running a quart less than you have been can
> fix the problem.
>
> The tip of the tube needs to be placed in a high pressure area and cut at
> a 45 deg angle facing forward so as to provide a slight back pressure.
>
> Robert dont worry 414C ain't gonna siphon. If you start blowing oil you
> have an engine problem.
>
> It does sound though like Randy's problem was dueto something unrelated to
> the above.
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=141071#141071
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Farmer <daniellfarmer(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Warning from Pakistan |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Warning from Pakistan |
No warning from Pakistan...
Message was empty.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Farmer
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Commander-List: Fwd: Warning from Pakistan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Warning from Pakistan |
Maybe its too late.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: Fwd: Warning from Pakistan
>
>
> No warning from Pakistan...
> Message was empty.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Farmer
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> To: Jerry Susan Farmer
> Subject: Commander-List: Fwd: Warning from Pakistan
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Owens" <dowens(at)aerialviewpoint.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Warning from Pakistan |
Here is the warning as I saw it as an att... I guess this could be a reason
why...
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Air Show attachment |
Nico;
A friend send me a slide show of the airshow at Dayton this year, a lot
of P-51's with some interesting stories. Since I can't put an
attachment on the site, if you will give me email address, I will send
it to you and maybe you will put it on your site.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JTAddington" <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Air Show attachment |
Don, could I get you to send a copy to me at jtaddington(at)verizon.net.
Thanks
Jim Addington
N444BD
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Air Show attachment
Nico;
A friend send me a slide show of the airshow at Dayton this year, a lot of
P-51's with some interesting stories. Since I can't put an attachment on
the site, if you will give me email address, I will send it to you and maybe
you will put it on your site.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
| Subject: | Air Show attachment |
Sure, send it to nico (at) teletuition (dot) org replacing the (at) and
(dot) with the correct symbols.
Nico
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Air Show attachment
Nico;
A friend send me a slide show of the airshow at Dayton this year, a lot of
P-51's with some interesting stories. Since I can't put an attachment on
the site, if you will give me email address, I will send it to you and maybe
you will put it on your site.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Folks,
I am looking for a door handle and lock parts for a 500S door. There
will probably be other bits and pieces, I won't really know until I
pick up the door and a large chunk of surrounding fuselage.
This is the door I am going to graft into the 500A.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
ZK-DCF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve at Col-East" <steve2(at)sover.net> |
Uh-oh. Just spotted this.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 071023X01633&key=1
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Picutre of the wreck. and some journalistic drivel
http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=36199
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
I remember reading about this when it happened. When I
armchair-quarterbacked it the first time, I guessed CFIT. Now it looks
like it may have swallowed a valve on the right engine. With 20,750
hours of experience, it's a tragedy that he couldn't manage the single
engine condition.
The original article listed the airplane as a 560, but the manufacture
date as 1964.....which would make it a 560F, and there aren't too many
of those around.
nico css wrote:
>
> Picutre of the wreck and some journalistic drivel
>
> http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=36199
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
Duh, just noticed in the NTSB report that it was a 560F.
nico css wrote:
>
> Picutre of the wreck and some journalistic drivel
>
> http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=36199
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moe - Ross Racing Pistons" <moe(at)rosspistons.com> |
Why would one shut down an engine because it gobbled one exhaust valve?
Evan with two exhaust valves broken there will be some power available.
Moe
N680RR
680F(p)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash
I remember reading about this when it happened. When I
armchair-quarterbacked it the first time, I guessed CFIT. Now it looks
like it may have swallowed a valve on the right engine. With 20,750
hours of experience, it's a tragedy that he couldn't manage the single
engine condition.
The original article listed the airplane as a 560, but the manufacture
date as 1964.....which would make it a 560F, and there aren't too many
of those around.
nico css wrote:
>
> Picutre of the wreck. and some journalistic drivel
>
> http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=36199
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
In a message dated 25-Oct-07 10:52:43 Pacific Daylight Time,
john(at)vormbaum.com writes:
I remember reading about this when it happened. When I
armchair-quarterbacked it the first time, I guessed CFIT. Now it looks
like it may have swallowed a valve on the right engine. With 20,750
hours of experience, it's a tragedy that he couldn't manage the single
engine condition.
As long as we're armchair-quarterbacking, I can't help but wonder if there
was fuel contamination (Jet-A?). Seems unlikely that the loss of power on one
engine, subsequently feathered, would not allow continued flight, unless the
second engine was on its way out.
Not much fuel remaining in the wreckage, was there?
We also have to allow for incapacitation of the pilot.
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Vormbaum <john(at)vormbaum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
I immediately thought of misfueling. I still fear that and am always
present when my airplane is fueled....
CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 25-Oct-07 10:52:43 Pacific Daylight Time,
> john(at)vormbaum.com writes:
>
> I remember reading about this when it happened. When I
> armchair-quarterbacked it the first time, I guessed CFIT. Now it
> looks
> like it may have swallowed a valve on the right engine. With 20,750
> hours of experience, it's a tragedy that he couldn't manage the
> single
> engine condition.
>
> *As long as we're armchair-quarterbacking, I can't help but wonder if
> there was fuel contamination (Jet-A?). Seems unlikely that the loss
> of power on one engine, subsequently feathered, would not allow
> continued flight, unless the second engine was on its way out. *
> **
> *Not much fuel remaining in the wreckage, was there?*
> **
> *We also have to allow for incapacitation of the pilot.*
> **
> *Wing Commander Gordon*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
Maybe that's neurotic.
bb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Vormbaum
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash
I immediately thought of misfueling. I still fear that and am always
present when my airplane is fueled....
CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 25-Oct-07 10:52:43 Pacific Daylight Time,
> john(at)vormbaum.com writes:
>
> I remember reading about this when it happened. When I
> armchair-quarterbacked it the first time, I guessed CFIT. Now it
> looks
> like it may have swallowed a valve on the right engine. With 20,750
> hours of experience, it's a tragedy that he couldn't manage the
> single
> engine condition.
>
> *As long as we're armchair-quarterbacking, I can't help but wonder if
> there was fuel contamination (Jet-A?). Seems unlikely that the loss
> of power on one engine, subsequently feathered, would not allow
> continued flight, unless the second engine was on its way out. *
> **
> *Not much fuel remaining in the wreckage, was there?*
> **
> *We also have to allow for incapacitation of the pilot.*
> **
> *Wing Commander Gordon*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
>
> __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CloudCraft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
In a message dated 25-Oct-07 12:04:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
Maybe that's neurotic.
You are in desperate need of psychiatric help. But then, you are not in
need of a mortician, are you?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem] |
| From: | "Brock Lorber" <blorber(at)southwestcirrus.com> |
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not out to get
you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem]
In a message dated 25-Oct-07 12:04:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
Maybe that's neurotic.
You are in desperate need of psychiatric help. But then, you are not
in
need of a mortician, are you?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nico css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> |
Mostly, I am concerned that I am out to get myself. A couple of years ago an
FBO fueller put jet fuel in my 500, thinking that it's a turbine, since the
mail carriers flew turbine A/C's at night.
If it hadn't been that I was not greedy and saw that the fuel bill was much
less for the amount of fuel they put on board (jet fuel was cheaper than
avgas back then), I could have lost all power probably just after take-off
and ended up in the local neighborhood.
So, I am totally paranoid about putting fuel in myself.
That this Commander swallowed a valve is very unfortunate - but should have
been a preventable accident based purely on what is known now.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brock Lorber
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem]
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not out to get you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem]
In a message dated 25-Oct-07 12:04:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
Maybe that's neurotic.
You are in desperate need of psychiatric help. But then, you are not in
need of a mortician, are you?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dongirod(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
The way it burned, reminded me of possibly Jet A. Just nothing left when
that stuff ignites.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Vormbaum" <john(at)vormbaum.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash
>
> I immediately thought of misfueling. I still fear that and am always
> present when my airplane is fueled....
>
> CloudCraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 25-Oct-07 10:52:43 Pacific Daylight Time,
> > john(at)vormbaum.com writes:
> >
> > I remember reading about this when it happened. When I
> > armchair-quarterbacked it the first time, I guessed CFIT. Now it
> > looks
> > like it may have swallowed a valve on the right engine. With 20,750
> > hours of experience, it's a tragedy that he couldn't manage the
> > single
> > engine condition.
> >
> > *As long as we're armchair-quarterbacking, I can't help but wonder if
> > there was fuel contamination (Jet-A?). Seems unlikely that the loss
> > of power on one engine, subsequently feathered, would not allow
> > continued flight, unless the second engine was on its way out. *
> > **
> > *Not much fuel remaining in the wreckage, was there?*
> > **
> > *We also have to allow for incapacitation of the pilot.*
> > **
> > *Wing Commander Gordon*
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
> >
> > __________ NOD32 2521 (20070911) Information __________
> >
>
>
> --
10/25/2007 1:14 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tylor Hall <tylor.hall(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N6370U crash |
The first thing I thought about when I saw this, was this a miss
fueling accident?
They must have a record of this aircraft taking on fuel when, by whom
and how much, and what kind of fuel?
I see nothing other than it was "topped off".
Bob Hoover had it happen to him. I witnessed it almost happen and
stopped the fuel truck driver before they started fueling.
Tylor Hall
On Oct 25, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Brock Lorber wrote:
>
> Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not out to
> get you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
> CloudCraft(at)aol.com
> Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 12:08 PM
> To: commander-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem]
>
>
> In a message dated 25-Oct-07 12:04:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
> bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>
> I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
> Maybe that's neurotic.
>
>
> You are in desperate need of psychiatric help. But then, you are
> not in
> need of a mortician, are you?
>
> Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
I like your logic and your point.
Thanks
bilbo
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash
In a message dated 25-Oct-07 12:04:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
Maybe that's neurotic.
You are in desperate need of psychiatric help. But then, you are not in
need of a mortician, are you?
Wing Commander Gordon
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bow" <bowing74(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem] |
I like that point , too.
bilbo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brock Lorber
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem]
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not out to get you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
CloudCraft(at)aol.com
Sent: Thu 10/25/2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: N6370U crash [bcc][faked-from][html-rem]
In a message dated 25-Oct-07 12:04:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
bowing74(at)earthlink.net writes:
I was so untrusting that I always put the fuel in.
Maybe that's neurotic.
You are in desperate need of psychiatric help. But then, you are not in
need of a mortician, are you?
Wing Commander Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Failures Update |
| From: | yourtcfg(at)aol.com |
HI RANDY.=C2- I am so sorry to hear of the loss of BOTH engines.=C2- I h
ave to agree that it seems unlikely that it was a coincidence, but not impos
sible.=C2- I wanted to comment on a couple of the posts.=C2- I think it
is unlikely that the event was caused by using a detergent type oil.=C2- I
n my 31 years as an A&P, I have changed many dozen cylinders, and never chan
ged to mineral oil.=C2- A wise old mechanic I learned from taught me that
if less that 1/2 of the cyl. were changed, it was nor required that the oil
be changed.=C2- I have no idea what difference that makes, but in all the
cyl I changed, I had not even one that did not seat properly.=C2- I have e
ven changed many cyl without installing new rings, like if you just needed t
o do some valve work.=C2- He taught that if the cyl and rings were install
ed completely dry, no oil of any kind, the used rings would re-seat themselv
es (in the same jug they had originally run) and they always did.=C2-=C2
- I have a couple jugs on my P&W 985 now=C2-that were done that way and
running strong.
I also doubt that heat is the problem.=C2-=C2-Morris Kernick has scolded
me for running my engines to long on the ground, so I find it hard to belie
ve he would do that??
Last was tight ring gap.=C2- The minimum ring gap is set by the mfg for co
ld weather ops.=C2- The cyl will shrink considerably in cold weather (0 F
=C2-and below)=C2- If the ring gap is too small, the rings will touch ea
ch other and may brake.=C2- Many cyl are manufactured with a "choke" meani
ng that the bore is smaller at the top of the piston stroke than at the bott
om=C2-when the engine is cold.=C2- As the engine (cyl) warms to operatin
g temp, the cyl bore=C2-will become straight.=C2- This is why it is very
important to properly warm an aircraft engine before applying power.=C2-
If the cyl temps are not 'in the green", the choke will still be in the cyl
bore.=C2- As the rings reach the top of the cyl, they will be squeezed in
and out.=C2- This can also break a ring or scar the cyl walls.=C2-
=C2-I think a more likely possibility is that the wrong rings may have bee
n installed.=C2- The damage=C2-you describe=C2-is consistent with=C2
-that.=C2- There are two major ring types, chrome and iron.=C2- Chrome
rings are used only in steel cyl, and vice versa.=C2- If chrome rings are
installed in chrome cyl, no seating will ever occur.=C2- The shop who tor
e your engines down should have checked this very first.=C2- Second would
be that the rings were installed up-side-down (the part number should be up,
toward the top of the piston)=C2- Most modern rings are a chevron design
and are ground=C2-so that combustion pressure causes the ring to expand an
d seal more tightly in the cyl.=C2- If the are not installed properly, the
y will allow combustion gasses to freely pass the rings.=C2- This too shou
ld have been checked as=C2-a most likely culprit.=C2- Beyond that, ????
Did Morris build up the cyls, or did a cyl shop.=C2- If the cyl came as an
assembly, the rings would have been installed by them and all Morris would
have done is bolt them on the engine??
I have worked with Morris an many projects and find him to be, without a=C2
-doubt, the most knowledgeable Commander mechanic alive today.=C2- He ha
s as=C2-much=C2-field experience with the geared lycomings as anyone.
=C2-=C2-He is however human and like all of us can make mistakes.=C2-
I don't know what happened to you engines, but I would not rest until I foun
d out.=C2- Someone should be able to determine this for you Randy.=C2- I
=C2- too look forward to you having your airplane back in the fleet, I fee
l so bad that all this had to happen to you.=C2- Good luck
=C2-jb
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Dettmer, AIA <rcdettmer(at)charter.net>
Sent: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 2:03 pm
Subject: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
Back in February, I reported to the group my experience in losing the left e
ngine in my 680F while experiencing trouble with the right engine - at the s
ame time.=C2- Here=99s an update.
=C2-
After losing oil through the breather, with serious loss of oil pressure, th
e left engine threw a rod (the rod separated at the crank).=C2- The right
engine lost 2-3 gallons through the breather during the previous one hour le
g, and made so much metal it must be re-built.=C2- Here=99s the scen
ario - both engines lost a huge amount of oil through the breathers (the cra
nk cases became pressurized), both incidents occurred at the same time, at 5
.5. hrs after the annual inspection.=C2- Both engines had cylinders replac
ed during the annual inspection (2 on the right, 1 on the left).=C2-
=C2-
I cannot believe that these episodes are a coincidence.
=C2-
My mechanic (ex-mechanic now), Morris Kernick (who has maintained the airpla
ne for the past 7 years) did not put the required break-in oil in the engine
s after cylinder replacement (as specifically recommended by Lycoming).=C2
- He says that it is not necessary.=C2- Several engine experts who have
examined the rings in the replaced cylinders indicate that they look too
=9Cused=9D to be 5.5. hours old.=C2- Morris and the cylinder s
hop deny that they are used.=C2- Central Cylinder in Omaha, NE is currentl
y re-building the engines (at $50K each).=C2- They indicate that the cylin
der walls are glazed, which is caused by over heating, and can be a cause of
excessive =9Cblow-by=9D and crankcase pressurization.=C2- I h
ave always been very careful about temps, so the only time the engines could
be overheated is during a ground test run.=C2- Morris Kernick has not tak
en any responsibility for the situation.=C2- I have been very disappointed
in his lack of support and accountability.=C2- He has been virtually sile
nt since the incident.=C2- I have had to call him each time to discuss the
situation. He has not called me once.=C2- He says that nothing he did cau
sed the failures.=C2- Whether or not Morris caused the problems, I would h
ave expected him to stand behind his work and to at least do his best to tro
uble shoot the problems and help me with a solution.=C2- We still do not k
now definitely what caused the failures.=C2- Morris did give me an engine
core, which I would value at around $15-20K.=C2- I believe that he is hopi
ng that the engine core will be a cheap way out of being accountable for the
work leaving his shop.=C2- At this time, I am still analyzing options to
recover some of the significant expenses incurred because of this incident.
=C2-
In any case, I wanted to share my story.=C2- I have always liked Morris, a
nd have appreciated his vast knowledge about Commanders.=C2- Morris does n
ot have an A&P license, and relies on his employee to sign off all work done
in his shop.=C2- I believe this situation may be a result of his convicti
on for falsifying maintenance records.=C2- Because of these factors, and m
y recent experience, I cannot trust him to provide me with competent service
=93 service that is so important to the safety and lives of the peopl
e that I carry in my airplane.=C2- I feel obligated to share these details
with my fellow Commander owners, so that you can make your own conclusions.
=C2-
The engines should be completed in several more weeks, and will be shipped t
o SNS and installed on the airplane by Dave Teeters at Airmotive Specialties
.=C2- I am looking forward to getting N6253X back in the air.=C2- It
=99s been a long 7 months.
=C2-
Randy Dettmer, AIA
680F/N6253X
=C2-
=C2-AUTOTEXTLIST \s "E-mail Signature"
=C2-
663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA=C2- 93405
805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865
http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/
=C2-
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http
://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Dettmer, AIA" <rcdettmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Failures Update |
Thanks Jim, for the response.=C2- Since I am not a mechanic, I must
rely on others more knowledgeable to advise me regarding these
matters.=C2- All the items mentioned in your comments regarding ring
type, sizes, installation, etc have been looked at by many mechanics and
experts (except I don=99t remember any mention of chrome vs
iron).=C2- Nothing seemed to be out of order.=C2- I will check on
the chrome vs iron situation.=C2- Regarding my comments about Morris,
I thought long about whether to share with the group.=C2- I believe
that he let me down (whether or not he was responsible for the
failures).=C2- If he let me down, he might let someone else
down.=C2- Thanks again for your post.
RD
663 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo, CA=C2- 93405
805 541 4864 / Fax 805 541 4865
http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/
<http://www.dettmerarchitecture.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
yourtcfg(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Engine Failures Update
HI RANDY. I am so sorry to hear of the loss of BOTH engines. I have to
agree that it seems unlikely that it was a coincidence, but not
impossible. I wanted to comment on a couple of the posts. I think it
is unlikely that the event was caused by using a detergent type oil. In
my 31 years as an A&P, I have changed many dozen cylinders, and never
changed to mineral oil. A wise old mechanic I learned from taught me
that if less that 1/2 of the cyl. were changed, it was nor required that
the oil be changed. I have no idea what difference that makes, but in
all the cyl I changed, I had not even one that did not seat properly. I
have even changed many cyl without installing new rings, like if you
just needed to do some valve work. He taught that if the cyl and rings
were installed completely dry, no oil of any kind, the used rings would
re-seat themselves (in the same jug they had originally run) and they
always did. I have a couple jugs on my P&W 985 now that were done that
way and running strong.
I also doubt that heat is the problem. Morris Kernick has scolded me
for running my engines to long on the ground, so I find it hard to
believe he would do that??
Last was tight ring gap. The minimum ring gap is set by the mfg for
cold weather ops. The cyl will shrink considerably in cold weather (0 F
and below) If the ring gap is too small, the rings will touch each
other and may brake. Many cyl are manufactured with a "choke" meaning
that the bore is smaller at the top of the piston stroke than at the
September 29, 2007 - October 26, 2007
Commander-Archive.digest.vol-co