Probably just as important, the angle valve engines are designed for
      more cooling, both in the cylinder head design, and with oil squirt
      nozzles spraying oil on the bottom side of the pistons. The weight
      increase is unfortunate, as it somewhat degrades the performance
      increase. I would think that the angle valve cylinders would be more
      desirable for turbocharging, with the better heat dissipation
      capability. The one factory TIO540 with parallel valve cylinders that
      I am familiar with, had to be retrofitted with oil cooled valve guides
      to make the valve stems and guides last.
      
      On 3/20/07, Dan Rogers  wrote:
      >
      > Thank you, Gary and Bill,
      >
      > I have now studied the Lycoming website engine lists and can see a clear
      > relationship between comp ratio, engine width and weight.  There is also
      > power corelation, but because of turbo and various RPM combinations, it
      > is not as clear cut.
      >
      > Thanks again,
      >
      > Dan
      >
      > Gary Casey wrote:
      > >
      > > I'm not "the" Lycoming expert, but as far as I can tell everything with
      > > a power rating of 300 or more has the angle-valve cylinders.  A
      > > sure-fire way to tell is to look at the Lycoming spec sheet on their
      > > website and the parallel-valve engines are narrower.  Other than that
      > > the model numbers don't give much of a clue unless you just know which
      > > is which.  As Bill said, the angle-valve heads flow better.  The
      > > naturally-aspirated versions have a 8.7 compression ratio vs. the 8.5 of
      > > the parallel-valve engine, and that also helps to produce slightly more
      > > power.  With more space between the valves the angle-valve engine
      > > requires less pressure drop for cooling, theoretically reducing cooling
      > > drag.  But they are heavier, to the tune of 4 or 5 pounds per cylinder
      > > and the angle-valve engines don't have the same reputation for longevity
      > > as the parallel-valve engines.  An expert told me that there is nothing
      > > to be gained by porting and polishing the angle-valve cylinder, while
      > > the parallel-valve version can be ported to achieve almost the same
      > > airflow as the angle-valve cylinder.
      > > Gary Casey
      > > Parallel-valve IO-540 with 10:1 compression dyno tested at 305 hp
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming Cylinder question
From: 
"Jon A. Delamarter" <jdelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com>
Date: 
Mar 21, 2007
      
      
      Dan:
      
      Here's a brief overview I wrote for the new Lycoming website.  Let me know if I
      can help with more details.
      
      Parallel Valve Cylinder  The intake and exhaust valves of a parallel valve cylinder
      are mounted in parallel to one another in the cylinder head and share a common
      rocker shaft which is retained by the rocker cover.  This arrangement gives
      the parallel valve cylinders rocker cover its distinctive parallel or square
      shape; parallel valve rocker covers are also distinguished from angle valve
      rocker covers by their greater thickness.  Parallel valve cylinders are utilized
      on carbureted and some lower output, lightweight fuel injected engines.  Most
      parallel valve 4 cylinder engines do not incorporate a counterweighted crankshaft
      which further contributes to their relative lightweight.  
      
      Angle Valve Cylinder  The intake and exhaust valves of an angle valve cylinder
      are mounted at angles to one another in the cylinder head.  Angle valve cylinders
      utilize separate rocker shafts for intake and exhaust rockers; the rocker
      shafts are held in the cylinder head by separate retaining plates.  This arrangement
      gives the angle valve cylinders rocker cover its distinctive angle shape;
      angle valve rocker covers are also distinguished from parallel valve rocker
      covers by their lesser thickness.  Utilized on high output engines.  Angle valve
      engines are heavier and slightly wider than their parallel valve counterparts
      but are capable of safely and efficiently producing more horsepower due to
      increased head density and improved head design.  Angle valve engines incorporate
      counterweighted crankshafts which reduce torsional vibration.
      
      --------
      Jon A. Delamarter
      Thunderbolt Manager
      Lycoming Engines
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102066#102066
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: New Lycoming Website
From: 
"Jon A. Delamarter" <jdelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com>
Date: 
Mar 21, 2007
      
      
      That is the intent.
      
      
      > [quote="Float Flyr"]About time!!!!!
      > 
      > Thanks.  I'll be watching!  What I'd like to see is a control by wire piston
      > engine.  One control for everything.
      > 
      > Noel
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > >  --
      > 
      
      
      --------
      Jon A. Delamarter
      Thunderbolt Manager
      Lycoming Engines
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102067#102067
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Mar 21, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming Cylinder question
      
      
      That last sentence needs a bit of qualification. A large number of
      angle valve engines do NOT have counterweighted crankshafts. In
      particular, the IO-360-A1A, used extensively from 1964-1976.
      
      On 3/21/07, Jon A. Delamarter  wrote:
        Angle valve engines incorporate counterweighted crankshafts which
      reduce torsional vibration.
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming Cylinder question
From: 
"Jon A. Delamarter" <jdelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com>
Date: 
Mar 21, 2007
      
      
      Touche'!
      
        You are absolutely correct.  See what over-generalization gets me?  I should
      have said "most" angle valve engines incorporate counter-weighted crankshafts.
      Hmm, I see I already have to edit my new website.  
      
      Thanks for keeping me straight!
      
      
      > 
      > apilot2(at)gmail.com wrote:
      > > That last sentence needs a bit of qualification. A large number of
      > > angle valve engines do NOT have counterweighted crankshafts. In
      > > particular, the IO-360-A1A, used extensively from 1964-1976.
      > > 
      > > On 3/21/07, Jon A. Delamarter  wrote:
      > >   Angle valve engines incorporate counterweighted crankshafts which
      > > reduce torsional vibration.
      > > 
      > > > 
      > > > 
      > > > 
      > > 
      > 
      
      
      --------
      Jon A. Delamarter
      Thunderbolt Manager
      Lycoming Engines
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102079#102079
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Mar 21, 2007
From: 
Dan Rogers <drogers(at)maf.org>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming Cylinder question
      
      
      Is this already on the Lycoming website??  If so I didn't find it when I 
      went looking for this info!
      
      Dan R
      
      Jon A. Delamarter wrote:
      > 
      > Dan:
      > 
      > Here's a brief overview I wrote for the new Lycoming website.  Let me know if
      I can help with more details.
      > 
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming Cylinder question
From: 
"Jon A. Delamarter" <jdelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com>
Date: 
Mar 21, 2007
      
      
      Dan:
      
      Yes it is, but you're not going to see it unless you go through the engine configurator on the Thunderbolt microsite.  www.lycoming.com/thunderbolt  If you go through and configure a Thunderbolt engine, there is an option on the final page to view a printable version of the estimate.  The bottom of the estimate has a ton of data.  The info I posted is only a small portion.  
      
      You always have the option of emailing me directly at jdelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com.
      I don't have all the answers, but I work with the folks that have most
      of them!
      
      Kind regards,
      
      
      > [quote="drogers(at)maf.org"]Is this already on the Lycoming website??  If so
      I didn't find it when I 
      > went looking for this info!
      
      
      --------
      Jon A. Delamarter
      Thunderbolt Manager
      Lycoming Engines
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102167#102167
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
EPiC
Date: 
Mar 22, 2007
From: 
teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      
      
      I just found an article from 2000 that talks about a new FADEC (EPiC) 
      that Lycoming hoped to have certified within the year.  Is this the 
      follow-on to the LASAR to which you referred?
      
      Gary
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: jdelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com
      Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 6:46 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming Cylinder question
      
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      from AOL at AOL.com.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
From: 
"darinh" <gerns25(at)NETSCAPE.NET>
Date: 
Mar 24, 2007
      
      
      I asked this on the Kitfox list because that is what I am building and contemplating
      a EA81 - Ram Conversion.  The question is:  What is the general concensus
      on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does anyone have any experience with Ron and what
      are your thoughts of his product?  I am looking for an engine with good power
      that will get me in and out of the backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like
      the looks of his website and the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me
      if he really is getting 140 hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in at
      ~200 lbs installed?  If so, it seems that it should outperform any Rotax hands
      down!  
      
      Anyone with any insight/experience/flight time with one of his engines, your comments
      and advice is greatly appreciated.
      
      Thanks,
      
      Darin Hawkes
      Kitfox Series 7
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102714#102714
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
      
      If Ram is the same company that has an engine series for the twin 
      Cessna's, then I've got plenty of time behind there product with no 
      problems
      
      Paul Rice
      RV8, getting close to flying
      
      
      http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      Navigator?Engines-List>
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
From: 
"darinh" <gerns25(at)NETSCAPE.NET>
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
      
      
      Paul,
      
      That is a different company.  There is a Ram Engines that deals in certificated
      engines.  I am looking for information specifically about the Ram Engines that
      overhauls and builds subaru engines for the experimental market.  Thanks though
      for the reply.
      
      Darin
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102772#102772
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      
      If your looking for an endorsement of Ram Performance then I can tell
      you that Ron Carr I probably the most knowlegable guy in the country as
      far as the EA 81 engine goes. Ron came up with the only bullet proof way
      to ensure valve giudes will not fall out of the heads on these motors.
      
      I wrote an article on the subject for Kitplanes magazine (August last
      year I think).
      
      Do a Google search on my name and you will find many web postings on the
      whole sorry saga...But Ron fixed it (and many other engines) for good.
      
      His quality work is of the highest standard.
      
      http://www.ramengines.com/
      
      Frank Hinde
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of darinh
      Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:08 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      Paul,
      
      That is a different company.  There is a Ram Engines that deals in
      certificated engines.  I am looking for information specifically about
      the Ram Engines that overhauls and builds subaru engines for the
      experimental market.  Thanks though for the reply.
      
      Darin
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102772#102772
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      
      Just to bang on a bit more about Ram, I personally would not go anywhere
      else for an EA81 conversion.
      
      I did and I was very very sorry..!
      
      After Ron sorted it it was (and still is in the hands of its new owner)
      perfectly reliable.
      
      I will be out of town next week but if you want to email me directly I
      would be glad to give you phone number and we can talk directly. There
      is nothing worse than wondering if the engine is about to quit on you
      when all you can see is trees, believe me I know!
      
      Frank
      601 HDS 400 hours when I sold it last year. 
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of darinh
      Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:04 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      I asked this on the Kitfox list because that is what I am building and
      contemplating a EA81 - Ram Conversion.  The question is:  What is the
      general concensus on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does anyone have any
      experience with Ron and what are your thoughts of his product?  I am
      lookingy) for an engine with good power that will get me in and out of
      the backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like the looks of his website
      and the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me if he really is
      getting 140 hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in at ~200 lbs
      installed?  If so, it seems that it should outperform any Rotax hands
      down!  
      
      Anyone with any insight/experience/flight time with one of his engines,
      your comments and advice is greatly appreciated.
      
      Thanks,
      
      Darin Hawkes
      Kitfox Series 7
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102714#102714
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      
      For more info on EA 81's go to the Zenith list and the Stratus list on
      Matronics....Lots and lots of discussion on those lists about various
      conversions.
      
      Cheers
      
      Frank 
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of darinh
      Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:08 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      Paul,
      
      That is a different company.  There is a Ram Engines that deals in
      certificated engines.  I am looking for information specifically about
      the Ram Engines that overhauls and builds subaru engines for the
      experimental market.  Thanks though for the reply.
      
      Darin
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102772#102772
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      Hi Darin
      I have no knowledge of that conversion. I'd be skeptical of 140 hp
      unless it has a turbo though. In general the EA81 is an excellent
      engine. Chuck Kondas has an entertaining book about his stock
      junkyard EA81 turbo that he broke 1,000 hours with. The bigger question
      might be "do you want to fly behind an engine that is tweaked that
      much"?  Might be fine if you can find a few RAM users with several
      hundred flight hours. There are a couple of Subaru lists on yahoo that
      you might want to search. I've heard RAM mentioned from time to time. In
      my mind if you want 100+ true hp., I'd look at a larger engine for
      reliability. Guys who actually weigh their entire EA81 installations
      come out more like 250 lbs with a redrive but no turbo which means they
      can't outperform a 912S and in some cases have nose heavy airplanes. I
      am very pleased with my soob but I'll be the first to admit that a
      conversion almost always costs more than a used rotax or Lyc. and takes
      longer.  Maintenance and operating costs should be lower than a Lyc. but
      you won't be asking an FBO to fix it for you and that engine has been
      out of production for a long time now. Insurance may be an issue for you
      with a conversion but I had no trouble.
      
      Ken
      internally stock ej22, derated to 120 hp, estimated 320 lbs installed,
      60 flight hours, single lever EFI engine control, quiet muffler, no
      preheat required, no shock cooling issues, no expensive AD's, 4 to 5.5
      USgph depending on how fast I go but it prefers unleaded no alcohol fuel.
      
      darinh wrote:
      
       >
       >I asked this on the Kitfox list because that is what I am building and 
      contemplating a EA81 - Ram Conversion.  The question is:  What is the 
      general concensus on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does anyone have any 
      experience with Ron and what are your thoughts of his product?  I am 
      looking for an engine with good power that will get me in and out of the 
      backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like the looks of his website and 
      the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me if he really is getting 
      140 hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in at ~200 lbs installed? 
        If so, it seems that it should outperform any Rotax hands down!
       >
       >Anyone with any insight/experience/flight time with one of his 
      engines, your comments and advice is greatly appreciated.
       >
       >Thanks,
       >
       >Darin Hawkes
       >Kitfox Series 7
       >
       >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Ricchardd(at)aol.com
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      I have a RAM 140 engine in a Zenith 601 XL. Yes it put out 141 HP on a dyno, 
      Very strong and smooth
      Richard N601ZT
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 25, 2007
      
      
      Okay, Darin, let's talk about the RAM engine.
      
      First of all, the only part of that engine that is Subaru is the block, 
      crank shaft, and cam shaft.  After
      that all of the other parts have been improved by Ron over the last 25 years 
      including reworking the block putting more pins in it, cutting more oil 
      journals, etc.  It has cast aluminum forged pistons, new main and rod 
      bearings, new water pump, new oil pump, stainless steel new intake valves, 
      stainless steel exhaust valves, high performance valve springs, reground cam 
      and lifters, extra bushings on the mains, extra oiling to the thrust main 
      that is also teflon coated, flowed dual port heads, tuned exhaust and a lot 
      more goodies.  It really isn't a Subaru anymore; it's a RAM.
      
      I just purchased one six months ago and it's climbing at over 1800 fpm on my 
      601XL. (you need to run a Prince PT Prop)   It is one fine engine.  My
      engine is not 140 hp; mine is 130 hp.  The engine block and internal parts 
      are the same as the  140;
      the 140 has electronic fuel injection and mine has a throttle body. (I 
      suggest the electronic fuel injection; it's much better)  There are a lot 
      more goodies in the engine that make it a lot better than I've stated.  If 
      you really want to know about it, go to his website at info(at)ramengines.com
      
      I'm very happy with mine.  Although I would like to add this, if you're 
      thinking seriously of buying a RAM engine, you need to give him plenty of 
      lead time as he is not spitting these engines out.    Just remember, Ron is 
      a custom engine builder.  And, as far as I can tell, he is the BEST out 
      there, bar none.
      
      As far as the weight, mine does weigh under 200 lbs. and I'm sure it would 
      blow the wings off of a 912S and I don't have a turbo.  If you think you 
      want a turbo engine, Ron has a 200 hp turbo that can compete with anything 
      out there.
      
       THANKS.
      
      Joe N101HD
      
      P.S.  The last test flight mine jumped off the ground at 150 ft.
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net>
      Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:03 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      >
      > I asked this on the Kitfox list because that is what I am building and 
      > contemplating a EA81 - Ram Conversion.  The question is:  What is the 
      > general concensus on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does anyone have any 
      > experience with Ron and what are your thoughts of his product?  I am 
      > looking for an engine with good power that will get me in and out of the 
      > backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like the looks of his website and 
      > the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me if he really is getting 140 
      > hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in at ~200 lbs installed?  If 
      > so, it seems that it should outperform any Rotax hands down!
      >
      > Anyone with any insight/experience/flight time with one of his engines, 
      > your comments and advice is greatly appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Darin Hawkes
      > Kitfox Series 7
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102714#102714
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: 
Mar 26, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      Joe,
      
      How does Ram compare with Eggenfeller?
      
      
      In a message dated 3/25/2007 6:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
      purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net writes:
      
      -->  Engines-List message posted by: "Southern Reflections"  
      
      
      Okay, Darin, let's talk about the  RAM engine.
      
      First of all, the only part of that engine that is Subaru  is the block, 
      crank shaft, and cam shaft.  After
      that all of the  other parts have been improved by Ron over the last 25 years 
      including  reworking the block putting more pins in it, cutting more oil 
      journals,  etc.  It has cast aluminum forged pistons, new main and rod 
      bearings,  new water pump, new oil pump, stainless steel new intake valves, 
      stainless  steel exhaust valves, high performance valve springs, reground cam 
      and  lifters, extra bushings on the mains, extra oiling to the thrust main 
      that  is also teflon coated, flowed dual port heads, tuned exhaust and a lot  
      more goodies.  It really isn't a Subaru anymore; it's a RAM.
      
      I  just purchased one six months ago and it's climbing at over 1800 fpm on my 
      
      601XL. (you need to run a Prince PT Prop)   It is one fine  engine.  My
      engine is not 140 hp; mine is 130 hp.  The engine  block and internal parts 
      are the same as the  140;
      the 140 has  electronic fuel injection and mine has a throttle body. (I 
      suggest the  electronic fuel injection; it's much better)  There are a lot 
      more  goodies in the engine that make it a lot better than I've stated.  If  
      you really want to know about it, go to his website at  info(at)ramengines.com
      
      I'm very happy with mine.  Although I would  like to add this, if you're 
      thinking seriously of buying a RAM engine, you  need to give him plenty of 
      lead time as he is not spitting these engines  out.    Just remember, Ron is 
      a custom engine builder.   And, as far as I can tell, he is the BEST out 
      there, bar none.
      
      As  far as the weight, mine does weigh under 200 lbs. and I'm sure it would  
      blow the wings off of a 912S and I don't have a turbo.  If you think  you 
      want a turbo engine, Ron has a 200 hp turbo that can compete with  anything 
      out there.
      
      THANKS.
      
      Joe N101HD
      
      P.S.  The  last test flight mine jumped off the ground at 150 ft.
      
      ----- Original  Message ----- 
      From: "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net>
      Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:03  PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      >
      > I asked this on the Kitfox list  because that is what I am building and 
      > contemplating a EA81 - Ram  Conversion.  The question is:  What is the 
      > general  concensus on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does anyone have any 
      >  experience with Ron and what are your thoughts of his product?  I am  
      > looking for an engine with good power that will get me in and out of  the 
      > backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like the looks of his  website and 
      > the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me if he  really is getting 140 
      > hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in  at ~200 lbs installed?  If 
      > so, it seems that it should  outperform any Rotax hands down!
      >
      > Anyone with any  insight/experience/flight time with one of his engines, 
      > your comments  and advice is greatly appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      >  Darin Hawkes
      > Kitfox Series 7
      >
      >
      >  Read this topic online here:
      >
      >  http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102714#102714
      >
      >
      >  
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 26, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      Egg does not do the EA 81 motor I believe.
      
      Frank.
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      NYTerminat(at)aol.com
      Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:02 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      Joe,
      
      How does Ram compare with Eggenfeller?
      
      
      In a message dated 3/25/2007 6:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net writes:
      
      
      
      	Okay, Darin, let's talk about the RAM engine.
      
      	First of all, the only part of that engine that is Subaru is the
      block, 
      	crank shaft, and cam shaft.  After
      	that all of the other parts have been improved by Ron over the
      last 25 years 
      	including reworking the block putting more pins in it, cutting
      more oil 
      	journals, etc.  It has cast aluminum forged pistons, new main
      and rod 
      	bearings, new water pump, new oil pump, stainless steel new
      intake valves, 
      	stainless steel exhaust valves, high performance valve springs,
      reground cam 
      	and lifters, extra bushings on the mains, extra oiling to the
      thrust main 
      	that is also teflon coated, flowed dual port heads, tuned
      exhaust and a lot 
      	more goodies.  It really isn't a Subaru anymore; it's a RAM.
      
      	I just purchased one six months ago and it's climbing at over
      1800 fpm on my 
      	601XL. (you need to run a Prince PT Prop)   It is one fine
      engine.  My
      	engine is not 140 hp; mine is 130 hp.  The engine block and
      internal parts 
      	are the same as the  140;
      	the 140 has electronic fuel injection and mine has a throttle
      body. (I 
      	suggest the electronic fuel injection; it's much better)  There
      are a lot 
      	more goodies in the engine that make it a lot better than I've
      stated.  If 
      	you really want to know about it, go to his website at
      info(at)ramengines.com
      
      	I'm very happy with mine.  Although I would like to add this, if
      you're 
      	thinking seriously of buying a RAM engine, you need to give him
      plenty of 
      	lead time as he is not spitting these engines out.    Just
      remember, Ron is 
      	a custom engine builder.  And, as far as I can tell, he is the
      BEST out 
      	there, bar none.
      
      	As far as the weight, mine does weigh under 200 lbs. and I'm
      sure it would 
      	blow the wings off of a 912S and I don't have a turbo.  If you
      think you 
      	want a turbo engine, Ron has a 200 hp turbo that can compete
      with anything 
      	out there.
      
      	THANKS.
      
      	Joe N101HD
      
      	P.S.  The last test flight mine jumped off the ground at 150 ft.
      
      	----- Original Message ----- 
      	From: "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net>
      	To: 
      	Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:03 PM
      	Subject: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      
      	>
      	> I asked this on the Kitfox list because that is what I am
      building and 
      	> contemplating a EA81 - Ram Conversion.  The question is:  What
      is the 
      	> general concensus on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does anyone
      have any 
      	> experience with Ron and what are your thoughts of his product?
      I am 
      	> looking for an engine with good power that will get me in and
      out of the 
      	> backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like the looks of his
      website and 
      	> the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me if he really is
      getting 140 
      	> hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in at ~200 lbs
      installed?  If 
      	> so, it seems that it should outperform any Rotax hands down!
      	>
      	> Anyone with any insight/experience/flight time with one of his
      engines, 
      	> your comments and advice is greatly appreciated.
      	>
      	> Thanks,
      	>
      	> Darin Hawkes
      	> Kitfox Series 7
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	> Read this topic online here:
      	>
      	> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102714#102714
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	>
      	> the es Day   -->             - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
      	bsp; --> 
      =====================
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339"
      href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339"
      target="_blank">AOL.com. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
Date: 
Mar 26, 2007
From: 
<longg(at)pjm.com>
      
      Thanks guys, I have been looking at the Egg H6 which comes with an
      optional turbo rated 180-210 HP. I would like to compare that with the
      RAM product for weight etc. Time to do more research.
      
      	-----Original Message-----
      	From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
      Frank George (Corvallis)
      	Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:29 AM
      	To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      	Subject: RE: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      	Egg does not do the EA 81 motor I believe.
      	 
      	Frank.
      	 
      	 
      
      ________________________________
      
      	From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      NYTerminat(at)aol.com
      	Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:02 PM
      	To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      	Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      
      
      	Joe,
      	 
      	How does Ram compare with Eggenfeller?
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	In a message dated 3/25/2007 6:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net writes:
      
      Reflections" 
      	
      		Okay, Darin, let's talk about the RAM engine.
      	
      		First of all, the only part of that engine that is
      Subaru is the block, 
      		crank shaft, and cam shaft.  After
      		that all of the other parts have been improved by Ron
      over the last 25 years 
      		including reworking the block putting more pins in it,
      cutting more oil 
      		journals, etc.  It has cast aluminum forged pistons, new
      main and rod 
      		bearings, new water pump, new oil pump, stainless steel
      new intake valves, 
      		stainless steel exhaust valves, high performance valve
      springs, reground cam 
      		and lifters, extra bushings on the mains, extra oiling
      to the thrust main 
      		that is also teflon coated, flowed dual port heads,
      tuned exhaust and a lot 
      		more goodies.  It really isn't a Subaru anymore; it's a
      RAM.
      	
      		I just purchased one six months ago and it's climbing at
      over 1800 fpm on my 
      		601XL. (you need to run a Prince PT Prop)   It is one
      fine engine.  My
      		engine is not 140 hp; mine is 130 hp.  The engine block
      and internal parts 
      		are the same as the  140;
      		the 140 has electronic fuel injection and mine has a
      throttle body. (I 
      		suggest the electronic fuel injection; it's much better)
      There are a lot 
      		more goodies in the engine that make it a lot better
      than I've stated.  If 
      		you really want to know about it, go to his website at
      info(at)ramengines.com
      	
      		I'm very happy with mine.  Although I would like to add
      this, if you're 
      		thinking seriously of buying a RAM engine, you need to
      give him plenty of 
      		lead time as he is not spitting these engines out.
      Just remember, Ron is 
      		a custom engine builder.  And, as far as I can tell, he
      is the BEST out 
      		there, bar none.
      	
      		As far as the weight, mine does weigh under 200 lbs. and
      I'm sure it would 
      		blow the wings off of a 912S and I don't have a turbo.
      If you think you 
      		want a turbo engine, Ron has a 200 hp turbo that can
      compete with anything 
      		out there.
      	
      		THANKS.
      	
      		Joe N101HD
      	
      		P.S.  The last test flight mine jumped off the ground at
      150 ft.
      	
      		----- Original Message ----- 
      		From: "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net>
      		To: 
      		Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:03 PM
      		Subject: Engines-List: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
      	
      	
      
      		>
      		> I asked this on the Kitfox list because that is what I
      am building and 
      		> contemplating a EA81 - Ram Conversion.  The question
      is:  What is the 
      		> general concensus on Ram Engines and the EA81?  Does
      anyone have any 
      		> experience with Ron and what are your thoughts of his
      product?  I am 
      		> looking for an engine with good power that will get me
      in and out of the 
      		> backcountry in my Series 7 Kiftox.  I like the looks
      of his website and 
      		> the specs on his engines...can anyone tell me if he
      really is getting 140 
      		> hp out of the EA81 and does it really come in at ~200
      lbs installed?  If 
      		> so, it seems that it should outperform any Rotax hands
      down!
      		>
      		> Anyone with any insight/experience/flight time with
      one of his engines, 
      		> your comments and advice is greatly appreciated.
      		>
      		> Thanks,
      		>
      		> Darin Hawkes
      		> Kitfox Series 7
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		> Read this topic online here:
      		>
      		>
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102714#102714
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		>
      		> the es Day   -->             - NEW MATRONICS WEB
      FORUMS -
      		bsp; --> 
      =====================
      	
      	
      	
      	
      
      	 
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      	AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339"
      href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339"
      target="_blank">AOL.com. 
      
      
      href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
      n
      ics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      	href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
      	
      	
      	
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ram Engines...Good? or Bad?
From: 
"darinh" <gerns25(at)NETSCAPE.NET>
Date: 
Apr 01, 2007
      
      
      Thanks guys for the great input!  The more I learn about Ram, the more I am leaning
      in that direction.  If the engine indeed produces 140 hp, which it sounds
      like it does, and it weighs under 200 lbs, then if should for sure fly the wings
      of a similar bird powered by a 912S.  Thanks again for the info.
      
      Darin
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104383#104383
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Apr 02, 2007
From: 
"DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 
Lycoming tach drive cover.
      
      
      I'm using a VM-1000 engine monitor that has a hall sensor screwed into the
      magneto for tachometer measurements.  So...I'm not using the Lycoming
      tachometer drive in the accessory case and ordered a cover to place over it.
      It's just a small aluminum cap with female threads and a knurled outer
      surface to provide a good finger grip.  Since it does not have facets like a
      nut, I assume one is not supposed to put a wrench on it to tighten. My
      question is, is hand tight good enough to keep this cover from vibrating
      off?  If not should I use something like locktight to make sure it doesn't
      come off?  Or should I just put some torque seal on it and monitor it?  What
      happens if this cover were to fall off with the engine running?  Would I
      lose oil out the hole and if so how fast would it run out?  Thanks for the
      help.
      
      Dean Psiropoulos
      RV-6A N197DM
      Closing on first flight.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: 
Apr 02, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming tach drive cover.
      
      
      In a message dated 4/2/2007 12:36:48 AM Central Daylight Time, 
      dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net writes:
      
      My
      question is, is hand tight good enough to keep this cover from vibrating
      off?  If not should I use something like locktight to make sure it doesn't
      come off?  Or should I just put some torque seal on it and monitor it?  What
      happens if this cover were to fall off with the engine running?  Would I
      lose oil out the hole and if so how fast would it run out? 
      
      Hi Dean-
      
      Used the same contrivance on my O-320.  IIRC, I wrapped some tape around it 
      and gave it a good snuggin' with an "Alabama ratchit rench" (small 
      Channellocks) and it is still on the plane with no leaks after 400 hours.   Caint
      say 
      about the leaking if it fell off as mine hasn't...
      
      Mark
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Lycoming tach drive cover.
Date: 
Apr 02, 2007
      
      
      Drill a hole (1/16") in the edge of the cap, through the kernelled part, if
      it doesn't already have one and lock wire it in place.  Is there an "O" ring
      associated with this cap?  If so make sure the hole you may have to drill is
      outside the "O" ring seal.
      
      Noel
      
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > DEAN PSIROPOULOS
      > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:02 AM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Engines-List: Lycoming tach drive cover.
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > I'm using a VM-1000 engine monitor that has a hall sensor 
      > screwed into the
      > magneto for tachometer measurements.  So...I'm not using the Lycoming
      > tachometer drive in the accessory case and ordered a cover to 
      > place over it.
      > It's just a small aluminum cap with female threads and a knurled outer
      > surface to provide a good finger grip.  Since it does not 
      > have facets like a
      > nut, I assume one is not supposed to put a wrench on it to tighten. My
      > question is, is hand tight good enough to keep this cover 
      > from vibrating
      > off?  If not should I use something like locktight to make 
      > sure it doesn't
      > come off?  Or should I just put some torque seal on it and 
      > monitor it?  What
      > happens if this cover were to fall off with the engine 
      > running?  Would I
      > lose oil out the hole and if so how fast would it run out?  
      > Thanks for the
      > help.
      > 
      > Dean Psiropoulos
      > RV-6A N197DM
      > Closing on first flight.
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: 
Apr 29, 2007
Subject: 
Engine Lord Mounts
      
      I bought the Van's Lord mount kit for my IO-390 (same dimensions as  IO-360).
      For anyone who's installed their engine, to what value did you torque the  
      7/16 engine mounting bolts?
      Did you use 475 inch pounds?  Did you use coarse thread torque or fine  
      thread?
      Thanks,
      Stan Sutterfield
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Grant Piper" <grant.piper(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
Re: Engine Lord Mounts
Date: 
Apr 30, 2007
      
      Hi Stan,
      
      You will have trouble getting a torque wrench onto these bolts, and it 
      may be of limited use.   The rubber mounts must be compressed such that 
      the bolt is tight on the inner spacer (this limits the amount of 
      compression).   The compression of the rubber will add to your torque 
      reading also.   I've only installed a couple of enginmes, but in each 
      case did the bolts up tight on the spacer then as required to get the 
      cotter pins in.
      
      regards,
      
      Grant
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Speedy11(at)aol.com 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:03 AM
        Subject: Engines-List: Engine Lord Mounts
      
      
        I bought the Van's Lord mount kit for my IO-390 (same dimensions as 
      IO-360).
        For anyone who's installed their engine, to what value did you torque 
      the 7/16 engine mounting bolts?
        Did you use 475 inch pounds?  Did you use coarse thread torque or fine 
      thread?
        Thanks,
        Stan Sutterfield
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
        See what's free at AOL.com. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: 
Apr 30, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Engine Lord Mounts
      
      
      Grant,
      Thanks for your reply,
      I'm torquing the engine bolts by torquing the bolt head - since I can't get  
      to the nut.  It's the only way I can figure to torque them.  The  rubbers are 
      compressed and the spacers seated.  I just want to make sure  I'm torquing the
      
      correct amount.
      Mahlon, any comment on this?
      Stan
      
      
      Hi  Stan,
      
      You will have trouble getting a torque wrench onto these bolts,  and it 
      may be of limited use.   The rubber mounts must be  compressed such that 
      the bolt is tight on the inner spacer (this limits  the amount of 
      compression).   The compression of the rubber will  add to your torque 
      reading also.   I've only installed a couple  of enginmes, but in each 
      case did the bolts up tight on the spacer then as  required to get the 
      cotter pins in.
      
      regards,
      
      Grant
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Speedy11(at)aol.com 
      Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:03  AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Engine Lord Mounts
      
      
      I  bought the Van's Lord mount kit for my IO-390 (same dimensions as  
      IO-360).
      For anyone who's installed their engine, to what value  did you torque 
      the 7/16 engine mounting bolts?
      Did you use 475  inch pounds?  Did you use coarse thread torque or fine  
      thread?
      Thanks,
      Stan  Sutterfield
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net>
Date: 
Apr 30, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Engine Lord Mounts
      X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
      
      
      Ah, the luxury of cotter pins....but not on my io520. 40-42 lb ft 
      and no retention other than torque.......
      
      I think mine were 1/2, works out to 550-600 lb in. 7/16 would be 
      400-450 lb in. The internal spacers will limit compression. No oil 
      on threads for torque....
      
      >      For anyone who's installed their engine, to what value did you torque
      >     the 7/16 engine mounting bolts?
      >      Did you use 475 inch pounds? Did you use coarse thread torque or fine
      >     thread?
      
      
      Jim Baker
      580.788.2779
      Elmore City, OK
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Date: 
May 01, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Engines-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 04/30/07
      
      
      Jim,
      Thanks for your response.  It is exactly the info I needed.  I  have planned 
      a torque of 475 inch pounds, so it appears I'm in the ball  park.
      Stan Sutterfield
      
      
      Ah, the  luxury of cotter pins....but not on my io520. 40-42 lb ft 
      and no retention  other than torque.......
      
      I think mine were 1/2, works out to 550-600 lb  in. 7/16 would be 
      400-450 lb in. The internal spacers will limit  compression. No oil 
      on threads for torque....
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
May 02, 2007
From: 
Walt Murphy <waltmurphy(at)charter.net>
Subject: 
Aeroshell 100
      
      
      Question... I have always used Aeroshell with great results. But , 
      lately I have been hearing things from customers that perform oil 
      analysis routinely that the "new" Aeroshell formulation causes higher 
      copper
      results in their oil analysis. I had one tell me that once he changed 
      over to Phillips that the next 2 oil analysis results both showed copper 
      back to normal .
      Has anyone had any info on Shell changing the formulation?
      
      Thanks,
      Walt
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
May 02, 2007
From: 
"Rick" <wingsdown(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 
Aeroshell 100
      
      
      Symptoms can be problematic. He might want to change back once more to
      see if copper goes up again. Then switch if necessary. I doubt either
      oil would cause abnormal wear. If it is an experimental engine you can
      run what you want.  Keep in mind unless you have an engine modified for
      unleaded you must run at least a semi-synthetic if you go in that
      direction. 
      
      Rick
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walt
      Murphy
      Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 7:12 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
      
      Question... I have always used Aeroshell with great results. But , 
      lately I have been hearing things from customers that perform oil 
      analysis routinely that the "new" Aeroshell formulation causes higher 
      copper
      results in their oil analysis. I had one tell me that once he changed 
      over to Phillips that the next 2 oil analysis results both showed copper
      
      back to normal .
      Has anyone had any info on Shell changing the formulation?
      
      Thanks,
      Walt
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
May 02, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Aeroshell 100
      
      
      The problem is caused by the additive Aeroshell uses to meet the
      Lycoming AD requirement. They used to use TCP, but it is now TPP. As I
      understand it, there is not a problem with straight Aeroshell (not
      Plus) and not with Exxon or Phillips. I don't know if there is any
      concern with the higher copper numbers. You might email Blackstone for
      their opinion, and then write Shell and see if they have a comment.
      
      On 5/2/07, Walt Murphy  wrote:
      >
      > Question... I have always used Aeroshell with great results. But ,
      > lately I have been hearing things from customers that perform oil
      > analysis routinely that the "new" Aeroshell formulation causes higher
      > copper
      > results in their oil analysis. I had one tell me that once he changed
      > over to Phillips that the next 2 oil analysis results both showed copper
      > back to normal .
      > Has anyone had any info on Shell changing the formulation?
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Walt
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
Subject: 
Re: Aeroshell 100
Date: 
May 03, 2007
      
      Are you using 100 Plus?  My understanding is that this is not a problem. 
       The copper is in the oil anti-scuff additive and not coming from your 
      engine.
      
      Larry
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Aeroshell 100
Date: 
May 03, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      I think thats what it is....I just went for the cheapest AD oil. I have
      not gotten around to doing oil analysis and I'm not totally convinced of
      the benefit...Will have to think some more on this as its about the
      right time to be doing it.
      
      Frank IO360 7a 150 hours
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L.
      Tompkins, P.E.
      Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:26 AM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
      
      Are you using 100 Plus?  My understanding is that this is not a problem.
      The copper is in the oil anti-scuff additive and not coming from your
      engine.
      
      Larry
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Aeroshell 100
Date: 
May 03, 2007
From: 
"Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com>
      
      There is not very much copper in the Lycoming engines.  Piston pin
      bushings, rocker arm bushings, couple of idler gear bushings.  Only
      other place to be concerned would be the rod bearings and if they are
      down into the copper, idle oil pressure with the oil hot will tell you
      that story.
      
      
      Monty Barrett
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
      Frank George (Corvallis)
      Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:06 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
      
      I think thats what it is....I just went for the cheapest AD oil. I have
      not gotten around to doing oil analysis and I'm not totally convinced of
      the benefit...Will have to think some more on this as its about the
      right time to be doing it.
      
      
      Frank IO360 7a 150 hours
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry L.
      Tompkins, P.E.
      Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:26 AM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
      Are you using 100 Plus?  My understanding is that this is not a problem.
      The copper is in the oil anti-scuff additive and not coming from your
      engine.
      
      
      Larry
      
      
      href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
      n
      ics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Aeroshell 100
Date: 
May 03, 2007
From: 
teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      
      
      ya know, every once in a while one person will have a problem with 
      something and suddenly it's a crisis.
      
      I've been using 15w-50 for 15 years and never had anything out of the 
      ordinary occur.  I can fly all year long (highs of 115 and lows of 10; 
      desert you know) on the same oil.
      
      I've got customers who fly 20 hours a year and customers who fly 200 
      hours a year.  They all use 15w-50.  None of them ahve ever had the 
      sludge, rust, corrosion, or varnish problems my hangar neighbors have 
      had using single grade oil.  The multi-grade is still the best oil for 
      the engine.
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: tompkinsl(at)integra.net
      Sent: Thu, 3 May 2007 8:25 AM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
            Are you using 100 Plus? My understanding is that this is not a 
      problem. The copper is in the oil anti-scuff additive and not coming 
      from your engine.
      
       Larry
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      from AOL at AOL.com.
      =0
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
4371 magneto
Date: 
May 03, 2007
From: 
teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      
      
      About a month ago I got a new 4371 to install on a customers plane.  
      When I installed the nut, it locked up the whole impulse coupling 
      mechanism.  I took some measurements on the new one and compared it to 
      the old one.  It had been manufactured wrong.  When I tried to return 
      it (to Aircraft Spruce), I was given a run-around for 3 days.  They 
      wanted me to talk to someone in the technical department at Unison to 
      see if I'd installed it in the plane wrong.  They (Aircraft Spruce ) 
      couldn't believe I found a manufacturing defect BEFORE it was 
      installed.  I made 30 phone calls to Unison over two days and never got 
      a reply back.  Aircraft Spruce finally just sent me a new mag (I'd 
      already returned the first new mag).
      
      I got the second new mag yesterday.  It's also F'd U.  I called Unison 
      5 times yesterday without anyone answering my call.  I finally got 
      Aircraft Spruce to go through their supplier.  Gee, they found out that 
      pretty much all of the mags made since GE took over have been 
      manufactured wrong.  In the mean time, the next batch of mags is due in 
      June.
      
      I took a bunch of pics showing the defect just in case someone wanted 
      to see it.  Sending them now to Aircraft Spruce.
      ________________________________________________________________________
      from AOL at AOL.com.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
4371 magneto
Date: 
May 03, 2007
      
      
      I would like to see the pictures...
      
      s_korney(at)hotmail.com
      
      
      Best... Steve
      
      
      ----Original Message Follows----
      From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      Subject: Engines-List: 4371 magneto
      Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 14:28:29 -0400
      
      
      About a month ago I got a new 4371 to install on a customers plane.  When I 
      installed the nut, it locked up the whole impulse coupling mechanism.  I 
      took some measurements on the new one and compared it to the old one.  It 
      had been manufactured wrong.  When I tried to return it (to Aircraft 
      Spruce), I was given a run-around for 3 days.  They wanted me to talk to 
      someone in the technical department at Unison to see if I'd installed it in 
      the plane wrong.  They (Aircraft Spruce ) couldn't believe I found a 
      manufacturing defect BEFORE it was installed.  I made 30 phone calls to 
      Unison over two days and never got a reply back.  Aircraft Spruce finally 
      just sent me a new mag (I'd already returned the first new mag).
      
      I got the second new mag yesterday.  It's also F'd U.  I called Unison 5 
      times yesterday without anyone answering my call.  I finally got Aircraft 
      Spruce to go through their supplier.  Gee, they found out that pretty much 
      all of the mags made since GE took over have been manufactured wrong.  In 
      the mean time, the next batch of mags is due in June.
      
      I took a bunch of pics showing the defect just in case someone wanted to see 
      it.  Sending them now to Aircraft Spruce.
      ________________________________________________________________________
      from AOL at AOL.com.
      
      
      _________________________________________________________________
      Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today. 
      http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
May 04, 2007
From: 
D Wysong <hdwysong(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
O-200 questions...
      
      
      Hi all.  A couple of questions from a newbie...
      
      I have an O-200 with ECi cylinders on my C-150M.  With the 
      cowls off today, I noticed #3 has a boss for a CHT probe.  I 
      don't have a CHT gauge in the aircraft but became curious 
      about a couple of things:
      
      1.  Why #3 (stbd front) instead of #1 or #2?  Seems that 
      you'd want to be looking at one of the aft (hotter) 
      cylinders?  Was this just a flub by the fellow that topped 
      the engine?
      2.  Should I add a CHT gauge?  What are the pros/cons for 
      doing so that you folks have come across?
      
      Thanks for the insight!
      
      D
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
May 06, 2007
From: 
"Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 
Re: Aeroshell 100
      
      
      Higher copper numbers are of no harm.  Your (every) engine manufacturer 
      masks off areas that they dont want to be hardened with a copper oxide. 
      There is something that has changed in the aeroshell that causes the copper 
      to wash off.. there is no harm as there is regular steel or iron left 
      behind.... all it is is a coating for manufacturing processes.  As far as 
      the lycoming rep is concerned, there are no copper wear parts in these 
      engines.
      
      
      Charles
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Walt Murphy" <waltmurphy(at)charter.net>
      Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:12 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
      
      >
      > Question... I have always used Aeroshell with great results. But , lately 
      > I have been hearing things from customers that perform oil analysis 
      > routinely that the "new" Aeroshell formulation causes higher copper
      > results in their oil analysis. I had one tell me that once he changed over 
      > to Phillips that the next 2 oil analysis results both showed copper back 
      > to normal .
      > Has anyone had any info on Shell changing the formulation?
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Walt
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Aeroshell 100
Date: 
May 07, 2007
      
      
      >
      I'm not sure I understand the comment about "no copper wear parts" in  
      Lycoming engines.  I'd bet there is some copper in the main and rod  
      bearings and the wrist pin plugs are brass (they used to be aluminum  
      until Lycoming ran into trouble with excessive wear of these items.   
      So they can wear).  All the bushings for the accessory shafts are, as  
      far as I know, brass.  They may, as mentioned below, use copper in  
      the heat treating process, but I've not heard of that before.  No one  
      seems to know if there is copper in the oil, so if it were my engine  
      I'd still be mildly concerned.
      Gary Casey
      >
      > Higher copper numbers are of no harm.  Your (every) engine  
      > manufacturer
      > masks off areas that they dont want to be hardened with a copper  
      > oxide.
      > There is something that has changed in the aeroshell that causes  
      > the copper
      > to wash off.. there is no harm as there is regular steel or iron left
      > behind.... all it is is a coating for manufacturing processes.  As  
      > far as
      > the lycoming rep is concerned, there are no copper wear parts in these
      > engines.
      >
      >
      > Charles
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Walt Murphy" <waltmurphy(at)charter.net>
      > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:12 AM
      > Subject: Engines-List: Aeroshell 100
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Fw: [Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15]]
Date: 
May 07, 2007
      
      
      off sub.   it,s one way to tell them we matter. Joe N101HD
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: <toads(at)bellsouth.net>
      ; ; 
      ; ; 
      ; 
      Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:04 AM
      Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15]]
      
      
      >>
      >> From: <munchm(at)bellsouth.net>
      >> Date: 2007/05/07 Mon AM 11:03:02 EDT
      >> To: 
      >> Subject: [Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15]
      >>
      >> >
      >> > From: "Jones, Pam" <PJones(at)albanyorthopedics.com>
      >> > Date: 2007/04/26 Thu AM 10:02:34 EDT
      >> > To: "April Swain \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Bubba Ivey \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Chris Norman \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Eva Dilley \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Gene Jones \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "HERMAN KORPI \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Jean Slaton \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Kyle Nichols \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Laura Bragg \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "LEE PAVLIK \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Leigh Ivey \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Leslie South \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Lexi Schloshberg \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Micele Harrison \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "MICHELLE SLATON \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "MICHELLE SLATON \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "MICHELLE SLATON \(E-mail 2\)" ,
      >> > "MICHELLE SLATON \(E-mail 2\)" ,
      >> > "MICHELLE SLATON \(E-mail 3\)" ,
      >> > "MICHELLE SLATON \(E-mail 3\)" ,
      >> > "Mindy Snyder \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "MISSY BRENTON \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "PAM JONES \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Peggy Munch \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Randy Nelson \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "SHERRY TRUESDALE \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "SIDNEY BOLTON \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Stephanie Mock \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "SUSAN PITTMAN \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "Teresa Loden \(E-mail\)" <tkl_@bellsouth.net>,
      >> > "Traci Dorer \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "VICKY WILLIAMS \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "ZACH TRUESDALE \(E-mail\)" ,
      >> > "ZACH TRUESDALE \(E-mail 2\)" 
      >> > Subject: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > -----Original Message-----
      >> > From: cocosmother(at)aol.com [mailto:cocosmother(at)aol.com]
      >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:25 PM
      >> > To: downhomegirl2(at)msn.com; monicaalanna(at)earthlink.net; 
      >> > dellison(at)cconnect.net; amylazz(at)twcny.rr.com; swampgal(at)ec.rr.com; 
      >> > myhunney(at)cox.net; thdrn2000(at)yahoo.com
      >> > Subject: Fwd: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > -----Original Message-----
      >> > From: MartinsMother(at)aol.com
      >> > To: amauripuddin2(at)yahoo.com; ronandrade52@hotmail; Ccbike6064(at)aol.com; 
      >> > Cocosmother(at)aol.com; LADYDIANAGOLD(at)aol.com; Grgoatcynthia(at)aol.com; 
      >> > Chhmmy(at)aol.com; HerbsZeppelin(at)aol.com; PJSmom103(at)aol.com; 
      >> > bprice(at)ec.rr.com
      >> > Sent: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:09 PM
      >> > Subject: Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >   _____
      >> >
      >> > See what's free at AOL.com 
      >> > <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
      >> > Attached Message
      >> > From: Ddufaul(at)aol.com
      >> > To: flyboy422(at)cox.net; Alltin64(at)aol.com; aussieel(at)fastol.com; 
      >> > DCBOO(at)aol.com; rowsetbout(at)bellsouth.net; MartinsMother(at)aol.com; 
      >> > rwcoleman1(at)cox.net; carolyn2358(at)yahoo.com; angeleys01550(at)aim.com; 
      >> > Ldeedee5(at)aol.com; ebonair1(at)comcast.net; Emilyh4004(at)aol.com; 
      >> > Cwftuna33(at)aol.com; gallopgirl(at)cfl.rr.com; GinLo(at)webtv.net; 
      >> > HOPRUBY(at)aol.com; Jpitchman33(at)aol.com; NLatai1872(at)aol.com; 
      >> > lincoln9(at)verizon.net; DeerRose(at)aol.com; Teeshirt10(at)aol.com; 
      >> > Mmstricklen(at)aol.com; Misty5ft3(at)aol.com; njsingleton(at)comcast.net; 
      >> > Sunsetpearl(at)aol.com; ritacrabbe(at)yahoo.com; rosebud(at)microd.com; 
      >> > Rrandall8(at)aol.com; PMSAVKO(at)aol.com; Shirleysaw37(at)aol.com; 
      >> > Aruba177(at)cs.com; WBeau91045(at)aol.com; dwigersma(at)cfl.rr.com; 
      >> > Ctdreamer4u(at)aol.com
      >> > Subject: Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 8:22 AM
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >   _____
      >> >
      >> > See what's free at AOL.com 
      >> > <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
      >> > Attached Message
      >> > From: chip1time(at)yahoo.com
      >> > To: ayrsue(at)aol.com; beka3507(at)wmconnect.com; d_przywara(at)msn.com; 
      >> > Ddufaul(at)aol.com; genoh222(at)aol.com; geraldlapier(at)bellsouth.net; 
      >> > jamesmagoon(at)aol.com; jerseyjack(at)cfl.rr.com; kjhpelon(at)yahoo.com; 
      >> > natwo7(at)aol.com; oclark8284(at)aol.com; rcorson959(at)yahoo.com; 
      >> > rickofwonder(at)yahoo.com; sandylazar2148(at)yahoo.com; skatuler89(at)aol.com; 
      >> > Steadwellganehm(at)aol.com; vinnyjmuso(at)yahoo.com
      >> > Subject: Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> > Date:
      >> > Note: forwarded message attached.
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > __________________________________________________
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > Attached Message
      >> > From: Herbcinsq(at)aol.com
      >> > To: snaeb(at)hughes.net; DMBSWD(at)aol.com; brandysaucier(at)sbcglobal.net; 
      >> > chip1time(at)yahoo.com; jcredit(at)snet.net; gcredit(at)snet.net; 
      >> > Dlang(at)greggentinc.com; Ecmcja(at)aol.com; Edye.gucwa(at)uconn.edu; 
      >> > gebar(at)webtv.net; Johnhession7(at)aol.com; gmhyer29(at)msn.com; 
      >> > JMortellit(at)aol.com; renee.kinne(at)verizon.net; KWOLFE(at)travelers.com; 
      >> > Edlinlac(at)aol.com; rmleddy(at)webtv.net; Kiowallama(at)aol.com; 
      >> > mbrewer(at)ktechonline.com; MisssM(at)webtv.net; klamdiga(at)webtv.net; 
      >> > Ollisalmeda(at)aol.com; r-j-rogers(at)postoffice.worldnet.att.net; 
      >> > mischiefstang(at)gmail.com; sswiatek(at)cfl.rr.com; thestens(at)sbcglobal.net; 
      >> > Cs0238(at)aim.com; bthompson(at)plasticdesign.com
      >> > Subject: Fwd: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> > Date:
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >   _____
      >> >
      >> > See what's free at AOL.com 
      >> > <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
      >> > Attached Message
      >> > From: bclark@nashincp-m.com
      >> > To: nan2623(at)hotmail.com; nash_channelside(at)verizon.net; 
      >> > Herbcinsq(at)aol.com; hdumars(at)hotmail.com; jamieeslinger(at)aol.com; 
      >> > JBrokaw@nashincp-m.com; jhyatt@nashincp-m.com; 
      >> > JCaruthers(at)nashincp-m.com; Maria.Johnson(at)bovislendlease.com; 
      >> > jim.morton(at)bovislendlease.com; lbroczkowski(at)synagro.com; 
      >> > beslinger(at)cfl.rr.com; crespojohanna(at)aol.com; CMiddleton(at)nashincp-m.com; 
      >> > ckey(at)foundersins.com; cindy(at)ustconline.com; cedarbrook(at)adelphia.net; 
      >> > dcaruthers(at)nashincp-m.com; dumars51wv(at)aol.com; DMears(at)nashincp-m.com; 
      >> > dwallace(at)nashincp-m.com; matt(at)mccallcomm.com; matt(at)mccallcomm.com; 
      >> > MMizell@nashincp-m.com; MPaxton@nashincp-m.com; 
      >> > ssellers(at)merrittproperties.com; SPennington(at)nashincp-m.com; 
      >> > lsellers(at)Kroll.com; lbroczkowski(at)synagro.com; LWeeks(at)nashincp-m.com; 
      >> > dcaruthers@nashincp-m.com
      >> > Subject: FW: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> > Date:
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > Subject: DON'T GET GAS ON MAY 15
      >> >     NO GAS...On May 15th 2007
      >> > >  Don't pump gas on may 15th
      >> > >  ...in April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in 
      >> > > protest
      >> > >of gas prices.  Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.
      >> > >
      >> > >On May 15th 2007, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in
      >> > >protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most 
      >> > >places.
      >> > >
      >> > >There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the internet 
      >> > >network,
      >> > >and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.
      >> > >
      >> > >If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take
      >> > >$2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companys 
      >> > >pockets
      >> > >for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th 
      >> > >and
      >> > >lets try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least 
      >> > >one
      >> > >day.
      >> > >
      >> > >If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) resend this to all 
      >> > >your
      >> > >contact list. With it saying, ''Don't pump gas on May 15th"
      >> >
      >> >   _____
      >> >
      >> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
      >> > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
      >> >   _____
      >> >
      >> > from AOL at  <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> AOL.com.
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >>
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: 
May 21, 2007
Subject: 
Sniffle valve
      
      I am installing a Lycoming sniffle valve (included in Vans FWF kit) to an 
      Aerosport IO-360 and would like to confirm its inteded operation.  I "think" it
      
      is basically a check valve that should open when manifold pressure is equal to
      
      atmospheric (engine not running) to drain any fuel pooled in the sump.  Engine
      
      running, it should close when manifold pressure drops.  The valve I have 
      flows freely when blowing into the sump side, but still passes a bit of air when
      
      blown into from the tube side, which I surmise would constitute a small vacuum
      
      leak and possible leaner than normal operation.  
      
      Is this normal?
      
      Thanks-
      Mark
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Sniffle valve
Date: 
May 22, 2007
      
      
      I assume most Lycoming installations (at least the 3 that I have  
      owned) just use a simple drain, so there is a "leak" the size of the  
      tube when the engine is running.  The idle speed and mixture  
      adjustments compensate, so no one seems to worry.  A sniffle valve  
      would presumably reduce that leak, but apparently isn't necessary.
      Gary Casey
      
      >
      > I am installing a Lycoming sniffle valve (included in Vans FWF kit)  
      > to an
      > Aerosport IO-360 and would like to confirm its inteded operation.   
      > I "think" it
      >
      > is basically a check valve that should open when manifold pressure  
      > is equal to
      >
      > atmospheric (engine not running) to drain any fuel pooled in the  
      > sump.  Engine
      >
      > running, it should close when manifold pressure drops.  The valve I  
      > have
      > flows freely when blowing into the sump side, but still passes a  
      > bit of air when
      >
      > blown into from the tube side, which I surmise would constitute a  
      > small vacuum
      >
      > leak and possible leaner than normal operation.
      >
      > Is this normal?
      >
      > Thanks-
      > Mark
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
May 22, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Sniffle valve
      
      
      The engines I'm familiar with all call for a sniffle valve, that looks
      like a standard AN 90 degree fitting. I don't know how well it is
      supposed to seal after fuel and gunk have drained through it for a few
      years.
      
      On 5/22/07, Gary Casey  wrote:
      >
      > I assume most Lycoming installations (at least the 3 that I have
      > owned) just use a simple drain, so there is a "leak" the size of the
      > tube when the engine is running.  The idle speed and mixture
      > adjustments compensate, so no one seems to worry.  A sniffle valve
      > would presumably reduce that leak, but apparently isn't necessary.
      > Gary Casey
      >
      > >
      > > I am installing a Lycoming sniffle valve (included in Vans FWF kit)
      > > to an
      > > Aerosport IO-360 and would like to confirm its inteded operation.
      > > I "think" it
      > >
      > > is basically a check valve that should open when manifold pressure
      > > is equal to
      > >
      > > atmospheric (engine not running) to drain any fuel pooled in the
      > > sump.  Engine
      > >
      > > running, it should close when manifold pressure drops.  The valve I
      > > have
      > > flows freely when blowing into the sump side, but still passes a
      > > bit of air when
      > >
      > > blown into from the tube side, which I surmise would constitute a
      > > small vacuum
      > >
      > > leak and possible leaner than normal operation.
      > >
      > > Is this normal?
      > >
      > > Thanks-
      > > Mark
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Sniffle valve
Date: 
May 22, 2007
From: 
"Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com>
      
      If you have a small leak at the " sniffle " valve it will only effect
      you at idle and can be compensated with idle mixture adjustment.  At WOT
      the engine doesn't care as long as the leak is small.  A big hole is
      another story.
      
      
      Monty Barrett
      
      BPE, Inc.
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
      Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:56 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Sniffle valve
      
      
      I am installing a Lycoming sniffle valve (included in Vans FWF kit) to
      an Aerosport IO-360 and would like to confirm its inteded operation.  I
      "think" it is basically a check valve that should open when manifold
      pressure is equal to atmospheric (engine not running) to drain any fuel
      pooled in the sump.  Engine running, it should close when manifold
      pressure drops.  The valve I have flows freely when blowing into the
      sump side, but still passes a bit of air when blown into from the tube
      side, which I surmise would constitute a small vacuum leak and possible
      leaner than normal operation.  
      
      
      Is this normal?
      
      
      Thanks-
      
      Mark
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      See what's free at AOL.com
      <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> . 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: 
IO-360 Engine, Instruments, Ignition
Date: 
May 22, 2007
      
      
      My Glasair has reached a new stage of construction, I have dis-assembled it
      for final work in the interior of the fuselage and painting.
      
      I have taken so long to build this thing, I can now afford different choices
      for certain components I could not afford when I started.  What that means
      to all of you is the opportunity to get some bargains on components I will
      not use when I do the final assembly on my airplane.  E-mail me at
      douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com for more information or photos of any of the
      equipment.
      
      IO-360-B1E:  assembled engine, overhauled several years ago but never run,
      most but not all accessories included (most would suffice for core value)
      Lycoming core value on this engine is $10,500.  I'm asking $12,000.
      
      Elector-Air electronic ignition system w/ hall effect pickup.  Included is
      the full system and instruction manual.  Never used. $400  Buy the engine
      and you can have this.
      
      VM 1000 system for an IO-360. This is brand new, most of the components have
      not been removed from the original packaging.  A few of the senders were
      installed but never used.  It sells new for about $3000.  I'm asking $1900.
      Included is the DPU, display, all senders including fuel flow, wiring, and
      the manual.
      
      I also have the fuel level system which is a separate display capable of
      indicating for 3 tanks, and one 8' probe.  This can be yours for $350 (probe
      retail new is $500 all by itself).
      
      I also have an ACK A-30 altitude encoder and a Rapco vacuum pump cooling
      kit.  Buy something else and you can have these for a beer and the cost of
      shipping.
      
      Douglas L. Dodson, Jr.
      Glasair II-S FT
      Flight Test Engineer, CFI-A,G
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 23, 2007
      
      
      My old math teacher said " When it's easy, be wise, do it twice."
      
      Example:
      30c x 2 = 60,
      minus 10%  (60-6=56),
      56 + 32 = 86F
      
      Do it in your head easy
      
      Second time, I don't think so.
      Cheers, Ferg
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      Right, Larry,
               Basically, the topic was an easy way to convert. However you can see the
      arithmatic  fialed and although the answer was correct, the math wasn't. I
      was just noting that the easier the arithmatic, the greater the need to do it
      twice.....
      Cheers, Ferg
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=120344#120344
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      I'm afraid I miss the point.  This is indeed the easiest way to mentally 
      convert from C to F, and is so quick that you can do it as fast as you say 
      it.
      JimC
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      >
      > Hi Folks,
      >        Guess I missed most of this thread. Are we trying to mentally
      > convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade ?
      >
      >> My old math teacher said " When it's easy, be wise, do it twice."
      >>
      >> Example:
      >> 30c x 2 = 60,
      >> minus 10%  (60-6=56),
      >> 56 + 32 = 86F
      > Do it in your head easy
      > Second time, I don't think so.
      > Cheers, Ferg 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      The first time I've seen it expressed that way
      
      Noel
      VO1 PL
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Fergus Kyle
      > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 11:58 PM
      > To: engines
      > Subject: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > My old math teacher said " When it's easy, be wise, do it twice."
      > 
      > Example:
      > 30c x 2 = 60,
      > minus 10%  (60-6=56),
      > 56 + 32 = 86F
      > 
      > Do it in your head easy
      > 
      > Second time, I don't think so.
      > Cheers, Ferg
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Centigrade to Fahrenheit
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      I was taught, eh, by two Canadians, eh to double the Centigrade, eh, and add
      it to 32 to get Fahrenheit, eh. Easy, eh? Not exact but close enough, eh?
      
      Michael, eh
      
      What two Canadians, eh? The Mackenzie Brothers, of course, eh?
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      60 - 6  *IS NOT*  56,  but rather equals 54,  no???
      And 56 + 32 = 88, and not 86.
      
      But it looks like two wrongs can make things right after all.....
        > Example:
        > 30c x 2 = 60,
        > minus 10%  (60-6=56),
        > 56 + 32 = 86F
        > 
        > Do it in your head easy
        > 
        > Second time, I don't think so.
        > Cheers, Ferg
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      It's the way I've always done it.
      JimC
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:35 PM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      > 
      > The first time I've seen it expressed that way
      > 
      > Noel
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Centigrade to Fahrenheit
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      No.  It can be pretty far off.  For example, for 100 C it would give 232 F 
      and would be too high by 20 F, giving 232 instead of 212.  The correct 
      answer would be 200-20+32 = 212.  It takes perhaps one second longer to do 
      the exact conversion.
      JimC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net>
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:06 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Centigrade to Fahrenheit
      
      
      >
      > I was taught, eh, by two Canadians, eh to double the Centigrade, eh, and 
      > add
      > it to 32 to get Fahrenheit, eh. Easy, eh? Not exact but close enough, eh?
      >
      > Michael, 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      (9/5C) +32=F
      
      (F-32)(5/9)=C
      
      That's the way I was shown... A bit bulky for doing without paper or a
      calculator.  Yours is definitely easier.  I tried it on -40C =-40F,  0C=32F,
      20C=68F, 100C=212F all worked correctly.
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
      > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 6:41 PM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > It's the way I've always done it.
      > JimC
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:35 PM
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > > 
      > > The first time I've seen it expressed that way
      > > 
      > > Noel
      > > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Centigrade to Fahrenheit
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      Just to add what Jim left out, the -20 came from the 100+100 0
      (-10%=-20) or 180+32=212.  Another example: 0+0=0,  0-10%(0)=0, +32, and
      15+15=30-10%(3)=27+32=59.  So the formula is: ((Deg.C*2)-10%)+32=Deg.F
      
      Mike
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:15 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Centigrade to Fahrenheit
      
      
      No.  It can be pretty far off.  For example, for 100 C it would give 232
      F 
      and would be too high by 20 F, giving 232 instead of 212.  The correct 
      answer would be 200-20+32 = 212.  It takes perhaps one second longer to
      do 
      the exact conversion.
      JimC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net>
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:06 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Centigrade to Fahrenheit
      
      
      >
      > I was taught, eh, by two Canadians, eh to double the Centigrade, eh,
      and 
      > add
      > it to 32 to get Fahrenheit, eh. Easy, eh? Not exact but close enough,
      eh?
      >
      > Michael, 
      
      
      -- 
      3:15 PM
      
      
      -- 
      3:15 PM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 25, 2007
      
      
      Now try it backwards... to get back to Cent.
      
      
      Best... Steve
      
      
      ----Original Message Follows----
      From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:29:33 -0230
      
      
      (9/5C) +32=F
      
      (F-32)(5/9)=C
      
      That's the way I was shown... A bit bulky for doing without paper or a
      calculator.  Yours is definitely easier.  I tried it on -40C =-40F,  0C=32F,
      20C=68F, 100C=212F all worked correctly.
      
      Noel
      
       > -----Original Message-----
       > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
       > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
       > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 6:41 PM
       > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
       > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
       >
       >
       >
       > It's the way I've always done it.
       > JimC
       > ----- Original Message -----
       > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
       > To: 
       > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:35 PM
       > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
       >
       >
       > 
       > >
       > > The first time I've seen it expressed that way
       > >
       > > Noel
       > >
       >
       >
       >
       >
       >
       >
      
      
      _________________________________________________________________
      Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now. 
      http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
      
      
      One example will show it only gets you within 10%.
      -40F=-40C
      -40-32/2=-36 does not equal -40.
      
      On 6/24/07, steve korney  wrote:
      >
      >
      > Now try it backwards... to get back to Cent.
      >
      >
      > Best... Steve
      >
      >
      > ----Original Message Follows----
      > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      > Reply-To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > To: 
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:29:33 -0230
      >
      >
      > (9/5C) +32=F
      >
      > (F-32)(5/9)=C
      >
      > That's the way I was shown... A bit bulky for doing without paper or a
      > calculator.  Yours is definitely easier.  I tried it on -40C =-40F,  0C=32F,
      > 20C=68F, 100C=212F all worked correctly.
      >
      > Noel
      >
      >  > -----Original Message-----
      >  > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      >  > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
      >  > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 6:41 PM
      >  > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      >  > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      >  >
      >  >
      >  >
      >  > It's the way I've always done it.
      >  > JimC
      >  > ----- Original Message -----
      >  > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      >  > To: 
      >  > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:35 PM
      >  > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      >  >
      >  >
      >  > 
      >  > >
      >  > > The first time I've seen it expressed that way
      >  > >
      >  > > Noel
      >  > >
      >  >
      >  >
      >  >
      >  >
      >  >
      >  >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now.
      > http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
      
      
      That's because it's exactly the same equation, just configured differently. 
      9/5X is the same as 2X-2X/10.  Both equal 1.8X
      JimC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:59 PM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      >
      > (9/5C) +32=F
      >
      > (F-32)(5/9)=C
      >
      > That's the way I was shown... A bit bulky for doing without paper or a
      > calculator.  Yours is definitely easier.  I tried it on -40C =-40F, 
      > 0C=32F,
      > 20C=68F, 100C=212F all worked correctly.
      >
      > Noel 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
From: 
<longg(at)pjm.com>
      
      
      Rule of thumb is easiest. Double it and add 30. Normally accurate within
      1-2 degrees. Opposite for converting back.
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 9:22 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      That's because it's exactly the same equation, just configured
      differently. 
      9/5X is the same as 2X-2X/10.  Both equal 1.8X
      JimC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:59 PM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      > --> 
      >
      > (9/5C) +32=F
      >
      > (F-32)(5/9)=C
      >
      > That's the way I was shown... A bit bulky for doing without paper or a
      
      > calculator.  Yours is definitely easier.  I tried it on -40C =-40F, 
      > 0C=32F, 20C=68F, 100C=212F all worked correctly.
      >
      > Noel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jun 24, 2007
From: 
Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
      
      
      Should read 2X-(2X/10)+ 32=F.  Math in brackets is
      done first.  Hey, I do remember something from high
      school. :D
      
      Dave
      
      --- jrc  wrote:
      
      > 
      > 
      > That's because it's exactly the same equation, just
      > configured differently. 
      > 9/5X is the same as 2X-2X/10.  Both equal 1.8X
      > JimC
      > 
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:59 PM
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > >
      > > (9/5C) +32=F
      > >
      > > (F-32)(5/9)=C
      > >
      > > That's the way I was shown... A bit bulky for
      > doing without paper or a
      > > calculator.  Yours is definitely easier.  I tried
      > it on -40C =-40F, 
      > > 0C=32F,
      > > 20C=68F, 100C=212F all worked correctly.
      > >
      > > Noel 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      >
      > browse
      > Subscriptions page,
      > FAQ,
      > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      >
      > Web Forums!
      >
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
             
      Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims
      Stories at Yahoo! Games.
      http://sims.yahoo.com/  
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jun 25, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
From: 
Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com>
      
      
      Thanks Ferg,
              That's an annoying little piece of arithmetic.  When it's 
      not critical, and when I can accept an answer within 
      2 or 3 degrees I use something I learned from a friend 
      in Toronto. I simply take F. subtract 30 and divide by 2 to get C.
      Or take C. double it and add 30. Works a lot of the time for me.
      
      
      > 
      > Right, Larry,
      >          Basically, the topic was an easy way to convert. However 
      > you can see the arithmatic  fialed and although the answer was 
      > correct, the math wasn't. I was just noting that the easier the 
      > arithmatic, the greater the need to do it twice.....
      > Cheers, Ferg
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Read this topic online here:
      > 
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=120344#120344
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 25, 2007
      
      
      Lets try that, using 100C (the boiling point of water).
      2*100+30=230F
      The correct answer is 212F
      The error is 28F.
      Is that close enough? (it's slightly more than 1-2 degrees)
      
      The exact answer requires only one more substraction.
      
      JimC
      ----- Original Message -----  
      > Rule of thumb is easiest. Double it and add 30. Normally accurate within
      > 1-2 degrees. Opposite for converting back.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 25, 2007
      
      
      The brackets are optional, not required.
      2X-(2X/10) is the same as 2(X-X/10) is the same as 2X-2X/10 is the same as 
      2X(1-0.1) is the same as 1.8X
      Personally, I think its easiest to just do the thing in your head.  :-)
      JimC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Dave Nellis" <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
      Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 8:30 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      >
      > Should read 2X-(2X/10)+ 32=F.  Math in brackets is
      > done first.  Hey, I do remember something from high
      > school. :D
      >
      > Dave 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Peter Grant" <peter@us-eurolink.co.uk>
Subject: 
Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 25, 2007
      
      
      Let's try the UK version:
      
      C to F = double it, less 10%, add 32
      Eg 100C x 2 = 200 - 10% = 180 + 32 = 212F
      That's pretty close for me!
      
      F to C slightly less accurate
      F less 32, add 10%, halve it
      Eg 212 - 32 = 180, add 10% = 198, halve it = 99C
      Still good enough for me!
      
      Kind regards
      Peter Grant - UK Sportcruiser #4 (waiting)
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      10 The Sidings, Horncastle, Lincs LN9 5UA
      England
      Tel: +44 1507 523180 Fax: +44 1507 525888 Mob: +7774 923160
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      This email may contain confidential information; if you have received it in
      error please delete it from your system and inform the sender. Outgoing
      messages are scanned by AVG 7 Professional.
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
      Sent: 25 June 2007 17:20
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Easy - too easy
      
      
      Lets try that, using 100C (the boiling point of water).
      2*100+30=230F
      The correct answer is 212F
      The error is 28F.
      Is that close enough? (it's slightly more than 1-2 degrees)
      
      The exact answer requires only one more substraction.
      
      JimC
      ----- Original Message -----  
      > Rule of thumb is easiest. Double it and add 30. Normally accurate within
      > 1-2 degrees. Opposite for converting back.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jun 26, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
From: 
Martin Sobel <rv8vator(at)comcast.net>
      
      
      You guys are arguing from the standpoint that the formula is an
      approximation.  It is an exact conversion, Why?
      
      Because between freezing and boiling there are 100 Centigrade degrees and
      180 Fahrenheit degrees. The ratio is 9/5. Centigrade freezing starts at "0"
      Fahrenheit starts at 32.
      
      So lets convert 20 C to Fahrenheit .
      
      20 x 9/5 = 36 (The number of Fahrenheit degrees) since Fahrenheit begins at
      32 adding 32 to 36 gives us 68F.
      
      Doubling 20 and subtracting 10 percent is just an easier way than
      multiplying by 9 and dividing by 5.
      
      Martin Sobel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Easy - too easy
Date: 
Jun 26, 2007
      
      
      Ummh, no.  I think I specifically said that doubling less 10% was an exact 
      conversion.  Some of the other guys prefer using approximations.  I agree 
      with you.
      JimC
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Martin Sobel" <rv8vator(at)comcast.net>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:08 AM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Easy - too easy
      
      
      >
      > You guys are arguing from the standpoint that the formula is an
      > approximation.  It is an exact conversion, Why?
      >
      > Because between freezing and boiling there are 100 Centigrade degrees and
      > 180 Fahrenheit degrees. The ratio is 9/5. Centigrade freezing starts at 
      > "0"
      > Fahrenheit starts at 32.
      >
      > So lets convert 20 C to Fahrenheit .
      >
      > 20 x 9/5 = 36 (The number of Fahrenheit degrees) since Fahrenheit begins 
      > at
      > 32 adding 32 to 36 gives us 68F.
      >
      > Doubling 20 and subtracting 10 percent is just an easier way than
      > multiplying by 9 and dividing by 5.
      >
      > Martin Sobel
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
JUST MY POINT
Date: 
Jun 27, 2007
      
      
      Hello,
      	The recent spate of calculations and replies, regarding the simplest
      of arithmetic seems to have escaped the purpose of my original statement -
      that the simpler the calc, the more times you do it to confirm.
      	Simple sums involve rather more mental assumptions as a way to to
      achieve the end. It's theses assumptions that often obscure the accuracy.
      Whether brackets are mandatory or optional is of no consequence to my
      proiposal.
      	Take Centigrade (Celsius) double it, subtract ten percent and add
      32, Then do it again. Or do it another way: take ninety percent of double
      Celsius and add 32. Watch out for minusses though: -40C; -80C; -80C-(-8) is
      -72; -72+32; -40F
      	The extra security is acquiring the same answer
      twice................
      Ferg
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
JUST MY POINT
Date: 
Jun 27, 2007
      
      
      How things change!
      
      When I was in school, about ten million years ago, We were told the answer
      wasn't important but how we got it was.  As a result only about 5% of the
      answer on any math problem was attributed to actually getting the right
      answer.
      
      Now days, no one, especially myself, gives a fiddlers d#$% about how the
      correct answer is achieved, only that it is the correct answer.
      
      For most problems though a calculation is good enough for government work.
      I don't think any one really cares if a mile is 1.61 kilometres or one
      nautical mile is 1.15 mi ( I had to get out the old whiz wheel to check that
      one).  Its easy to do a one and two-thirds or a 1.1X calculation, pardon the
      expression, on the fly.
      
      That's my story and I'm sticking to it.......  Unless suitably bribed of
      course.
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Fergus Kyle
      > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:02 PM
      > To: engines
      > Subject: Engines-List: JUST MY POINT
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Hello,
      > 	The recent spate of calculations and replies, regarding 
      > the simplest
      > of arithmetic seems to have escaped the purpose of my 
      > original statement -
      > that the simpler the calc, the more times you do it to confirm.
      > 	Simple sums involve rather more mental assumptions as a 
      > way to to
      > achieve the end. It's theses assumptions that often obscure 
      > the accuracy.
      > Whether brackets are mandatory or optional is of no consequence to my
      > proiposal.
      > 	Take Centigrade (Celsius) double it, subtract ten 
      > percent and add
      > 32, Then do it again. Or do it another way: take ninety 
      > percent of double
      > Celsius and add 32. Watch out for minusses though: -40C; 
      > -80C; -80C-(-8) is
      > -72; -72+32; -40F
      > 	The extra security is acquiring the same answer
      > twice................
      > Ferg
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
carb or fuel injection? turbo?
From: 
"T22" <stone37house-airplane(at)yahoo.com>
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
      
      
      Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel injection?
      How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website for 360 engines (see link below)
      lists the turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs
      additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
      
      
      Could it be that the turbo is designed primarily to maintain full power at
      altitude?  Or possibly to allow the engine to operate at far greater
      altitudes.
      
      Consider also the removal of carb heat and the possibility of icing.
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of T22
      > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:38 PM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator 
      > versus fuel injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's 
      > website for 360 engines (see link below) lists the 
      > turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) less TBO plus 
      > 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Read this topic online here:
      > 
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
From: 
John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      Injected eliminates carb heat issues and almost all induction icing 
      issues. It's also more efficient and seems to be pretty much universal 
      on higher performance engines although it is more expensive. On a IO-360 
      the turbocharging is actually turbo-normalizing which means that it 
      allows you to develop more horsepower at higher altitudes. The only 
      stock turbochargers I'm aware of have a fixed waste gate which is not 
      particularly effective. There is an stc'd turbo charger made by Rajay 
      for the IO-360 that is much better but it's also about $10,000 last time 
      I looked several years ago. There are also substantially higher 
      maintenance costs associated with turbo charging although I think your 
      800 hour TBO is probably on the turbo and not the entire engine.
      
      The bottom line for me was that a turbo might be worth the added expense 
      and complexity if you live in the mountains of the West or regularily 
      fly out there but not for me living in the flat lands of the Midwest. If 
      I did get a turbo it would not be the one with a fixed waste gate. I'd 
      spend the bucks for a Rajay.
      
      just my 2 cents.
      
      John
      
      T22 wrote:
      
      >
      >Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel injection?
      How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website for 360 engines (see link below)
      lists the turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs
      additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      >
      >
      >Read this topic online here:
      >
      >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
From: 
<longg(at)pjm.com>
      
      
      John et al,
      	I would note that if you like to fly high the turbo/super will
      help you get there faster with reduced power loss and consistent climb.
      Even if you live in the east or mid-west there is a cost to the climb.
      My old Piper with the O-320 was a great plane, but you'd spend the weeks
      paycheck in fuel getting to 10k and if it was the middle of summer,
      you'd have to flatten out every 10-15 so you wouldn't melt the heads.
      	There are plenty of advantages and, as John said a cost to turbo
      systems. I am building a Lancair Legacy and will use a supercharged
      Subaru. Superchargers have their own pros and cons. The greatest
      advantage of the supercharger is the no-lag response and minimal heat
      issues. On the turbo systems, the exhaust system is complex and ouch -
      it gets very hot which leads to shorter life and more $$$ on exhaust
      pipe. If you go with the Subaru turbo, you can actually loose the
      exhaust system and just use a short pipe.
      	The people with the most experience in Lycoming turbos' has to
      be Lancair. You just don't buy these of the shelf. They will sell you a
      TNIO-390X with for 40k. All of their machine work is done on the
      premises. They do great work. My Subaru which will also put out 210-220
      HP FWF is about $25k.
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
      Grosse
      Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:17 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      Injected eliminates carb heat issues and almost all induction icing 
      issues. It's also more efficient and seems to be pretty much universal 
      on higher performance engines although it is more expensive. On a IO-360
      
      the turbocharging is actually turbo-normalizing which means that it 
      allows you to develop more horsepower at higher altitudes. The only 
      stock turbochargers I'm aware of have a fixed waste gate which is not 
      particularly effective. There is an stc'd turbo charger made by Rajay 
      for the IO-360 that is much better but it's also about $10,000 last time
      
      I looked several years ago. There are also substantially higher 
      maintenance costs associated with turbo charging although I think your 
      800 hour TBO is probably on the turbo and not the entire engine.
      
      The bottom line for me was that a turbo might be worth the added expense
      
      and complexity if you live in the mountains of the West or regularily 
      fly out there but not for me living in the flat lands of the Midwest. If
      
      I did get a turbo it would not be the one with a fixed waste gate. I'd 
      spend the bucks for a Rajay.
      
      just my 2 cents.
      
      John
      
      T22 wrote:
      
      >--> 
      >
      >Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel 
      >injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website for 360 
      >engines (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at 
      >800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP 
      >gained.
      >
      >
      >Read this topic online here:
      >
      >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
Subject: 
Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      In a message dated 7/6/2007 3:25:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
      longg(at)pjm.com writes:
      
      The  people with the most experience in Lycoming turbos' has to
      be Lancair. You  just don't buy these of the shelf. They will sell you a
      TNIO-390X with for  40k. All of their machine work is done on the
      premises. They do great work.  My Subaru which will also put out 210-220
      HP FWF is about  $25k.
      
      
      Is that for the Eggenfeller  package?
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Grant Piper" <grant.piper(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 07, 2007
      
      
      I would like to add that another option is an Ellison Throttle Body Injector 
      'carburettor'.   If well set up, you can lean as well as FI without the 
      cost, weight and complexity of FI.   The CAFE Mooney runs an IO-360-A1B6 
      with an Ellison rather than FI.   Check their 'site for details.   An 
      Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed, thus less cost 
      again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is easier also.   Carb 
      heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible to icing than a 
      standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
      
      Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used on cars.   FI is 
      all mechanical.
      
      Grant Piper
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane(at)yahoo.com>
      Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      > 
      >
      > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel 
      > injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website for 360 engines 
      > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at 800hours (40%) 
      > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
      
      
      Is the Ellison system also what used to be referred to as a pressure
      carburettor?
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Grant Piper
      > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:29 PM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > I would like to add that another option is an Ellison 
      > Throttle Body Injector 
      > 'carburettor'.   If well set up, you can lean as well as FI 
      > without the 
      > cost, weight and complexity of FI.   The CAFE Mooney runs an 
      > IO-360-A1B6 
      > with an Ellison rather than FI.   Check their 'site for details.   An 
      > Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed, 
      > thus less cost 
      > again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is 
      > easier also.   Carb 
      > heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible 
      > to icing than a 
      > standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
      > 
      > Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used 
      > on cars.   FI is 
      > all mechanical.
      > 
      > Grant Piper
      > 
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane(at)yahoo.com>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
      > Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > 
      > 
      > > 
      > >
      > > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator 
      > versus fuel 
      > > injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website 
      > for 360 engines 
      > > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at 
      > 800hours (40%) 
      > > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Read this topic online here:
      > >
      > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
      
      
      If you are running a subaru, and thinking about supercharger you should talk 
      to Ron at RAM  ,If anybody knows supercharging a subaru it would be Ron.. 
      Joe N101HD 601 XL
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
      Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:21 PM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      >
      > John et al,
      > I would note that if you like to fly high the turbo/super will
      > help you get there faster with reduced power loss and consistent climb.
      > Even if you live in the east or mid-west there is a cost to the climb.
      > My old Piper with the O-320 was a great plane, but you'd spend the weeks
      > paycheck in fuel getting to 10k and if it was the middle of summer,
      > you'd have to flatten out every 10-15 so you wouldn't melt the heads.
      > There are plenty of advantages and, as John said a cost to turbo
      > systems. I am building a Lancair Legacy and will use a supercharged
      > Subaru. Superchargers have their own pros and cons. The greatest
      > advantage of the supercharger is the no-lag response and minimal heat
      > issues. On the turbo systems, the exhaust system is complex and ouch -
      > it gets very hot which leads to shorter life and more $$$ on exhaust
      > pipe. If you go with the Subaru turbo, you can actually loose the
      > exhaust system and just use a short pipe.
      > The people with the most experience in Lycoming turbos' has to
      > be Lancair. You just don't buy these of the shelf. They will sell you a
      > TNIO-390X with for 40k. All of their machine work is done on the
      > premises. They do great work. My Subaru which will also put out 210-220
      > HP FWF is about $25k.
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
      > Grosse
      > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:17 PM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      >
      >
      > Injected eliminates carb heat issues and almost all induction icing
      > issues. It's also more efficient and seems to be pretty much universal
      > on higher performance engines although it is more expensive. On a IO-360
      >
      > the turbocharging is actually turbo-normalizing which means that it
      > allows you to develop more horsepower at higher altitudes. The only
      > stock turbochargers I'm aware of have a fixed waste gate which is not
      > particularly effective. There is an stc'd turbo charger made by Rajay
      > for the IO-360 that is much better but it's also about $10,000 last time
      >
      > I looked several years ago. There are also substantially higher
      > maintenance costs associated with turbo charging although I think your
      > 800 hour TBO is probably on the turbo and not the entire engine.
      >
      > The bottom line for me was that a turbo might be worth the added expense
      >
      > and complexity if you live in the mountains of the West or regularily
      > fly out there but not for me living in the flat lands of the Midwest. If
      >
      > I did get a turbo it would not be the one with a fixed waste gate. I'd
      > spend the bucks for a Rajay.
      >
      > just my 2 cents.
      >
      > John
      >
      > T22 wrote:
      >
      >>--> 
      >>
      >>Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator versus fuel
      >>injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website for 360
      >>engines (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
      >>800hours (40%) less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP
      >>gained.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>Read this topic online here:
      >>
      >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jul 06, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      No. Pressure carbs were most commonly used on Bonanzas. They are a
      very sophisticated carb that functions like an altitude compensated
      throttle body injection.
      Several erroneous pieces of info already mentioned.
      The difference between a 180hp O-360 and 200 hp IO-360 is about 35
      lbs, not 100. The injected engine will run LOP, most with stock
      injectors. A carb won't without some extra effort to vaporize the fuel
      and that takes heat, which reduces power.  The difference in TBO is
      ZERO, NADA,ZIP.  Both are 2000 hour TBO. The difference in power is
      most felt for takeoff and climb, much less in cruise.
      A throttle body injection like the Ellison is susceptible to throttle
      icing, and won't have as good mixture distribution as a port injection
      system like the Bendix. Bendix system is very simple, no user
      adjustments beyond idle speed and mixture, minimal maintenance, very
      reliable.
      KM
      A&P/IA
      
      On 7/6/07, Noel Loveys  wrote:
      >
      > Is the Ellison system also what used to be referred to as a pressure
      > carburettor?
      >
      > Noel
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      > > Grant Piper
      > > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:29 PM
      > > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > >
      > >
      > > 
      > >
      > > I would like to add that another option is an Ellison
      > > Throttle Body Injector
      > > 'carburettor'.   If well set up, you can lean as well as FI
      > > without the
      > > cost, weight and complexity of FI.   The CAFE Mooney runs an
      > > IO-360-A1B6
      > > with an Ellison rather than FI.   Check their 'site for details.   An
      > > Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed,
      > > thus less cost
      > > again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is
      > > easier also.   Carb
      > > heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible
      > > to icing than a
      > > standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
      > >
      > > Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used
      > > on cars.   FI is
      > > all mechanical.
      > >
      > > Grant Piper
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane(at)yahoo.com>
      > > To: 
      > > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
      > > Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > >
      > >
      > > > 
      > > >
      > > > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator
      > > versus fuel
      > > > injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website
      > > for 360 engines
      > > > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
      > > 800hours (40%)
      > > > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Read this topic online here:
      > > >
      > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Grant Piper" <grant.piper(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: 
Re: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 07, 2007
      
      
      Hi Noel,
      
      No, it uses a diaphram that opens with airflow to supply fuel to the 
      metering tube with many small holes in it extending acroos the carb. throat. 
      A flat slide (the throttle) uncovers the tube, and thus more holes, as you 
      open the throttle.   The mixture is adjusted by rotating the metering tube 
      so that the holes face into the airflow (full lean) or ~90 to the airflow 
      (full rich).   There is also a separate simple mixture circuit for idle 
      adjustment.   There is no float bowl, so it doesn't care which way up it is. 
      It will work with gravity or low pressure (2-6psi) fuel supply.   They are 
      susceptible to hiccups with hot fuel vaporising on the ground due to having 
      no float bowl to separate the fuel from the vapour, but I have found it 
      clears immediately high power/fuel flow is demanded.   Hot starts are 
      excellent cf. FI.   I think they are a good thing, but there aren't a great 
      number of people using them so there is little corporate knowledge out there 
      about them.   I like the lightness and simplicity, and will live with the 
      odd hiccup when hot.
      
      Grant Piper
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 9:56 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      
      
      >
      > Is the Ellison system also what used to be referred to as a pressure
      > carburettor?
      >
      > Noel
      >
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      >> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      >> Grant Piper
      >> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:29 PM
      >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      >>
      >>
      >> 
      >>
      >> I would like to add that another option is an Ellison
      >> Throttle Body Injector
      >> 'carburettor'.   If well set up, you can lean as well as FI
      >> without the
      >> cost, weight and complexity of FI.   The CAFE Mooney runs an
      >> IO-360-A1B6
      >> with an Ellison rather than FI.   Check their 'site for details.   An
      >> Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed,
      >> thus less cost
      >> again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is
      >> easier also.   Carb
      >> heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible
      >> to icing than a
      >> standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with FI anyway.
      >>
      >> Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used
      >> on cars.   FI is
      >> all mechanical.
      >>
      >> Grant Piper
      >>
      >> ----- Original Message ----- 
      >> From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane(at)yahoo.com>
      >> To: 
      >> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
      >> Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      >>
      >>
      >> > 
      >> >
      >> > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator
      >> versus fuel
      >> > injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website
      >> for 360 engines
      >> > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
      >> 800hours (40%)
      >> > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > Read this topic online here:
      >> >
      >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
WRBYARS(at)aol.com
Date: 
Jul 07, 2007
Subject: 
Timing a Lycoming 0-290-D
      
      We would appreciate input on timing  a Lycoming 0-290-D that is using Bendix 
      mags. The info says to use 18 degrees,  however I've heard someone say to use 
      25 instead-----Comments  please. 
      
      
      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jul 07, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Timing a Lycoming 0-290-D
      
      
      Use what is on the data plate.
      
      On 7/7/07, WRBYARS(at)aol.com  wrote:
      >
      >
      > We would appreciate input on timing a Lycoming 0-290-D that is using Bendix
      > mags. The info says to use 18 degrees, however I've heard someone say to use
      > 25 instead-----Comments please.
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > See what's free at AOL.com.
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
carb or fuel injection? turbo?
Date: 
Jul 08, 2007
      
      
      Thanks I'll Google Elliston and have a closer look.
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Grant Piper
      > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 5:59 AM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Hi Noel,
      > 
      > No, it uses a diaphram that opens with airflow to supply fuel to the 
      > metering tube with many small holes in it extending acroos 
      > the carb. throat. 
      > A flat slide (the throttle) uncovers the tube, and thus more 
      > holes, as you 
      > open the throttle.   The mixture is adjusted by rotating the 
      > metering tube 
      > so that the holes face into the airflow (full lean) or ~90 
      > to the airflow 
      > (full rich).   There is also a separate simple mixture 
      > circuit for idle 
      > adjustment.   There is no float bowl, so it doesn't care 
      > which way up it is. 
      > It will work with gravity or low pressure (2-6psi) fuel 
      > supply.   They are 
      > susceptible to hiccups with hot fuel vaporising on the ground 
      > due to having 
      > no float bowl to separate the fuel from the vapour, but I 
      > have found it 
      > clears immediately high power/fuel flow is demanded.   Hot starts are 
      > excellent cf. FI.   I think they are a good thing, but there 
      > aren't a great 
      > number of people using them so there is little corporate 
      > knowledge out there 
      > about them.   I like the lightness and simplicity, and will 
      > live with the 
      > odd hiccup when hot.
      > 
      > Grant Piper
      > 
      > 
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
      > To: 
      > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 9:56 AM
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > >
      > > Is the Ellison system also what used to be referred to as a pressure
      > > carburettor?
      > >
      > > Noel
      > >
      > >> -----Original Message-----
      > >> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      > >> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      > >> Grant Piper
      > >> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:29 PM
      > >> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> 
      > >>
      > >> I would like to add that another option is an Ellison
      > >> Throttle Body Injector
      > >> 'carburettor'.   If well set up, you can lean as well as FI
      > >> without the
      > >> cost, weight and complexity of FI.   The CAFE Mooney runs an
      > >> IO-360-A1B6
      > >> with an Ellison rather than FI.   Check their 'site for 
      > details.   An
      > >> Ellison also means only a low pressure fuel pump is needed,
      > >> thus less cost
      > >> again, and no fuel return line is needed, so plumbing is
      > >> easier also.   Carb
      > >> heat is recommended with them, but they are less susceptible
      > >> to icing than a
      > >> standard carb, and you need/should have alternate air with 
      > FI anyway.
      > >>
      > >> Just to be clear, FI as used on aircraft is not EFI as used
      > >> on cars.   FI is
      > >> all mechanical.
      > >>
      > >> Grant Piper
      > >>
      > >> ----- Original Message ----- 
      > >> From: "T22" <stone37house-airplane(at)yahoo.com>
      > >> To: 
      > >> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:07 AM
      > >> Subject: Engines-List: carb or fuel injection? turbo?
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> > 
      > >> >
      > >> > Does anybody have any insight on pros/cons of carberator
      > >> versus fuel
      > >> > injection?  How about adding a turbo?  Lycoming's website
      > >> for 360 engines
      > >> > (see link below) lists the turbocharged injected engine at
      > >> 800hours (40%)
      > >> > less TBO plus 100lbs additional weight for only 20HP gained.
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > Read this topic online here:
      > >> >
      > >> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122513#122513
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"end7115" <end7115(at)empal.com>
Subject: 
moronic starlet
Date: 
Jul 10, 2007
      
      ghpqgd  olnopqe  snujk 
       xmbys
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"end7115" <end7115(at)empal.com>
Subject: 
moronic starlet
Date: 
Jul 10, 2007
      
      ghpqgd  olnopqe  snujk 
       xmbys
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: prop bolts
Date: 
Jul 28, 2007
      
      
      My instruction manual said 60-65 ft-lb, clean and dry.  They put  
      emphasis on the threads being dry, not lubricated.  If the threads  
      are lubricated the proper torque would be lower, but I don't know how  
      low.  This was for an Aerocomposites prop on an IO-540, but I believe  
      the hubs and bolts are the same for all Lycomings with constant-speed  
      props.
      
      Gary Casey
      
      >>
      >> Can anyone tell me what the tourque on prop bolts should be? IO360  
      >> w/ alum prop.
      >>
      >> Thanks
      >>
      >> Dan Stanton
      >> 90% done 90% to go
      >> 801, IO360
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Re: prop bolts
Date: 
Jul 28, 2007
      
      
      If you accidentally get some oil or grease in the threads you can wash it
      out with a bit of MEK.
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Gary Casey
      > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 9:44 AM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Engines-List: Re: prop bolts
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > My instruction manual said 60-65 ft-lb, clean and dry.  They put  
      > emphasis on the threads being dry, not lubricated.  If the threads  
      > are lubricated the proper torque would be lower, but I don't 
      > know how  
      > low.  This was for an Aerocomposites prop on an IO-540, but I 
      > believe  
      > the hubs and bolts are the same for all Lycomings with 
      > constant-speed  
      > props.
      > 
      > Gary Casey
      > 
      > >>
      > >> Can anyone tell me what the tourque on prop bolts should 
      > be? IO360  
      > >> w/ alum prop.
      > >>
      > >> Thanks
      > >>
      > >> Dan Stanton
      > >> 90% done 90% to go
      > >> 801, IO360
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
Date: 
Jul 29, 2007
Subject: 
Re: prop bolts
      
      Don,
      I0360 and O320 share the same prop.
      Assuming yours to be 3/8" bolt diameter, the torque is 24 to 25 lbf.ft. 
      Bolts must be dry, non lubricated.
      Got this piece of info from Sensenich themselves.
      Cheers,
      Miguel Azevedo
      PA22/20
      
      
      ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
      http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
prop bolts
Date: 
Jul 29, 2007
      
      Keep the lockwire nice and tight too.
      
      Noel
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
      Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:18 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop bolts
      
      
      Don,
      I0360 and O320 share the same prop.
      Assuming yours to be 3/8" bolt diameter, the torque is 24 to 25 lbf.ft. 
      Bolts must be dry, non lubricated.
      Got this piece of info from Sensenich themselves.
      Cheers,
      Miguel Azevedo
      PA22/20
      
      
        _____  
      
      <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: prop bolts
Date: 
Jul 30, 2007
      
      Please double check this.  They usuallly do not share the same prop.  
      Among other things, the bolt hole diameter in the O and IO-360's is 
      usually larger.
      JimC
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 4:47 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop bolts
      
      
        Don,
        I0360 and O320 share the same prop.
        Assuming yours to be 3/8" bolt diameter, the torque is 24 to 25 
      lbf.ft. 
        Bolts must be dry, non lubricated.
        Got this piece of info from Sensenich themselves.
        Cheers,
        Miguel Azevedo
        PA22/20
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: prop bolts
Date: 
Jul 30, 2007
From: 
azevedoflyer(at)aol.com
      
      
       Jim,
      You are absolutely right!
      What I checked was 0320-150 hp and 0320-160hp (high compression)! Those two use
      the same prop.
      Maybe I got sidetracked by 160hp and 0360!
      I am sorry I fed the list a mistaken info and charged Sensenich for it!
      Must be one of those senior moments...
      Hope no damage was done.
      Miguel Azevedo
      PA22/20-150
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: jrc <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
      Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:07 am
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop bolts
      
      
      Please double check this.? They usuallly do not share the same 
      prop.? Among other things, the bolt hole diameter in the O and IO-360's is 
      usually larger.
      
      
      JimC
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      
      
      From: 
        AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com 
      
      
      Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 4:47 PM
      
      
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop 
        bolts
      
      
      Don,
      
      
      I0360 and O320 share the same prop.
      
      
      Assuming yours to be 3/8" bolt diameter, the torque is 24 to 25 lbf.ft. 
      
      
      Bolts must be dry, non lubricated.
      
      
      Got this piece of info from Sensenich themselves.
      
      
      Cheers,
      
      
      Miguel Azevedo
      
      
      PA22/20
      
      
      href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: prop bolts
Date: 
Jul 30, 2007
      
      None here.  I have more and more of those senior moments myself.  Good 
      to know I don't have a monopoly on it.
      Jim
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: azevedoflyer(at)aol.com 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 4:52 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop bolts
      
      
        Jim,
        You are absolutely right!
        What I checked was 0320-150 hp and 0320-160hp (high compression)! 
      Those two use the same prop.
        Maybe I got sidetracked by 160hp and 0360!
        I am sorry I fed the list a mistaken info and charged Sensenich for 
      it!
        Must be one of those senior moments...
        Hope no damage was done.
        Miguel Azevedo
        PA22/20-150
      
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: jrc <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
        Sent: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:07 am
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop bolts
      
      
        Please double check this.  They usuallly do not share the same prop.  
      Among other things, the bolt hole diameter in the O and IO-360's is 
      usually larger.
        JimC
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com 
          To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
          Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 4:47 PM
          Subject: Re: Engines-List: prop bolts
      
      
          Don,
          I0360 and O320 share the same prop.
          Assuming yours to be 3/8" bolt diameter, the torque is 24 to 25 
      lbf.ft. 
          Bolts must be dry, non lubricated.
          Got this piece of info from Sensenich themselves.
          Cheers,
          Miguel Azevedo
          PA22/20
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ---
      
      
      href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
      nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 05, 2007
From: 
Walt Murphy <waltmurphy(at)charter.net>
Subject: 
Oil thermostatic by pass valves.
      
      
      Question:
      
      Does anyone know just exactly how far the vern a therm ( by pass valve ) 
      is supposed to stretch when at temperature?
      
      We have an oil temp problem and the by pass valve was replaced. ( ECI 
      PMA replacement part ) . It did not solve the problem. Looking at the 
      NEW part there was NO wear mark at all on the seating face of the valve. 
      Placing it into a cup of boiling water it grew 0.107  from the ambient 
      length.  I also measured another ( old Lycoming part ) it grew 0.180
      
      Also when I look at the ECI part in the oil filter adapter housing , it 
      sits deeper than the Lycoming part. ( It appears that the ECI part would 
      need to "grow" over 1/4 inch to make contact compared to maybe  1/16 to 
      1/8 inch on the Lycoming part.
      
      Thanks,
      Walt
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: Oil thermostatic by pass valves.
Date: 
Aug 05, 2007
      
      
      Walt...................Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver St., Williamsport, Pa.
      17701.........570-323-6181..........Ask for "SUPPORT CENTER."  0800-1700
      EDT, Mon-Fri...I'm sure the engineers will have an answer for
      you.....................................www.lycoming.textron.com/index.jsp
      CHEERS!!!! and good luck.............Gene Smith.
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Walt Murphy" <waltmurphy(at)charter.net>
      Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 2:09 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Oil thermostatic by pass valves.
      
      
      >
      > Question:
      >
      > Does anyone know just exactly how far the vern a therm ( by pass valve )
      > is supposed to stretch when at temperature?
      >
      > We have an oil temp problem and the by pass valve was replaced. ( ECI
      > PMA replacement part ) . It did not solve the problem. Looking at the
      > NEW part there was NO wear mark at all on the seating face of the valve.
      > Placing it into a cup of boiling water it grew 0.107  from the ambient
      > length.  I also measured another ( old Lycoming part ) it grew 0.180
      >
      > Also when I look at the ECI part in the oil filter adapter housing , it
      > sits deeper than the Lycoming part. ( It appears that the ECI part would
      > need to "grow" over 1/4 inch to make contact compared to maybe  1/16 to
      > 1/8 inch on the Lycoming part.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Walt
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
Missed email mesages
Date: 
Aug 07, 2007
      
      
      I must apologize, but my server 'ra.ca' had lost control of its machinery
      this last weekend and in the process of countering spam lost all emails to
      me from Saturday 04AUG to yesterday, Monday 07Aug. 7, 07 inclusive.	
      	If you had sent me critical advice or legal information during that
      period, I will not have got it and cannot therefore respond..........
      Sorry
      Ferg 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"engines" <engines@a-e-r-o.com>
Subject: 
orbiting cup
Date: 
Aug 10, 2007
      
      nlme  wupyk  csjlwvg 
       ygkfviq
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"engines" <engines@a-e-r-o.com>
Subject: 
orbiting cup
Date: 
Aug 10, 2007
      
      nlme  wupyk  csjlwvg 
       ygkfviq
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Rear-entry sump
Date: 
Aug 11, 2007
      
      
      I have left over from my last project a rear-entry sump for a IO-540  
      spread-valve engine.  I believe it originally came from a Malibu.  It  
      is in new condition and includes all intake tubes and the adaptor for  
      the throttle body (straight, not angled).  I paid too much for it  
      when I thought I could use it, but I'm willing to let it go for any  
      reasonable price.
      
      Gary Casey
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Starter Wanted
From: 
"PGLong" <PGLong(at)aol.com>
Date: 
Aug 16, 2007
      
      
      A friend of mine is searching for a starter for his project. Think he said it was
      for a GO-430 Lycoming. He needs a serviceable Bendix 397-4-B starter. Any one
      help on this one?
      __________________
      
      --------
      Pat Long
      RV-4, N120PL
      Bay City, MI
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129539#129539
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: 
Starter Wanted
Date: 
Aug 17, 2007
      
      That's better known as an Eclipse E-80 starter. I've got one on the GO-480
      in my Navion. I just had mine O/H'd by S&T Aircraft Accessories in New
      Braunfels, TX. They will be very expensive buying thru a shop. Normal O/H is
      $750 - mine was ~$1500 due to some broken parts. Try to find one at a
      salvage yard or private - it will likely be much cheaper. The GO's (435 &
      480) were used on Helio's, SeeBee's, Twin Bo's, Queen Airs, Twin Commanders,
      Navions and others. The E-80 was also used on Continental E-series engines
      and a bunch of radials but you can't use that version..
      
      There are MANY variations of the E-80 so it's important to get the right
      one. The Lycoming version turns the opposite of most other applications.
      They call it right hand turning. The Lyc's model numbers are even numbers.
      The Continental/radial types have odd model numbers. The motor can be
      rewired to turn either direction but the clutch and dogs are direction
      specific so you can't really convert. The clutch dogs are another variable.
      Mine has 3. The GO-435 probably does too but there are other possibilities -
      I've heard up to 10 dogs. The clutch also gets a torque setting unique to
      each engine type. That at least can be reset to whatever the GO-435 needs.
      There are also different style clutches but they are compatible. My "C"
      clutch has a rubber seal rather than the leather seal of the "B" and "A". My
      data plate is stamped as a model 10C. Then there is voltage - they come in
      both 12 and 24 which I believe can be changed (not totally sure of that.) 
      
      Once he goes to install it, there are both positive and negative studs.
      Normally there is an insulating washer only on the positive. It does not
      ground only thru the case like modern starters. I was told the clutch
      housing is magnesium and won't carry the current. Regardless of the reason,
      plan on a separate ground strap - it won't work without it. If you need to
      run it on the bench to determine pos vs neg, just bump it. DO NOT let it
      spin up, it can come apart without a load on it.
      
      Unfortunately there is no alternative starter for the GO-480 or GO-435. The
      downside is it's old and heavy but otherwise it's a good starter. BTW,
      what's your friend's project?
      
      Regards,
      Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
      RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
      Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
      
      
         _____  
      
      From: owner-lycomingengines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-lycomingengines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      PGLong(at)aol.com
      Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:47 AM
      Subject: LycomingEngines-List: Starter Wanted
      
      
      A friend of mine is searching for a starter for his project. Think he  
      said it was for a GO-430 Lycoming. He needs a serviceable Bendix 397-4-B
      starter.  
      This starter mounts on the accessory case. Any one help on this one?
      __________________
      
      --------
      Pat Long
      RV-4, N120PL
      Bay City, MI
      
      
         _____  
      
      "http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
      \nAOL.com.
      
      
      "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List"http://www.matronic
      s.com/Navigator?LycomingEngines-List
      
      
      4:55 PM 
      
      
      4:55 PM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: 
magneto problem
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
      
      I just fired up my Lyc 540 for the first time configured with Electro 
      air ignition on one set of plugs and  a Slick mag on the other.  I 
      noticed the mag was not firing.  I verified this with a strobe gun.  I 
      plan on replacing the unit which has been dormant for about 4 years, 
      just sitting on the back of my engine.  Anyone know of what might have 
      gone wrong with this new unit, or how I might get it fixed?
      Thanks,
      Jim Stone
      Harmon Rocket II
      Louisville KY
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: magneto problem
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
      
      The mag wasn't firing or the CDI   (the other "mag")? 
      I have used dual LSE CDI's for over 200 hours with no problems so far. 
      If it's the CDI not working, perhaps time to move up to LSE's.
      Wayne
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Jim Stone 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 3:37 AM
        Subject: Engines-List: magneto problem
      
      
        I just fired up my Lyc 540 for the first time configured with Electro 
      air ignition on one set of plugs and  a Slick mag on the other.  I 
      noticed the mag was not firing.  I verified this with a strobe gun.  I 
      plan on replacing the unit which has been dormant for about 4 years, 
      just sitting on the back of my engine.  Anyone know of what might have 
      gone wrong with this new unit, or how I might get it fixed?
        Thanks,
        Jim Stone
        Harmon Rocket II
        Louisville KY
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: magneto problem
      
      If a mag doesn't fire at all, it is grounded or the points aren't openning.
      
      On 8/26/07, Jim Stone  wrote:
      >
      >  I just fired up my Lyc 540 for the first time configured with Electro air
      > ignition on one set of plugs and  a Slick mag on the other.  I noticed the
      > mag was not firing.  I verified this with a strobe gun.  I plan on replacing
      > the unit which has been dormant for about 4 years, just sitting on the back
      > of my engine.  Anyone know of what might have gone wrong with this new unit,
      > or how I might get it fixed?
      > Thanks,
      > Jim Stone
      > Harmon Rocket II
      > Louisville KY
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
magneto problem
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
      
      Is it an impulse coupled Mag?  
      Did you check the gap on the points? Some times crawlies can get in 
      there an
      hold the points open.... That's where the term bugs in the system comes
      from.   
      When the engine was mothballed you didn't happen to put an extra ground 
      on
      the P-Lead?  I usually will put my own "Lock out on the P-Lead if I'm 
      going
      to work on an engine.
      
      Noel
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Stone
      Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 8:07 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: magneto problem
      
      
      I just fired up my Lyc 540 for the first time configured with Electro 
      air
      ignition on one set of plugs and  a Slick mag on the other.  I noticed 
      the
      mag was not firing.  I verified this with a strobe gun.  I plan on 
      replacing
      the unit which has been dormant for about 4 years, just sitting on the 
      back
      of my engine.  Anyone know of what might have gone wrong with this new 
      unit,
      or how I might get it fixed?
      Thanks,
      Jim Stone
      Harmon Rocket II
      Louisville KY
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Aug 26, 2007
From: 
Kremer <iflyme2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: magneto problem
      
      Jim,=0AAs an A&P I will let you in on a secret don't take the magnet apart 
      until you take the ignition harness off of it and let it sit open for 24 ho
      urs because it may have some moisture. I would also get yourself a timing b
      ox and hook it up to the magnet and turn the engine over to see if the poin
      ts open and close and are not grounded. Make sure you P lead is not grounde
      d when your ignition is on. If no results come from those procedures only t
      hen would I open the mag. They usually mechanically do not fail from sittin
      g. Only real thing that could happen is moisture in it and if they dry out 
      normally they will work fine. If not the points usually need replacing and 
      is a very simple producer that only requires a small amount of tooling and 
      some time. You have to be careful and take your time doing it but its nothi
      ng you can't do yourself. =0A =0AGabe Kremer=0A =0ACell (217)357-1444=0A=0A
      =0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jim Stone <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
      =0ATo: engines-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:37:02 A
      M=0ASubject: Engines-List: magneto problem=0A=0A=0AI just fired up my Lyc 5
      40 for the first time configured with Electro air ignition on one set of pl
      ugs and  a Slick mag on the other.  I noticed the mag was not firing.  I ve
      rified this with a strobe gun.  I plan on replacing the unit which has been
       dormant for about 4 years, just sitting on the back of my engine.  Anyone 
      know of what might have gone wrong with this new unit, or how I might get i
      t fixed?=0AThanks,=0AJim Stone=0AHarmon Rocket II=0ALouisville KY=0A=0A=0A_
      -========================
      -========================
      ==0A=0A=0A       =0A_____________________________________________________
      _______________________________=0AChoose the right car based on your needs.
        Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.=0Ahttp://autos.yahoo.com/carf
      inder/
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Sep 08, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
New Realtime Spell Checker Added To Matronics Forums!
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      Today 9/8/2007 I have added a new real-time spell checker function to all of the
      BBS Forums at Matronics.  When you reply or create a new message on the Forums,
      you will notice that misspelled words will be high-lighted in yellow.  If
      you left-click on the word, you will be prompted with a drop-down list of suggested
      spellings.
      
      	http://forums.matronics.com
      
      Enjoy!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matornics Email List and Forum Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Albwertz(at)cs.com
Date: 
Sep 11, 2007
Subject: 
(no subject)
      
      unsubsribe   
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mick Muller" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: 
removing the oil filler tube
Date: 
Sep 16, 2007
      
      
      Howdy all. I have a Lycoming  O-320 E3D engine that I am installing in an 
      RV9A. I am trying to remove the baffles. There is one screw that sits right 
      behind the oil filler  tube. To get to this screw I am going to have to take 
      off the oil filler tube, which on this engine is plastic. I presume that 
      this is a normal right hand thread and not left hand.  I cannot get a 
      spanner or wrench onto the bottom of the tube, but there is a "nut" about 
      half up the tube. All my efforts so far have only succeeded in deforming the 
      tube and the wrench slipping off. I am too scared of cracking this tube to 
      grip it with vice grips, does anyone have a solution to this problem??
      Thanks,
      Mick 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: removing the oil filler tube
Date: 
Sep 16, 2007
      
      
      Can you not reach the screw behind the filler tube with an offset 
      screwdriver?
      JimC 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Sep 16, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: removing the oil filler tube
      
      I'll assume you removed the safety wire at the base of the filler tube that
      is supposed to keep it from coming off?? Yes, is is normal right hand
      threads and usually comes loose just from folks tightening dipstick too
      tight and then wrenching to remove dipstick.
      
      On 9/15/07, Mick Muller  wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > Howdy all. I have a Lycoming  O-320 E3D engine that I am installing in an
      > RV9A. I am trying to remove the baffles. There is one screw that sits
      > right
      > behind the oil filler  tube. To get to this screw I am going to have to
      > take
      > off the oil filler tube, which on this engine is plastic. I presume that
      > this is a normal right hand thread and not left hand.  I cannot get a
      > spanner or wrench onto the bottom of the tube, but there is a "nut" about
      > half up the tube. All my efforts so far have only succeeded in deforming
      > the
      > tube and the wrench slipping off. I am too scared of cracking this tube to
      > grip it with vice grips, does anyone have a solution to this problem??
      > Thanks,
      > Mick
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: removing the oil filler tube
From: 
"mullokintyre" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: 
Sep 17, 2007
      
      
      jrccea(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
      > Can you not reach the screw behind the filler tube with an offset 
      > screwdriver?
      > JimC
      
      Unless its a different kind of screwdriver, no. the offset would have to be about
      40 degrees, which makes it difficult to turn. I only have about  an inch and
      a quarter between the head of the screw and the filler pipe., and its recessed.
      If I can't get the filler pipe off, I am looking for a small universal joint
      that will take a flat head bit. 
      Mick
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134792#134792
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: removing the oil filler tube
Date: 
Sep 17, 2007
      
      
      For that sort of thing, I generally use a hex-head screwdriver tip that is 
      about 3/4 inch long (tip from a multi-tip screwdriver), and a 1/4 inch 
      boxend wrench to turn it.  You might have to bend the handle of the wrench a 
      little.
      JimC
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "mullokintyre" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au>
      Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:08 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Re: removing the oil filler tube
      
      
      > 
      >
      >
      > jrccea(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
      >> Can you not reach the screw behind the filler tube with an offset
      >> screwdriver?
      >> JimC
      >
      > Unless its a different kind of screwdriver, no. the offset would have to 
      > be about 40 degrees, which makes it difficult to turn. I only have about 
      > an inch and a quarter between the head of the screw and the filler pipe., 
      > and its recessed. If I can't get the filler pipe off, I am looking for a 
      > small universal joint that will take a flat head bit.
      > Mick
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134792#134792
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: 
Sep 17, 2007
Subject: 
running vacuum pump without load, bad idea?
      
      Is it harmful t run the engine with the vacuum pump attached to the engine  
      but the suction end free to pull in air, what is the best way to ground run  
      engine with no load on vacuum pump? thanks skip
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Re: removing the oil filler tube
Date: 
Sep 17, 2007
      
      
      I don't suppose some where along the line some doofus put Locktite on the
      threads of the filler tube because it was a difficult spot to lockwire???
      
      Noel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
running vacuum pump without load, bad idea?
Date: 
Sep 17, 2007
      
      Vacuum pumps are generally vane pumps designed for large volume that the
      instruments they power require.  Lab vacuum pumps are designed to evacuate
      air from small volumes.
      
      Running shouldn't hurt but I'd put a filter on the intake end to keep grit
      out.
      
      Noel
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
      Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:38 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: running vacuum pump without load, bad idea?
      
      
      Is it harmful t run the engine with the vacuum pump attached to the engine
      but the suction end free to pull in air, what is the best way to ground run
      engine with no load on vacuum pump? thanks skip
      
      
        _____  
      
      Make AOL Your Homepage.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fredrick Kerfoot <fredkt46(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
Ring Flutter?
Date: 
Oct 10, 2007
      
      
      What is piston "Ring Flutter"??  I have an IO360.  Just how concerned shoul
      d I be?
      
          Fred K
      _________________________________________________________________
      Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop 
      by today.
      http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Oc
      tWLtagline
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Oct 10, 2007
From: 
Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: 
Re: Ring Flutter?
      
      
      Fredrick Kerfoot a crit :
      >
      > What is piston "Ring Flutter"??  I have an IO360.
      >  
      
      Ring flutter is an uncontrolled vibration of the piston rings when 
      pressure against the cylinder wall and rpm are inadequate.
      
      > Just how concerned should I be?
      
      In my opinion, no need to lose sleep over ring flutter on a Lyc.
      
      Best regards,
      -- 
      Gilles
      http://contrails.free.fr
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Gene Smith" <esmith6(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: 
Re: Ring Flutter?
Date: 
Oct 10, 2007
      
      I would be concerned...I suggest you check your engine timing...Also if 
      your fuel is old, it has lost some of it's volatility, and I would drain 
      it and replace it with "fresh" gasoline...Are you burning Auto Gas?..The 
      book says that 360 needs 100LL (all of them, 160 and above require 
      it.)....................Good 
      Luck.......................CHEERS!!!!.............................Gene 
      Smith.
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Fredrick Kerfoot 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:37 AM
        Subject: Engines-List: Ring Flutter?
      
      
        What is piston "Ring Flutter"??  I have an IO360.  Just how concerned 
      should I be?
         
            Fred K
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
        Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. 
      Stop by today! 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Ring Flutter?
Date: 
Oct 10, 2007
      
      There are autogas STC's available for the 160.
      JimC
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Gene Smith 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:38 AM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ring Flutter?
      
      
        I would be concerned...I suggest you check your engine timing...Also 
      if your fuel is old, it has lost some of it's volatility, and I would 
      drain it and replace it with "fresh" gasoline...Are you burning Auto 
      Gas?..The book says that 360 needs 100LL (all of them, 160 and above 
      require it.)....................Good 
      Luck.......................CHEERS!!!!.............................Gene 
      Smith.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Oct 10, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Ring Flutter?
      
      I guess I just don't see how you relate a question about theoretical ring
      flutter with engine timing or age of fuel. I'm missing the connection.
      Actually a 180 only requires 91-96 or 91 mogas with STC.
      Only the 160 and the 200hp versions need the extra octane.
      
      On 10/10/07, Gene Smith  wrote:
      >
      >  I would be concerned...I suggest you check your engine timing...Also if
      > your fuel is old, it has lost some of it's volatility, and I would drain 
      it
      > and replace it with "fresh" gasoline...Are you burning Auto Gas?..The boo
      k
      > says that 360 needs 100LL (all of them, 160 and above require
      > it.)....................Good
      > Luck.......................CHEERS!!!!.............................Gene
      > Smith.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > *From:* Fredrick Kerfoot 
      > *To:* engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:37 AM
      > *Subject:* Engines-List: Ring Flutter?
      >
      >
      > What is piston "Ring Flutter"??  I have an IO360.  Just how concerned
      > should I be?
      >
      >     Fred K
      >
      > ------------------------------
      > Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Sto
      p
      > by today!<http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=
      TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline>
      >
      > *
      >
      > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
      nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      > *
      >
      > *
      >
      ===========
      matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      ===========
      ===========
      >
      > *
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Engines-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 10/10/07
Date: 
Oct 11, 2007
      
      
      I'm not a certified engine expert (although I am probably certifiable  
      in other catagories...:-), but in my experience "ring flutter" is  
      something the engine builder will use to explain broken rings found  
      after a teardown.   The owner will then nod and pay the bill.   
      Presumably the the ring starts to vibrate away from the cylinder wall  
      in waves.  Some will say it can happen at very high piston speeds or  
      with a cylinder that is badly worn - or if the cylinder pressure is  
      rapidly changing as in a detonation event.  Regardless, it is the  
      result of something bad, not the cause of it.  How someone can  
      diagnose "ring flutter" without having torn down the engine I don't  
      know.  I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but at the same  
      time keeping the timing correct will maintain a margin against  
      detonation.  Most naturally-aspirated aircraft engines have a robust  
      margin anyway, except when overheating while running on one mag.
      
      Gary Casey
      >
      > From: Fredrick Kerfoot <fredkt46(at)hotmail.com>
      > Subject: Engines-List: Ring Flutter?
      >
      >
      > What is piston "Ring Flutter"??  I have an IO360.  Just how  
      > concerned shoul
      > d I be?
      >
      >     Fred K
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ring Flutter?
Date: 
Oct 11, 2007
From: 
teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      
      
      Finally, someone who paying attention.
      
      Ring flutter is very rare.  Especially at less than 2700 rpm.  Piston 
      ring seal depends on a balance of four forces: combustion pressure, 
      ring inertia, the rings radial expansion pressure and crankcase 
      pressure. Ring flutter is uncontrolled oscillation due to an imbalance 
      of those forces. Once a pistons rings go into flutter, their ability 
      to scrape oil off the cylinder wall as the piston moves downward is 
      impaired, blow-by increases and oil consumption rises dramatically.
      
      The combination of high rpm and low crankcase pressure typical of low 
      engine loads causes those four forces to become imbalanced. The small 
      amount time the engine sees regular, high-rpm, light-load operation, is 
      rare.  Even so, if that happens, you may experience ring flutter and  
      high oil consumption, but not likely.
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
      Sent: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 6:43 pm
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ring Flutter?
      
      
      I guess I just don't see how you relate a question about theoretical 
      ring flutter with engine timing or age of fuel. I'm missing the 
      connection. Actually a 180 only requires 91-96 or 91 mogas with STC.
      Only the 160 and the 200hp versions need the extra octane.
      
      
      On 10/10/07, Gene Smith  wrote:
      
      
      I would be concerned...I suggest you check your engine
      timing...Also if your fuel is old, it has lost some of it's volatility, 
      and I
      would drain it and replace it with "fresh" gasoline...Are you burning 
      Auto
      Gas?..The book says that 360 needs 100LL (all of them, 160 and above 
      require
      it.)....................Good
      Luck.......................CHEERS!!!!.............................Gene
      Smith.
      
        ----- Original Message -----
      
      From:
        Fredrick
        Kerfoot
        To:
      engines-list(at)matronics.com
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:37
        AM
        Subject: Engines-List: Ring
      Flutter?
      
      
      What is piston "Ring Flutter"?? I have an
        IO360. Just how concerned should I be?
      
      
        Fred K
      
      
        Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf.
      Stop by today!
      href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">
      http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      href="http://forums.matronics.com">
      http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
      -= the many List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,
      ronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List" target="_blank" onclick="return 
      top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
      http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      k" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
      http://forums.matronics.com
      ==========
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
      http://mail.aol.com
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 11, 2007
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
      
      We've had knock sensors on cars for many years that retard timing in the 
      event of detonation to keep engines running at peak fuel efficiency.  Since it
      is 
      almost impossible to detect thru conventional aircraft engine instrumentation 
      that I'm aware of, or audibly, (such as in cars) that such a device would be 
      very useful in planes, but I've never heard of such a critter.  I'm kinda 
      guessing that it is difficult in an air-cooled engine or because of the large 
      cylinder displacement.  
      
      
      Anyone aware of any attempts to do this on Lycs or Conts?
      
      Mark Phillips
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
From: 
teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      
      
      I read years ago that knock sensors were tried but didn't work because 
      with the piston slap that is present in air cooled aircraft engines 
      makes it difficult for the sensor to determine the difference between 
      piston slap and 'knock.'
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
      Sent: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 8:08 pm
      Subject: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      We've had knock sensors on cars for many years that retard timing in 
      the event of detonation to keep engines running at peak fuel 
      efficiency. Since it is almost impossible to detect thru conventional 
      aircraft engine instrumentation that I'm aware of, or audibly, (such as 
      in cars) that such a device would be very useful in planes, but I've 
      never heard of such a critter. I'm kinda guessing that it is difficult 
      in an air-cooled engine or because of the large cylinder displacement.
      
      Anyone aware of any attempts to do this on Lycs or Conts?
      
      Mark Phillips
      
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      See what's new
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
      http://mail.aol.com
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
Ring flutter?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      
      Piston Ring flutter:
      	`....seems to me we had the same problem on the Super Connie (Old
      Bob may comment here). This aircraft was named the largest 3-engined
      airliner on the Atlantic. So. on pain of death no Driver, Airframe, would
      ever reduce the Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) below 90 with the RPM
      at cruise or descent because the condition would induce 'ring flutter' and
      an earlier engine change was inevitable.
      	I suspect my employer's profit was based more on engine changes than
      seat mileage.
      Cheers, Ferg
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
From: 
Doug Waddingham <lancairav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Engine stand
      
      
      I just received my new IO-360 from Aero Sport Power and I need to add 
      things like the fuel servo, governor, etc. I am considering the Aircraft 
      Tool Supply engine stand but I am really concerned about the engine 
      being top heavy and unstable on that stand. Is this concern justified? 
      Is there an alternative to this style of tripod stand?
      
      Also, is it better to install the baffle kit with the engine on the 
      stand or should I wait until it is mounted on the airframe?
      
      Thanks,
      
      Doug Waddingham
      Centennial, CO
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Engine stand
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
From: 
"BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com>
      
      
      Doug,
      
      Wouldn't it be easier to install the servo and prop governor after the
      engine is already hung on the airframe instead of having to work around
      these during the install? As for the baffles, I would wait until it's
      hung for sure.
      
      Allen 
      BPE, Inc.
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug
      Waddingham
      Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:16 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Engine stand
      
      
      
      I just received my new IO-360 from Aero Sport Power and I need to add 
      things like the fuel servo, governor, etc. I am considering the Aircraft
      
      Tool Supply engine stand but I am really concerned about the engine 
      being top heavy and unstable on that stand. Is this concern justified? 
      Is there an alternative to this style of tripod stand?
      
      Also, is it better to install the baffle kit with the engine on the 
      stand or should I wait until it is mounted on the airframe?
      
      Thanks,
      
      Doug Waddingham
      Centennial, CO
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      Some time ago I spoke to a long-time engineering friend who has spent 
      his entire (40-yr.) career in automotive engine development.  My 
      understanding? is that automobile engine knock sensors  are block 
      mounted and detect vibration in engines that compared to aircraft 
      engines run quite smooth.  Our engines are s*** shakers, have individual 
      cylinders.  His conclusion was that automotive typeknock sensors would 
      probably NOT work in aircraft engines.  I consider him very knowledgable 
      as  well as an excellent engineer.
      
      Larry Tompkins
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      Knock sensors are tuned to specific frequency bands depending upon the 
      engine they're used on.  Any engine with such large jugs that they have 
      to have 2 plugs per cylinder just to fire all the fuel/air mixture packs 
      a whale of a wollop when it fires.  This power ulse wollop is so much 
      larger than the majority of engine knocks that the use of a knock sensor 
      is fruitless.  It's also why some props will not work with some engines.
      
      David M.
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:03 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
        Some time ago I spoke to a long-time engineering friend who has spent 
      his entire (40-yr.) career in automotive engine development.  My 
      understanding? is that automobile engine knock sensors  are block 
      mounted and detect vibration in engines that compared to aircraft 
      engines run quite smooth.  Our engines are s*** shakers, have individual 
      cylinders.  His conclusion was that automotive typeknock sensors would 
      probably NOT work in aircraft engines.  I consider him very knowledgable 
      as  well as an excellent engineer.
      
        Larry Tompkins
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
corvair engine
From: 
"SockPuppet61" <sockpuppet61(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      
      Hi all,
      
      I'm interested in building a Corvair conversion. Have WWs manual. I'm having a
      tough time finding an engine where I live in central Texas.
      
      The junk yards say "no".
      
      For those who have pursued working on a Corvair conversion, where have you found
      your cores?
      
      I'm not really interested in buying a rebuilt one.
      
      Thanks
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139652#139652
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
corvair engine
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      
      Here's a few choices, oct 11, 2007
      Steven dinieri
      Iflyrv10.com
      
      
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair       000632018 $325 Auto Salvage Center USA-WI(Neshkoro)
      E-mail 1-877-666-9632 518 
      1966
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair (6-164)-    166,000 A 07I-33 $300 Trails End Auto and Truck
      Salvage, Inc. USA-IA(Des-Moines) Request_Quote 1-800-717-6505
      Request_Insurance_Quote
       761 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair MAYBE 1963 MODEL YEAR     NAP $300 Archies Auto Recyclers
      USA-IN(Merrillville) E-mail 1-219-769-2441 / 1-888-886-0118 443 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair COMPLET,87654014        87654014 $300 Hy-Way Service, LLC
      USA-ME(Milford) E-mail 1-877-884-4568 / 1-207-827-5568 531 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair STUCK,98765015        98765015 $300 Hy-Way Service, LLC
      USA-ME(Milford) E-mail 1-877-884-4568 / 1-207-827-5568 531 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair call for dates and pricing 10,000 A NOF $Call Denison Auto
      Parts USA-OH(Cleveland) E-mail 1-800-328-9001 186 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair turbo motor- call for dates andpricing 10,000 A NOF $Call
      Denison Auto Parts USA-OH(Cleveland) E-mail 1-800-328-9001 186 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair PARTS [300-05164A] (STORE:1)     182965 $Call East West Auto
      Parts, Inc. USA-OK(Tulsa) E-mail 1-800-447-2886 1019 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair RWD,4SP,ITS,(1964),1   2289017     12289017 $Call Feezle Auto
      Wrecking USA-PA(Enon-Valley) E-mail 1-724-336-5512 171 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair 4-1BBL,140,C O R E,T07I2RN     ZZF043 $Call McLambs Auto Shop
      and Salvage USA-NC(Fuquay-Varina) Request_Quote 1-800-882-0111
      Request_Insurance_Quote
       522 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair 67 164,110HP,RB CODE,SMOKES,RUN COR     M04723 $Call All
      American Classics USA-WA(Vancouver) E-mail 1-800-955-4999 2131 
      1966
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair -(6-164)-,65K        2446 $Call North Smithfield Auto
      Recycling, Inc. USA-RI(North-Smithfield) Request_Quote 1-401-766-5422
      Request_Insurance_Quote
       384 
      1967
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair FLAT-6 CYL,164 CID,NEEDS CRANKED     BC0230 $Call A-1-A Auto
      Parts, Inc. USA-FL(Lakeland) Request_Quote 1-800-922-9676
      Request_Insurance_Quote
       1061 
      1965
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair       658912 $Call Al's Auto Salvage, LLC
      USA-OK(Oklahoma-City) E-mail 866-392-9782 1121 
      1969
      Engine
      Chevy Corvair (6-164)-ASK ME     1041 $Call PorFor Auto USA-CA(Los-Angeles)
      Request_Quote 1-323-589-2162 Request_Insurance_Quote 2196 
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of SockPuppet61
      Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:06 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: corvair engine
      
      --> 
      
      Hi all,
      
      I'm interested in building a Corvair conversion. Have WWs manual. I'm having
      a tough time finding an engine where I live in central Texas.
      
      The junk yards say "no".
      
      For those who have pursued working on a Corvair conversion, where have you
      found your cores?
      
      I'm not really interested in buying a rebuilt one.
      
      Thanks
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139652#139652
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
From: 
azevedoflyer(at)aol.com
      
      
       Maybe we should try again!
      Piston slap is a repeatable, rpm-correlated event. Detonation has a high frequency
      and fast-decaying "signature". Can be easily tracked and filtered. Never had
      problems with these two. Aircooled engines complicate things a bit because
      of the finning which radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum. Despite the apparent
      complexity, I am sure someone can develop a reliable knock sensor for
      aircooled engines. What about PORSCHE engines? 
      The problem might reside more in the lack of a large enough  market for such product
      than anything else.
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
      Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 3:05 am
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      ?
      
      I read years ago that knock sensors were tried but didn't work because 
      with the piston slap that is present in air cooled aircraft engines 
      makes it difficult for the sensor to determine the difference between 
      piston slap and 'knock.'?
      ?
      
      
      -----Original Message-----?
      
      From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com?
      
      
      Sent: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 8:08 pm?
      
      Subject: Engines-List: Knock sensors??
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ?
      
      
      We've had knock sensors on cars for many years that retard timing in 
      the event of detonation to keep engines running at peak fuel 
      efficiency.? Since it is almost impossible to detect thru conventional 
      aircraft engine instrumentation that I'm aware of, or audibly, (such as 
      in cars) that such a device would be very useful in planes, but I've 
      never heard of such a critter.? I'm kinda guessing that it is difficult 
      in an air-cooled engine or because of the large cylinder displacement.??
      
      ??
      
      Anyone aware of any attempts to do this on Lycs or Conts??
      
      ??
      
      Mark Phillips?
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ------------------------------------------------------------?
      
      See what's new?
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ?
      
      ________________________________________________________________________?
      
      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
      http://mail.aol.com?
      ?
      
      
      ?
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net>
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
      X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
      
      
      > I read years ago that knock sensors were tried but didn't work because 
      > with the piston slap that is present in air cooled aircraft engines 
      > makes it difficult for the sensor to determine the difference between 
      > piston slap and 'knock.'
      
      Can't speak to the whole issue but...
      
      I live a short ways from GAMI at Ada, OK. While over there one day I asked 
      about their electronic ignition. They're using an optical sensor (laser pulsed
      
      into the cylinder via a fiber optic cable situated on an offset spark plug). The
      
      regular 18 mm plug has the cylinder offset axially from the center and the 
      fiber optic is positioned on the other side. The laser detects the onset of 
      detonation through some sophisticated algorithims looking at charge density 
      and flame front propagation (as they explained it to me). GAMI chose the 
      nastiest engine known in terms of detonation sensitivity, a TSIO 540. They 
      can virtually feed this beast almost anything combustible and it runs without 
      complaint. They even demonstarte changing fuel types during a full power 
      test cell run and you'd never know anything had changed except by watching 
      the timing and EGT changes on the data screen. Its been a year or so since I 
      saw it in operation and don't know their current status for certification testing.
      
      
      Jim Baker
      580.788.2779
      '71 SV,  492TC
      Elmore City, OK
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
ElleryWeld(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
Subject: 
Re: corvair engine
      
      I have just what your looking for  if you want a core engine and I have some 
      books and info on them also 
      I have a 6 cylinder Corvair engine 
      
      Email me at   _ElleryWeld(at)aol.com_ (mailto:ElleryWeld(at)aol.com)  if your 
      interested 
      
                                                                                    
                 Ellery
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"John D. Heath" <altoq(at)cebridge.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      Porsche air cooled six cylanders have one on each side mounted on a bar 
      that is bolted to three cylinders. They work good. 
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: azevedoflyer(at)aol.com 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:25 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
        Maybe we should try again!
        Piston slap is a repeatable, rpm-correlated event. Detonation has a 
      high frequency and fast-decaying "signature". Can be easily tracked and 
      filtered. Never had problems with these two. Aircooled engines 
      complicate things a bit because of the finning which radiate vibration 
      in a very ample spectrum. Despite the apparent complexity, I am sure 
      someone can develop a reliable knock sensor for aircooled engines. What 
      about PORSCHE engines? 
        The problem might reside more in the lack of a large enough market for 
      such product than anything else.
      
      
        -----Original Message-----
        From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
        Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 3:05 am
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
         
        I read years ago that knock sensors were tried but didn't work because 
      with the piston slap that is present in air cooled aircraft engines 
      makes it difficult for the sensor to determine the difference between 
      piston slap and 'knock.' 
         
        -----Original Message----- 
        From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 8:08 pm 
        Subject: Engines-List: Knock sensors? 
         
         
         
         
         
        We've had knock sensors on cars for many years that retard timing in 
      the event of detonation to keep engines running at peak fuel efficiency. 
       Since it is almost impossible to detect thru conventional aircraft 
      engine instrumentation that I'm aware of, or audibly, (such as in cars) 
      that such a device would be very useful in planes, but I've never heard 
      of such a critter.  I'm kinda guessing that it is difficult in an 
      air-cooled engine or because of the large cylinder displacement.  
          
        Anyone aware of any attempts to do this on Lycs or Conts? 
          
        Mark Phillips 
         
         
        ------------------------------------------------------------ 
        See what's new 
         
         
         
         
      
      ________________________________________________________________________ 
      
        Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! 
      - http://mail.aol.com 
         
         
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
        Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
From: 
"DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 
Knock sensors
      
      
      I'm not aware of anyone who's tried this on a big bore aircraft engine and
      I've been wondering why also.  My 1981 Turbocharged Trans Am had a rather
      simple knock sensing system.  There was a piezo-electric sensor screwed into
      the engine block.  The signal from the sensor was amplified and converted to
      digital to be analyzed by the microprocessor in the crude engine controllers
      of the time.  If the engine started knocking the microcontroller would
      detect the spike in the voltage of the piezo sensor and send a signal to the
      distributor to retard the spark.  This wouldn't be real easy to do with
      magneto ignition but folks like e-mag/p-mag and Lightspeed should be able to
      incorporate the amplifier and A/D convertor into their boxes and sell them
      along with a commercially available piezo sensor.  One would have to find a
      suitable place on the crankcase to solidly mount the sensor but there is no
      reason it shouldn't work.  Even if the sensor output could be sent to a
      display that helped the pilot identify detonation would be better than no
      detection at all.  Then more of us could run mogas with better piece of mind
      and stop using it if we get a bad batch.
      
      Dean Psiropoulos
      RV-6A IO-360
      
      
      ____________________ Original Message _______________________________
      
      From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
      Subject: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      We've had knock sensors on cars for many years that retard timing in the 
      event of detonation to keep engines running at peak fuel efficiency.  I'm
      kinda guessing that it is difficult in an air-cooled engine or because of
      the large cylinder displacement.  
      
      Anyone aware of any attempts to do this on Lycs or Conts?
      
      Mark Phillips
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 12, 2007
      
      Aircooled Porsche's are somewhat around 1/2 Liter per Cylinder (~3Liter 
      / 6Cyl.), whereas the 360cid Lycoming's cylinder volume's are nearly 
      TRIPLE that...  Different smoothness for sure...
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: John D. Heath 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:34 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
        Porsche air cooled six cylanders have one on each side mounted on a 
      bar that is bolted to three cylinders. They work good. 
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: azevedoflyer(at)aol.com 
          To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
          Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:25 PM
          Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
          Maybe we should try again!
          Piston slap is a repeatable, rpm-correlated event. Detonation has a 
      high frequency and fast-decaying "signature". Can be easily tracked and 
      filtered. Never had problems with these two. Aircooled engines 
      complicate things a bit because of the finning which radiate vibration 
      in a very ample spectrum. Despite the apparent complexity, I am sure 
      someone can develop a reliable knock sensor for aircooled engines. What 
      about PORSCHE engines? 
          The problem might reside more in the lack of a large enough market 
      for such product than anything else.
      
      
          -----Original Message-----
          From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
          To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
          Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 3:05 am
          Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
           
          I read years ago that knock sensors were tried but didn't work 
      because with the piston slap that is present in air cooled aircraft 
      engines makes it difficult for the sensor to determine the difference 
      between piston slap and 'knock.' 
           
          -----Original Message----- 
          From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com 
          To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
          Sent: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 8:08 pm 
          Subject: Engines-List: Knock sensors? 
           
           
           
           
           
          We've had knock sensors on cars for many years that retard timing in 
      the event of detonation to keep engines running at peak fuel efficiency. 
       Since it is almost impossible to detect thru conventional aircraft 
      engine instrumentation that I'm aware of, or audibly, (such as in cars) 
      that such a device would be very useful in planes, but I've never heard 
      of such a critter.  I'm kinda guessing that it is difficult in an 
      air-cooled engine or because of the large cylinder displacement.  
            
          Anyone aware of any attempts to do this on Lycs or Conts? 
            
          Mark Phillips 
           
           
          ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          See what's new 
           
           
           
           
          
      ________________________________________________________________________ 
      
          Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL 
      Mail! - http://mail.aol.com 
           
           
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ---
          Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL 
      Mail!
      
      
      href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
      nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
      href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Engines-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 10/12/07
Date: 
Oct 13, 2007
      
      
      I've heard this before, but consider this:  The piston rings run at  
      no load half the time regardless of manifold pressure (BMEP).  During  
      the exhaust and intake strokes the pressure is very low, so if the  
      rings were going to flutter why don't they do it then?
      Gary
      
      >
      > From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
      > Subject: Engines-List: Ring flutter?
      >
      >
      > Piston Ring flutter:
      > 	`....seems to me we had the same problem on the Super Connie (Old
      > Bob may comment here). This aircraft was named the largest 3-engined
      > airliner on the Atlantic. So. on pain of death no Driver, Airframe,  
      > would
      > ever reduce the Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) below 90 with  
      > the RPM
      > at cruise or descent because the condition would induce 'ring  
      > flutter' and
      > an earlier engine change was inevitable.
      > 	I suspect my employer's profit was based more on engine changes than
      > seat mileage.
      > Cheers, Ferg
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Ring flutter?
Date: 
Oct 13, 2007
      
      
      On Oct 13, 2007, at 5:27 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
      
      > I've heard this before, but consider this:  The piston rings run at  
      > no load half the time regardless of manifold pressure (BMEP).   
      > During the exhaust and intake strokes the pressure is very low, so  
      > if the rings were going to flutter why don't they do it then?
      > Gary
      >
      >>
      >> From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
      >> Subject: Engines-List: Ring flutter?
      >>
      >>
      >> Piston Ring flutter:
      >> 	`....seems to me we had the same problem on the Super Connie (Old
      >> Bob may comment here). This aircraft was named the largest 3-engined
      >> airliner on the Atlantic. So. on pain of death no Driver,  
      >> Airframe, would
      >> ever reduce the Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) below 90 with  
      >> the RPM
      >> at cruise or descent because the condition would induce 'ring  
      >> flutter' and
      >> an earlier engine change was inevitable.
      >> 	I suspect my employer's profit was based more on engine changes than
      >> seat mileage.
      >> Cheers, Ferg
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 13, 2007
      
      
      I suspect you are right - the market is very, very small.  The knock  
      sensor itself usually is tuned to respond to the knock frequency of a  
      particular engine and the frequency of a large-bore aircraft engine  
      is almost certainly a lot different than a car engine, preventing the  
      use of a cheap readily available sensor.  Any knock control system is  
      software-intensive, with the algorithm being carefully worked out  
      during lots of experimentation (running on the dyno for lots of  
      hours).  At high power settings the knock is often undetectable as it  
      is drowned out by the other noises (the car engine systems that I was  
      familiar with years ago essentially shut off at high load and relied  
      on the timing acquired during light load operation).  And then the  
      real kicker is that on an aircraft system you want some kind of fault  
      tolerance - how do you protect against some fault in the system that  
      over-advances the spark?  What do you use to check it?  The  
      combination of all these things will, in my opinion, prevent the use  
      of a vibration-based knock system in an aircraft engine for some  
      time.  The optical system is perhaps a different matter.
      Gary Casey
      >
      
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      > From: azevedoflyer(at)aol.com
      >
      >
      >  Maybe we should try again!
      > Piston slap is a repeatable, rpm-correlated event. Detonation has a  
      > high frequency
      > and fast-decaying "signature". Can be easily tracked and filtered.  
      > Never had
      > problems with these two. Aircooled engines complicate things a bit  
      > because
      > of the finning which radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum.  
      > Despite the apparent
      > complexity, I am sure someone can develop a reliable knock sensor for
      > aircooled engines. What about PORSCHE engines?
      > The problem might reside more in the lack of a large enough  market  
      > for such product
      > than anything else.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 13, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors
      
      Dean and All,
      No question that an electronic means of knock detection is the preferred  
      route, given its sensitivity and ease of integration to the electronic ECU. For
      
      altogether different reasons, I developed (...and have a Form 337 granted by  
      FAA) what I call an Engine Health Monitor Indicator (EHMI) and have it in my  
      instrument panel.
      Among several other factors, detonation beyond light (light as defined as a  
      ping or two here and there or continuous, barely audible in a test cell) will 
      
      cause ring flutter. Flutter will change blowby emission. The EHMI monitors  
      (passively) the blowby emitted. On a modified meter, there are bands colored  
      Green / Yellow and Red. During take off you have the worst condition in which 
      
      detonation could become a problem. That sets your upper limit of your Green  
      band. If, at any time, you see a trend towards this upper value, for sure  
      something is steadily deteriorating and you should do something about it  
      regardless of the source. You know it is affecting your PCU (power cylinder  unit),
      so 
      its bad news.
      The great thing about monitoring BBY is that it is the first variable to  
      indicate something going wrong. For example, our engines are prone to ring and
      
      valve sticking. If a ring is intermittently stuck in its groove, not even JPI 
      
      exhaust temperature indicators will catch it, as exhaust temps will remain the
      
       same. But the BBY will be affected...and EHMI will catch it! I've been 
      flying  with this indicator in my plane for the last two years.
      I can tell when oil reaches the upper parts of the cylinder after a cold,  
      long inactivity.
      I can tell when  oil has reached an ideal operating temperature.
      I can use it as a leaning indication instrument.
      I can tell if a plug has shorted or I left mags on Left or Right and not in  
      BOTH.
      I can distinguish between Left and Right mags firing.
      I can...(still learning...)
      The guys at the local FAA FISDO were sufficiently impressed to say "...you  
      have turned $4-$5K instruments out there obsolete! Yours should be a required 
      
      instrument in every new piston engined plane". Felt complimented!
      Anyway, this is not a commercial/propaganda email. Purpose is to say that  if 
      we satisfy ourselves with less than perfection, something can be  done on the 
      cheap to improve engine health monitiring.
      Sorry for the lengthy mail. Just got carried away I guess.
      Miguel
      PA22/20-150
      N8714D
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: corvair engine
From: 
"SockPuppet61" <sockpuppet61(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Oct 13, 2007
      
      
      thanks.
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139830#139830
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors
Date: 
Oct 14, 2007
      
      
      Very interesting.  Does it measure pressure or flow?  At my day job  
      we build both for large engines, typically multi-thousand hp mining  
      truck engines.  The flow is still measured by pressure - pressure  
      drop in a venturi.  I agree, one nice thing about measuring crankcase  
      pressure is that it is totally non-invasive and doesn't affect the  
      base engine operation at all.  Having such a thing would have stopped  
      me from taking off when a ring broke on my IO-360.  Turns out I was  
      stopped by someone driving up and blocking my way, telling me I was  
      blowing smoke (come to think of it, I've had people tell me that a  
      number of times..:-).
      Gary Casey
      
      >
      > From: AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors
      >
      > Dean and All,
      > No question that an electronic means of knock detection is the  
      > preferred
      > route, given its sensitivity and ease of integration to the  
      > electronic ECU. For
      >
      > altogether different reasons, I developed (...and have a Form 337  
      > granted by
      > FAA) what I call an Engine Health Monitor Indicator (EHMI) and have  
      > it in my
      > instrument panel.
      >  The EHMI monitors
      > (passively) the blowby emitted. On a modified meter, there are  
      > bands colored
      > Green / Yellow and Red. During take off you have the worst  
      > condition in which
      >
      (snip)
      > Miguel
      > PA22/20-150
      > N8714D
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net>
Date: 
Oct 14, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
      X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
      
      
      > I read years ago that knock sensors were tried but didn't work because 
      > with the piston slap that is present in air cooled aircraft engines 
      > makes it difficult for the sensor to determine the difference between 
      > piston slap and 'knock.'
      
      Can't speak to the whole issue but...
      
      I live a short ways from GAMI at Ada, OK. While over there one day I asked 
      about their electronic ignition. They're using an optical sensor (laser pulsed
      
      into the cylinder via a fiber optic cable situated on an offset spark plug). The
      
      regular 18 mm plug has the cylinder offset axially from the center and the 
      fiber optic is positioned on the other side. The laser detects the onset of 
      detonation through some sophisticated algorithims looking at charge density 
      and flame front propagation (as they explained it to me). GAMI chose the 
      nastiest engine known in terms of detonation sensitivity, a TSIO 540. They 
      can virtually feed this beast almost anything combustible and it runs without 
      complaint. They even demonstarte changing fuel types during a full power 
      test cell run and you'd never know anything had changed except by watching 
      the timing and EGT changes on the data screen. Its been a year or so since I 
      saw it in operation and don't know their current status for certification testing.
      
      
      Jim Baker
      580.788.2779
      '71 SV,  492TC
      Elmore City, OK
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 14, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors
      
      Gary,
      It translates pressure measured through a modified Pitot Tube into  flow.
      Thanks,
      Miguel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 14, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
      
      
      In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:27:32 PM Central Daylight Time, 
      azevedoflyer(at)aol.com writes:
      
      Aircooled engines complicate things a bit because of the finning which 
      radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum.
      
      >>>
      
      Based on my meager understanding of knock sensor physics in automotive 
      applications, this was my primary suspicion- how to isolate specific "knock" 
      signatures when you have several hundred fins vibrating in multiple frequencies
      and 
      harmonics of same.  If Lycosaurs were falling from the sky due to detonation at
      
      the hands of efficiency-desparate pilots, I'd believe market and/or 
      regulatory pressure would force development of such a system.  Perhaps when domestic
      
      airplane fuel hits European price$ and truly efficient operation becomes a 
      defining market factor, this technology will develop and we'll have a new paradigm:
      
      LOD operation vs. LOP, just like in your average run-of-the-mill ten-year-old 
      Nissan Sentra....
      
      With the astonishing capacity of modern digital processing, I can't 
      understand how an on-board processor couldn't sample vibratation sendor data from
      
      multiple points, compare that against know "safe" data, then somehow annunciate
      a 
      potentially unsafe condition and/or make appropriate adjustments to whatever 
      engine-management scenario a pilot may employ in the ultimate interest of 
      maximizing efficiency.
      
      Here's hoping that if observers from the Lycoming/Continental intelligentsia 
      have comments, they'd chime in here, even if covertly.
      
      Appreciate the discussion-
      Mark
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 14, 2007
      
      if efficiency were truly a concern, they'd all convert to fuel 
      injection.  If that, then the pilot would have no control over anything 
      except which way to point -- and would not need it.  The computer would 
      control LOP etc.
      
      David M.
      
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 10:14 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
        In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:27:32 PM Central Daylight Time, 
      azevedoflyer(at)aol.com writes:
          Aircooled engines complicate things a bit because of the finning 
      which radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum.
        >>>
      
        Based on my meager understanding of knock sensor physics in automotive 
      applications, this was my primary suspicion- how to isolate specific 
      "knock" signatures when you have several hundred fins vibrating in 
      multiple frequencies and harmonics of same.  If Lycosaurs were falling 
      from the sky due to detonation at the hands of efficiency-desparate 
      pilots, I'd believe market and/or regulatory pressure would force 
      development of such a system.  Perhaps when domestic airplane fuel hits 
      European price$ and truly efficient operation becomes a defining market 
      factor, this technology will develop and we'll have a new paradigm: LOD 
      operation vs. LOP, just like in your average run-of-the-mill 
      ten-year-old Nissan Sentra....
      
        With the astonishing capacity of modern digital processing, I can't 
      understand how an on-board processor couldn't sample vibratation sendor 
      data from multiple points, compare that against know "safe" data, then 
      somehow annunciate a potentially unsafe condition and/or make 
      appropriate adjustments to whatever engine-management scenario a pilot 
      may employ in the ultimate interest of maximizing efficiency.
      
        Here's hoping that if observers from the Lycoming/Continental 
      intelligentsia have comments, they'd chime in here, even if covertly.
      
        Appreciate the discussion-
        Mark
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
From: 
Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
      
      
      Surely ion sensing of detonation as Saab has been doing (with electronic 
      ignition) is cheaper to develop and more precise. Could be it will soon 
      be time to advance into the last century with these engines.
      Ken
      
      Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
      
      > In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:27:32 PM Central Daylight Time, 
      > azevedoflyer(at)aol.com writes:
      >
      >     Aircooled engines complicate things a bit because of the finning
      >     which radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum.
      >
      > >>>
      >  
      > Based on my meager understanding of knock sensor physics in automotive 
      > applications, this was my primary suspicion- how to isolate specific 
      > "knock" signatures when you have several hundred fins vibrating in 
      > multiple frequencies and harmonics of same.  If Lycosaurs were falling 
      > from the sky due to detonation at the hands of efficiency-desparate 
      > pilots, I'd believe market and/or regulatory pressure would force 
      > development of such a system.  Perhaps when domestic airplane fuel 
      > hits European price$ and truly efficient operation becomes a defining 
      > market factor, this technology will develop and we'll have a new 
      > paradigm: LOD operation vs. LOP, just like in your average 
      > run-of-the-mill ten-year-old Nissan Sentra....
      >  
      > With the astonishing capacity of modern digital processing, I can't 
      > understand how an on-board processor couldn't sample vibratation 
      > sendor data from multiple points, compare that against know "safe" 
      > data, then somehow annunciate a potentially unsafe condition and/or 
      > make appropriate adjustments to whatever engine-management scenario a 
      > pilot may employ in the ultimate interest of maximizing efficiency.
      >  
      > Here's hoping that if observers from the Lycoming/Continental 
      > intelligentsia have comments, they'd chime in here, even if covertly.
      >  
      > Appreciate the discussion-
      > Mark
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
      
      
      Wrong. Most aircraft engines being sold today are fuel
      injected........mechanical, continuous flow. No computer involved,
      pilot controls the mixture. For computer control, you have to develop
      a mixture map for each variety of engine. Ain't gonna happen. Not to
      mention that TCM and Lycoming oppose LOP operations, so they wouldn't
      design for it.
      
      On 10/14/07, David M.  wrote:
      >
      >
      > if efficiency were truly a concern, they'd all convert to fuel injection.
      > If that, then the pilot would have no control over anything except which way
      > to point -- and would not need it.  The computer would control LOP etc.
      >
      > David M.
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 10:14 PM
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:27:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
      > azevedoflyer(at)aol.com writes:
      > Aircooled engines complicate things a bit because of the finning which
      > radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum.
      > >>>
      >
      > Based on my meager understanding of knock sensor physics in automotive
      > applications, this was my primary suspicion- how to isolate specific "knock"
      > signatures when you have several hundred fins vibrating in multiple
      > frequencies and harmonics of same.  If Lycosaurs were falling from the sky
      > due to detonation at the hands of efficiency-desparate pilots, I'd believe
      > market and/or regulatory pressure would force development of such a system.
      > Perhaps when domestic airplane fuel hits European price$ and truly efficient
      > operation becomes a defining market factor, this technology will develop and
      > we'll have a new paradigm: LOD operation vs. LOP, just like in your average
      > run-of-the-mill ten-year-old Nissan Sentra....
      >
      > With the astonishing capacity of modern digital processing, I can't
      > understand how an on-board processor couldn't sample vibratation sendor data
      > from multiple points, compare that against know "safe" data, then somehow
      > annunciate a potentially unsafe condition and/or make appropriate
      > adjustments to whatever engine-management scenario a pilot may employ in the
      > ultimate interest of maximizing efficiency.
      >
      > Here's hoping that if observers from the Lycoming/Continental intelligentsia
      > have comments, they'd chime in here, even if covertly.
      >
      > Appreciate the discussion-
      > Mark
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
      
      speaking only as an outsider there are two things that I see regarding 
      the
      use of knock sensors.
      
      First the engines are basically high volume low compression so they are 
      not
      overly prone to knocking.  Sure it can/does occur but not as often as on
      higher compression engines.
      
      The second point is any knocking would be fairly low in amplitude 
      compared
      with a higher revving high CR engine.
      
      Even so I think it is obvious that a knock sensor can be developed to
      operate efficiently on these air-cooled engines.  I'll bet they could 
      even
      install knock sensors in the crank shafts that way sensors could do 
      double
      duty as a form of torque meter as well as knock sensor.
      
      Noel
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
      Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:45 AM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      In a message dated 10/12/2007 8:27:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
      azevedoflyer(at)aol.com writes:
      
      Aircooled engines complicate things a bit because of the finning which
      radiate vibration in a very ample spectrum.
      
      >>>
      
      Based on my meager understanding of knock sensor physics in automotive
      applications, this was my primary suspicion- how to isolate specific 
      "knock"
      signatures when you have several hundred fins vibrating in multiple
      frequencies and harmonics of same.  If Lycosaurs were falling from the 
      sky
      due to detonation at the hands of efficiency-desparate pilots, I'd 
      believe
      market and/or regulatory pressure would force development of such a 
      system.
      Perhaps when domestic airplane fuel hits European price$ and truly 
      efficient
      operation becomes a defining market factor, this technology will develop 
      and
      we'll have a new paradigm: LOD operation vs. LOP, just like in your 
      average
      run-of-the-mill ten-year-old Nissan Sentra....
      
      With the astonishing capacity of modern digital processing, I can't
      understand how an on-board processor couldn't sample vibratation sendor 
      data
      from multiple points, compare that against know "safe" data, then 
      somehow
      annunciate a potentially unsafe condition and/or make appropriate
      adjustments to whatever engine-management scenario a pilot may employ in 
      the
      ultimate interest of maximizing efficiency.
      
      Here's hoping that if observers from the Lycoming/Continental 
      intelligentsia
      have comments, they'd chime in here, even if covertly.
      
      Appreciate the discussion-
      Mark
      
      
        _____  
      
      See what's new at AOL.com and 
      
      Navigator 
      
      
      and 
      
      http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List 
      
      
      the
      Web 
      
      
      =========== 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
      
      
      Miguel,
      Thought about taking it commercial?  Sounds possible.
      Gary
      On Oct 14, 2007, at 11:56 PM, Engines-List Digest Server wrote:
      
      >
      >
      > From: AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Knock sensors
      >
      > Gary,
      > It translates pressure measured through a modified Pitot Tube into   
      > flow.
      > Thanks,
      > Miguel
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
      
      
      I've seen the term LOP used a few times..... But have no idea what it means.
      
      Noel 
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Kelly McMullen
      > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:51 AM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > Wrong. Most aircraft engines being sold today are fuel
      > injected........mechanical, continuous flow. No computer involved,
      > pilot controls the mixture. For computer control, you have to develop
      > a mixture map for each variety of engine. Ain't gonna happen. Not to
      > mention that TCM and Lycoming oppose LOP operations, so they wouldn't
      > design for it.
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
      
      
      LOP=lean of peak, ROP=rich of peak
      
      Regards,
      Greg Young
      
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Noel Loveys
      > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:43 AM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > I've seen the term LOP used a few times..... But have no idea 
      > what it means.
      > 
      > Noel 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
      
      
      In a message dated 10/15/2007 8:52:18 AM Central Daylight Time, 
      noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca writes:
      
      I've seen the term LOP used a few times..... But have no idea what it means.
      
      >>>
      Normally for injected engines- stands for Lean Of Peak.  If using an EGT 
      gauge, leaning the mixture will cause EGTs to rise to a maximum, then begin to
      
      fall until there is too little fuel to sustain combustion and the engine will 
      begin to run rough.  ROP means Rich Of Peak.  Most carbureted engines have less
      
      even fuel distribution to each cylinder and the leanest cylinder will begin to
      
      mis-fire before an EGT drop is usefully noted. This is a real rough cut on the
      
      topic and there is a WHOLE lot more to this- look for articles by John Deakin 
      (sp?) on AvWeb for better info than you found here!
      
      Mark
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 15, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors
      
      Yes Gary.
      However, right now I do not have the time!
      Maybe a few years from now when I retire?
      FAA people that supervised development is most enthusiastic and want me to  
      proceed to an STC and get it into the marked. From their point of view, safety
      
      is greatly enhanced and that is enough incentive for them...
      Cheers,
      Miguel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
Date: 
Oct 13, 2007
Subject: 
Re: Ring flutter?
      
      Gary,
      Baring gross factors like excessively worn groove or mismatched axial  
      clearance between ring and groove, ring flutter results from inertial forces +
      
      pressure unbalance between the top face and lower face of the ring. Mostly, it
      
      restricts itself to the first compression ring but I've seen the 2nd and  
      occasionally even the 3rd (oil ring) undergoing flutter. For  this unbalancing
      to 
      occur, some gas has to leak into and pressurize the  inter ring (1st - 2nd) 
      cavity. Along the expansion stroke, this stagnation  pressure becomes higher than
      
      the pressure acting over the top of the 1st ring.  When this occurs, the 1st 
      ring lifts from its lower face contact with the  groove. How flutter progresses
      
      from this point onwards can become a very complex  process. On the other 
      hand, if you ran an engine without any load on it at high  revs, inertia will 
      become predominant and lift the 1st ring, causing  flutter. In a plane, such a
      
      situation might conceivably occur if you dive with  throttle closed and the 
      propeller drives the engine to a sufficiently high revs.  Lastly, flutter refers
      to 
      a rapid oscillation of the ring in the groove. Not to  a normal change of 
      lateral face contact of the ring with the groove. This last  is usually precluded
      
      by either ring geometry (torsion) or by adhesive forces  generated by oil 
      surface tension.
      Cheers,
      Miguel
      N8714D
      PA22/20-150 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 16, 2007
      
      
      Thanks... I had heard of LOP before long enough ago to have completely
      forgotten.
      
      When in technical school we were always told to lean ROP 
      
      Noel
      
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > Greg Young
      > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:35 PM
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > LOP=lean of peak, ROP=rich of peak
      > 
      > Regards,
      > Greg Young
      >  
      > 
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com 
      > > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of 
      > > Noel Loveys
      > > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:43 AM
      > > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      > > 
      > > 
      > > 
      > > I've seen the term LOP used a few times..... But have no idea 
      > > what it means.
      > > 
      > > Noel 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 16, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      
      LOP is the most efficient place to run the motor. From my reading of the
      Lycoming power chart it has about a 10% reduction in the BSFC in LOP vs
      ROP (BSFC =.45 at 50F LOP and .5 at 80F ROP).
      
      Rumour has it that the only way the old Howard Hughes Connies made it
      across the Atlantic was to run the motors LOP. 
      
      Its about the only place I run my motor apart from take off and landing.
      
      Frank
      RV7a TMX IO360
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
      Loveys
      Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:22 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      Thanks... I had heard of LOP before long enough ago to have completely
      forgotten.
      
      When in technical school we were always told to lean ROP 
      
      Noel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 16, 2007
From: 
"Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com>
      
      
      The Wright 3350 engines in Super Connies and also the B-29 were operated
      LOP.  The FE had the most important job on the flight crew.  As I
      remember,
      The FE also had a set of throttles.  
      
      Monty Barrett
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
      Frank George (Corvallis)
      Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:04 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      
      LOP is the most efficient place to run the motor. From my reading of the
      Lycoming power chart it has about a 10% reduction in the BSFC in LOP vs
      ROP (BSFC =.45 at 50F LOP and .5 at 80F ROP).
      
      Rumour has it that the only way the old Howard Hughes Connies made it
      across the Atlantic was to run the motors LOP. 
      
      Its about the only place I run my motor apart from take off and landing.
      
      Frank
      RV7a TMX IO360
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
      Loveys
      Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:22 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      Thanks... I had heard of LOP before long enough ago to have completely
      forgotten.
      
      When in technical school we were always told to lean ROP 
      
      Noel
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ring flutter?
Date: 
Oct 16, 2007
From: 
"Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com>
      
      In many years of aircraft ( and other engines, some of which are very
      high speed ), I don't think I have ever encountered a positive ring
      flutter situation.
      
      The ring damage I have seen other than excessive groove clearance has
      been caused by not enough end gap, high power being used before
      cylinders were up to the proper temperature, ( 300 F ) and detonation.
      An interesting observation is that a large percentage of new piston
      rings are NOT FLAT, but have a wavy surface.  A couple of manufactures'
      go to great lengths to insure the surfaces a absolutely flat.  They use
      very sophisticated equipment to inspect for this condition.
      
      
      Pressure is always present behind the rings during the compression,
      power strokes and even thru the blowdown period of exhaust.  Pressure is
      what makes the ring seal.
      
      I agree that the pressure behind the 2nd ring is not as high as the top
      ring.
      
      
      High engine speed, high forward speed and low manifold pressure is more
      likely to damage counterweights on the crank;  that is the big danger
      with operating an engine in this manner.  Also dangerous is the fact
      that the cylinder barrel and head will cool at a much faster rate with
      the above mentioned operating procedure than the piston, which leads to
      the barrel shrinking down on the piston.  I have seen piston top lands
      with metal " pulled " .  This phenomenon is usually referred to as "
      shock cooling ".
      
      
      The current design piston rings are semi-keystone ( half wedge ) which
      are designed to move in and out radially so not to " stick " in the
      groove and to help the ring seal when the cylinder is NOT up to
      temperature.  Older designs were full keystone.  Some engines still use
      full keystone rings.
      
      
      Some piston rings also have an angle cut on the inboard edge to allow
      some " twisting " of the ring and is used for a couple of purposes; 1.
      to place a sharp corner of the ring to the barrel face for oil
      scavenging,  2. to reduce barrel wear because the tension of the ring is
      somewhat reduced when the ring is " twisted ", 3. to allow the ring to
      
      " hydroplane " over an oil film.   Plasma filled rings are rarely
      twisted.  In fact, a plasma filled ring should be installed with great
      care so as NOT to twist the ring.  
      
      
      Monty Barrett
      
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
      AzevedoFlyer(at)aol.com
      Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 7:00 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Ring flutter?
      
      
      Gary,
      
      Baring gross factors like excessively worn groove or mismatched axial
      clearance between ring and groove, ring flutter results from inertial
      forces + pressure unbalance between the top face and lower face of the
      ring. Mostly, it restricts itself to the first compression ring but I've
      seen the 2nd and occasionally even the 3rd (oil ring) undergoing
      flutter. For this unbalancing to occur, some gas has to leak into and
      pressurize the inter ring (1st - 2nd) cavity. Along the expansion
      stroke, this stagnation pressure becomes higher than the pressure acting
      over the top of the 1st ring. When this occurs, the 1st ring lifts from
      its lower face contact with the groove. How flutter progresses from this
      point onwards can become a very complex process. On the other hand, if
      you ran an engine without any load on it at high revs, inertia will
      become predominant and lift the 1st ring, causing flutter. In a plane,
      such a situation might conceivably occur if you dive with throttle
      closed and the propeller drives the engine to a sufficiently high revs.
      Lastly, flutter refers to a rapid oscillation of the ring in the groove.
      Not to a normal change of lateral face contact of the ring with the
      groove. This last is usually precluded by either ring geometry (torsion)
      or by adhesive forces generated by oil surface tension.
      
      Cheers,
      
      Miguel
      
      N8714D
      
      PA22/20-150 
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      See 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Knock sensors?
Date: 
Oct 16, 2007
From: 
lessdragprod(at)aol.com
      
      
      I talked with one of the local pilots who was a flight engineer on the Connies.?
      They not only operated the engine LOP, they increase the manifold pressure to
      recover the power lost by operating LOP.
      
      
      As Don described it, the sequence went like this to set the cruise power mixture
      and power setting.? (They used a power gauge.)
      
      When they leveled out at cruise altitude, the power gauge?showed a number with
      the initially rich mixture setting.? They would calculate?a reduced?power setting?by
      subtracting 10% or 15% (depending on the supercharger blower being in high
      or low blower) from the original power setting.
      They would lean the mixture.? As the mixture is leaned, the power gauge would show
      an?increase in power, and then show a?decrease in power.
      When they got to the lower?calculated power setting, they had the mixture set.
      Now they increased the manifold pressure until they reached the original power
      setting.
      
      Sounds simple.? Just do this smoothly on four engines at the same?time.? :-)
      
      For our normally aspirated engines, the capability of obtaining the power recovery
      isn't there.
      
      I suspect the same power reduction and fuel fow reduction could be done running
      Best Economy and reducing the manifold pressure.? Someone interested in doing
      a test program?
      
      Regards,
      Jim Ayers
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Monty Barrett Sr <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com>
      Sent: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 8:25 am
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      The Wright 3350 engines in Super Connies and also the B-29 were operated
      LOP.  The FE had the most important job on the flight crew.  As I
      remember,
      The FE also had a set of throttles.  
      
      Monty Barrett
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
      Frank George (Corvallis)
      Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:04 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      
      LOP is the most efficient place to run the motor. From my reading of the
      Lycoming power chart it has about a 10% reduction in the BSFC in LOP vs
      ROP (BSFC =.45 at 50F LOP and .5 at 80F ROP).
      
      Rumour has it that the only way the old Howard Hughes Connies made it
      across the Atlantic was to run the motors LOP. 
      
      Its about the only place I run my motor apart from take off and landing.
      
      Frank
      RV7a TMX IO360
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
      Loveys
      Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:22 AM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Knock sensors?
      
      
      Thanks... I had heard of LOP before long enough ago to have completely
      forgotten.
      
      When in technical school we were always told to lean ROP 
      
      Noel
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
ENMA Tigre 125hp .. anyone know of parts source/manuals?
From: 
"jimd" <jlducey(at)hotmail.com>
Date: 
Oct 24, 2007
      
      
      Hi,
      
      I have a biplane with an ENMA Tigre engine, it looks pretty complete except for
      a plug that goes in to one of the magneto's. Saw someone had made up a gasket
      set for it, but otherwise have not seen any parts or manuals available.
      
      Read that it was built under license from DeHavilland and is about the same as
      a Gypsy Major.
      
      Anyone have any good sources of information. (Other than the Bucker Jungmann sites..
      already found those.)
      
      Thanks,
      Jim
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=141466#141466
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 01, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
November is Matronics Email List Fund Raiser Month!
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      You've probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows or spam
      from any of the List and Forum services at Matronics.  These include, for example:
      
      	The Email List Postings - http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse
      
      	The Email List Forum Site - http://forums.matronics.com
      
      	The List Wiki - http://wiki.matronics.com
      
      	The List Search Engine - http://www.matronics.com/search
      
      This is because I have always enjoyed a List experience that was completely about
      the sport we enjoy - airplanes - and not about advertising!
      
      But running a high performance, highly available service like this isn't free and
      a fair amount of money in terms of computer upgrades, business-class Internet
      connectivity, and electricity.  Consequently, many similar sites turn to advertising
      to support these costs.  Advertising that you have to look at each and
      every time you read an email message or browse the their web site.
      
      Rather than subject my List community to another constant commercial bombardment,
      I have chosen to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year in November to support
      the continued operation and upgrade of the List services.  It's solely through
      the Contributions of List members that the Lists and Forums continue to be
      possible!
      
      During the month, I will be sending out a Fund Raiser reminder message every few
      days and I ask for your patience and understanding during the month throughout
      these regular messages.  Think of them as PBS' Pledge Breaks... :-)  
      
      To minimize the impact of the Fund Raiser on the List community, I implemented
      a new feature late last year specifically related to making Contributions.  If
      you are an Email List subscriber, once you make a Contribution using the online
      web site, you will no longer receive the email from me regarding the Fund Raiser!
      There are a couple of exceptions to this, however.  If someone replies
      to a Contribution message I've sent, you might receive that.  Additionally, the
      messages will always be posted to the Forums site.  To a first order, however,
      once you make a Contribution, you won't get my email messages about the Fund
      Raiser for the rest of the month.  For Contributions by check, the squelch
      will take effect once the check is received.
      
      There is a whole new line up of really great Contribution gifts this year!  When
      you make a qualifying Contribution, you can select one of the many free gifts
      that are available during the Fund Raiser.  These gifts are provided through
      the generous support of a number of our industry's leading supporters including:
      
      	Bob Nuckolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com
      	
      	Andy Gold - Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com
      
      	Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
      
      Please visit these guy's respective sites, as they have some great products to
      offer and are generously supporting the Matronics List Fund Raiser.
      
      You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this
      year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check.  From the Contribution
      site, you can select any one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying
      Contribution amount.  The Contribution page is pretty loooonnnnng this year
      in order to list great selection of great gifts available so be sure to scroll
      all the way to the bottom of the web page to see everything that's available!
      
      Please make a List Support Contribution:
      
              http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous support!  Your Contributions
      truely keep this operation afloat!
      
      Thank you,
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Forum Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 04, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
List Fund Raiser
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month.  I've
      got a bunch of really nice incentive gifts this year.  There's really something
      for everyone!
      
      Please make a Contribution today:  
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 07, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
What Listers Are Saying...
      
      
      November is Matronics List Fund Raiser month and a number people been sending some
      really nice comments regarding the Lists.  I thought I'd share a few below.
      
      The Lists are completely supported by your Contributions.  All of the bills for
      new hardware, connectivity, and electricity are paid by the generous support
      of the List members.
      
      Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation of the List
      and Forums:
      
              http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
      ================= What Listers Are Saying ================
      
      Flying and building is much safer with this List!!
      						Robert D.
      
      Thanks for having and maintaining such a great resource to
      all of us builders and flyers.
      						Wayne E.
      
      Love the fact that you haven't caved to advertising!
      						Peter J.
      
      ..a great resource!!
      						Robert C.
      
      Not building at the moment, but the Lists keeps me right 
      up to date with what's going on.
      						Chris D.
      
      The web forum has been running great.
      						James O.
      
      I enjoy this [List] site very much...
      						Paul C.
      
      This is a great list!
      						Albert G.
      
      ..a valuable resource!
      						Roger C.
      
      I am deployed to Pakistan right now, and being able 
      to go on-line and keep up with the aircraft discussions 
      helps keep the aircraft building dream alive in my mind!
      						
      						Gregory C.
      
      ..fantastic service!
      						Roger M.
      
      ..clearly a work of passion!
      						Mike C.
      
      It is a great service to us!
      						Kevin C.
      
      The list is a wonderful resource...
      						Ralph O.
      
      [The Lists] have been the single greatest resource in 
      building my RV-9A and now my RV-10.
      						Albert G.
      
      ..a valuable and always improving service.
      						Dick S.
      
      STILL THE BEST BARGAIN AROUND!!
      						Owen B.
      
      ..such a valuable tool.
      						Jon M.
      
      [The Lists] have been an invaluable resource for me 
      as a Zenith homebuilder.
      						David G.
      
      The opportunity to meet (on line at least) many other 
      interesting builders and to make some new friends is 
      truly appreciated.
      						Albert G.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 09, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution Yet!
      :-)
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      If you received this particular Matronics List Email message, its because you haven't
      yet made a Contribution to support your Lists!  Implemented for the first
      time last year, the Matronics system selectively sends out the Contribution
      messages to those that forgot to whip out the 'ol credit card this year to support
      the continued operation and upgrade of the Matronics Email Lists!  Don't
      you wish PBS worked that way?  :-)
      
      You heard that right.  Once you make your Contribution, these support requests
      messages during November will suddenly stop coming to your personal email inbox!
      I wanted to implement something like this for a number of years, but it was
      always such a daunting task to modify the back-end List processing code, that
      I just kept putting it off.  Finally last year, I just decided to bite the bullet
      and put the code-pounding time it to make it work.  A few days later, bam!
      A working system!
      
      I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support
      the Lists.  It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware
      and software that are required to run a List Site like this.  It also goes to
      pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the rather huge electric
      bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered
      up.  I run ALL of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which
      allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in
      reliably and performance. 
      
      Your personal Contribution matters because when combined with other Listers such
      as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running.  I accept exactly
      ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites.  I can't stand
      the pop-up ads and all other commercialism that is so prevalent on the Internet
      these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List site. 
      
      
      If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
      Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!!
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      [Please note the following regarding the selective posting system.  There are certain
      circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message.
      These situations include if someone replies to one of the messages, or when
      using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. 
      Since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way
      to filter them.]
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com>
Subject: 
Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
Date: 
Nov 09, 2007
      
      Hi all, At overhaul I had the cylinders flow balanced, the engine runs 
      very well, very smooth. Considering the rising fuel costs, I have been 
      considering attempting to run the engine LOP, I have been unsuccessful 
      as the richest cylinder peaks last and by then the other cylinders are 
      running rough. I use the AFP fuel injection system which performs 
      flawlessly and have moved nozzles around to effect egt changes which 
      have been effective to a point, where cyl #6 runs 100 degrees cooler 
      than the others. My question? Is 100 degrees a significant number when 
      compared to the other five cylinders?The engine builders out there who 
      are making real HP see the different relationships on cooling effects 
      and cylinder balancing and the induction system.   Question #2 does cold 
      air induction help to make the lycoming run more evenly balanced in 
      respect to temps. #3 Is it possible that the stock lycoming intake 
      system generates to much internal  turbulence which effects the 
      individual cylinder performance? Thanks for any info and taking the time 
      to answer.  Bob
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
Date: 
Nov 09, 2007
      
      Have you moved the thermocouples around too, to assure that your 100 
      degree difference isn't due to a thermocouple difference?
      JimC
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Bob & Toodie Marshall 
        To: Engines-List Digest Server 
        Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:22 PM
        Subject: Engines-List: Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
      
      
        My question? Is 100 degrees a significant number when compared to the 
      other five cylinders?
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
Date: 
Nov 10, 2007
      
      Bob,
      
      100 deg?  EGT or CHT?  What you are trying to do is to get each cylinder
      to peak at the same time.  What you=92re looking for is the delta 
      between
      when each cylinder peaks.  In a perfect world all the cylinders should
      peak at the same time at the same temperature.  That never happens
      because of many factors; cooling effect, induction difference, valve
      opening, ect.  It is very common to see on a well setup engine peak
      deltas around 30~60 deg. between each other.  The CHT by itself is for
      limit purposes and the EGT is to help find when each cylinder peaks.  I
      hope this helps.
      
      Mike Larkin
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jrc
      Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 5:09 PM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
      
      Have you moved the thermocouples around too, to assure that your 100
      degree difference isn't due to a thermocouple difference?
      JimC
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: HYPERLINK "mailto:rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com"Bob & Toodie Marshall 
      Digest Server 
      Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:22 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
      
      My question? Is 100 degrees a significant number when compared to the
      other five cylinders?
      
      
      "http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
      tion
      "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List"http://www.matronics.co
      m/Navigator?Engines-List
      "http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
      10/2/2007 11:10 AM
      
      
      10/2/2007 11:10 AM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 10, 2007
      
      
      Bob,
      First, it would be good to know which version of the IO-540 you have  
      since the angle-valve and parallel-valve engines have quite different  
      intake systems.  The angle-valve engines have an intake system that  
      is quite good in that the tubes are well matched, have a reasonable  
      tuning benefit and don't absorb too much heat from the oil.  The  
      parallel-valve engine, on the other hand, were designed for  
      carburetion and have much of the intake system buried in the oil  
      sump, transferring more heat and limiting the freedom of design.   
      Generally, though, the air distribution of these engines is pretty  
      good.  The first thing to do when sorting out air/fuel distribution  
      questions is to measure it using the "lean sweep" method.  Starting  
      well rich, record all exhaust temperatures and fuel flow (it's handy  
      to record CHT's and flight data as well, but it is not necessary for  
      good results).  Lean the engine a step at a time - the finer the  
      steps the better, although it will start to take too long if done to  
      the extreme.  After all cylinders have peaked continue to go lean  
      until you get at least 2 or 3 data points on the lean side of the  
      leanest cylinder.  The biggest problem I've had is not waiting long  
      enough for all the variables to stabilize before recording the data.   
      It is good to do the exercise a few times to make detection of bogus  
      data points easier.  Plot the temperature of each cylinder against  
      fuel flow all on the same chart.  Pick what appears to be the "best  
      fit" straight line on the rich side and another on the lean side,  
      extending them until they cross.  That is the fuel flow at which that  
      cylinder peaks. Do not just pick the highest temperature and call  
      that the peak as the temperatures have a tendency to round off near  
      the peak, making the true peak hard to find.  Do that for all  
      cylinders and measure the spread of fuel flow between the leanest and  
      richest cylinders.  Ideally, it should be less than 2%, but 3 or 4%  
      is probably okay.  If the spread is more you should do something  
      about it.  An easier way is to ship all the data off to GAMI and they  
      will give you an expert opinion.
      
      Back to your questions:
      1 - 100 degrees is significant, but there may not be much you can do  
      about it.  The thermocouple readings can be affected by cooling air  
      flow on the outside of the pipe as well as orientation of the probe  
      itself.  Exhaust flow inside the tube is not uniform around the  
      diameter - all probes should be the same distance down from the  
      cylinder and inserted from the same angle.  The temperature of the  
      cylinder itself will affect the measurement.  My hottest cylinder  
      also has the highest EGT reading - does one cause the other, or is it  
      coincidence?  Hard to say.  Why, then would one be different that the  
      other?  There are three fundamental factors on EGT - mixture (you're  
      going to take that out of the equation), Compression ratio (all  
      cylinders are the same, right?), and spark timing (hard to imagine  
      the timing for one cylinder being different than the others).  That  
      pretty much brings it back to measurement errors unless the exhaust  
      valve is leaking a lot.
      2 - The temperature of the inlet air won't have much effect on air/ 
      fuel distribution.  It's possible that ram air will have a  
      deleterious effect on smoothness, however.  If the manifold pressure  
      at the intake port becomes higher than the upper plenum pressure it's  
      possible that some fuel could come out the air bleed vents, although  
      this usually leaves a tell-tale stain around the injector.  I could  
      also make the atomization of the injector suffer and that in turn  
      could create a cycle-to-cycle variation in fuel flow, making the  
      engine feel rough.  A good injected engine should be able to be  
      leaned so much that the power is way down and still be running  
      smoothly.  Not all are that way.
      3. - Intake turbulence itself is probably beneficial to mixing the  
      air and fuel unless one intake runner is different than another.   
      Lycoming engines are typically pretty good in this regard, but again,  
      I have no idea which type you have.
      
      Just as an aside, I've messed around trying to figure out the best  
      air/fuel ratio to run.  It all depends on the ratio of your desire  
      for speed to the size of your wallet.  Speed is good, but fuel flow  
      is bad.  As a first shot I used the same equation some people (CAFE,  
      I think) use - multiply mph by mpg.  The peak is the optimum place to  
      run if speed is just as important as fuel economy (how do you  
      decide?  It's your own choice).  This turns out to be TAS^2/GPH.  I  
      found the optimum was just lean of peak.  Going as far lean as  
      possible didn't help, although usually it didn't make it much worse  
      either.  Going rich was like falling off a cliff.  Fuel flow goes way  
      up, but air speed doesn't.  What you really want to put into the  
      equation is ground speed, so that will change the shape of the curve  
      for every flight.  The optimum with a headwind is on the rich side  
      and with a tailwind it is more on the lean side.
      
      FWIW,
      Gary Casey
      
      
      >
      > From: "Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com>
      > Subject: Engines-List: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      >
      > Hi all, At overhaul I had the cylinders flow balanced, the engine runs
      > very well, very smooth. Considering the rising fuel costs, I have been
      > considering attempting to run the engine LOP, I have been unsuccessful
      > as the richest cylinder peaks last and by then the other cylinders are
      > running rough. I use the AFP fuel injection system which performs
      > flawlessly and have moved nozzles around to effect egt changes which
      > have been effective to a point, where cyl #6 runs 100 degrees cooler
      > than the others. My question? Is 100 degrees a significant number when
      > compared to the other five cylinders?The engine builders out there who
      > are making real HP see the different relationships on cooling effects
      > and cylinder balancing and the induction system.   Question #2 does  
      > cold
      > air induction help to make the lycoming run more evenly balanced in
      > respect to temps. #3 Is it possible that the stock lycoming intake
      > system generates to much internal  turbulence which effects the
      > individual cylinder performance? Thanks for any info and taking the  
      > time
      > to answer.  Bob
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com>
Subject: 
temps
Date: 
Nov 10, 2007
      
      Hi, all the probes are same distance from flange and close to same 
      clocking. As I see this each cylinder is an engine in itself and the 
      difference in temp is probably from  air induction/fuel  differences.  
      Maybe Barrett (BPE)   Or someone else who does a lot of Dyno work has 
      seen this?thanks for the input. Bob
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Bob Buckthal" <n223b(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
Date: 
Nov 10, 2007
      
      First read John Deakins series of articles on engine operation on the 
      Avweb.com site.  Differences in EGT are likely more to do with temp 
      probe instalation.  Your goal is to get all the EGT's to peak(regardless 
      of the temp) at the same throttle position.  It one cyl has not peaked 
      and the others are in lean missfire, Your FI may not be flawless.  The 
      induction system is well designed.  Unless your engine builder left a 
      tool or a rag in there, that is not your problem.  Go back and redo the 
      nozzles.  DO NOT try to achieve an even temp.  Once they all achieve 
      their peak temp at the same throttle position you should be able to get 
      as much as 150 degrees lean of peak before missfire.  
      
      Bob
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Bob & Toodie Marshall 
        To: Engines-List Digest Server 
        Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 10:22 AM
        Subject: Engines-List: Lycoming EGT, IO 540 
      
      
        Hi all, At overhaul I had the cylinders flow balanced, the engine runs 
      very well, very smooth. Considering the rising fuel costs, I have been 
      considering attempting to run the engine LOP, I have been unsuccessful 
      as the richest cylinder peaks last and by then the other cylinders are 
      running rough. I use the AFP fuel injection system which performs 
      flawlessly and have moved nozzles around to effect egt changes which 
      have been effective to a point, where cyl #6 runs 100 degrees cooler 
      than the others. My question? Is 100 degrees a significant number when 
      compared to the other five cylinders?The engine builders out there who 
      are making real HP see the different relationships on cooling effects 
      and cylinder balancing and the induction system.   Question #2 does cold 
      air induction help to make the lycoming run more evenly balanced in 
      respect to temps. #3 Is it possible that the stock lycoming intake 
      system generates to much internal  turbulence which effects the 
      individual cylinder performance? Thanks for any info and taking the time 
      to answer.  Bob
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
From: 
"DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: 
Magneto P-leads
      
      
      I did a test on my magneto P-leads (one mag on left side, electronic on
      right side)with an ohm meter.  Thinking that when the key switch is in the
      off position, the resistance across the p-leads should measure close to dead
      short and, it does.  By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
      ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded wire with
      the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local
      grounding).  But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
      resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key.  Not
      an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
      time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
      I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
      resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite.  I suspect
      that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
      problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test?  Did you get
      the same results? Thanks.
      
      Dean
      RV-6A N197DM
      closer to 1st flight.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
      Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 6:47 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      
      
      > questions is to measure it using the "lean sweep" method.  Starting  well 
      > rich, record all exhaust temperatures and fuel flow (it's handy  to record 
      > CHT's and flight data as well, but it is not necessary for  good results). 
      > Lean the engine a step at a time - the finer the  steps the better, 
      > although it will start to take too long if done to  the extreme.  After 
      > all cylinders have peaked continue to go lean  until you get at least 2 or 
      > 3 data points on the lean side of the  leanest cylinder.  The biggest 
      > problem I've had is not waiting long
      
      It should be the richest cylinder, since it will be the last cylinder to go 
      lean.
      I have GAMI's on my converted O-360A1A to an EXP IO-360 and find the only 
      time I can't run LOP is at high altitude and hot temperatures. For some 
      reason (even after engine overhaul and new intake tubes), it gets too rough 
      before the richest cylinder is 25F LOP.
      Wayne 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
      
      
      Bob's comment brings up a question I have.  I've got a parallel-valve  
      IO-540 with 10:1 compression and electronic ignition on the top  
      plugs, mag on the bottom, timing set at 22.  The cylinders are very  
      closely matched for air/fuel, within about 1.5%.  When I lean the  
      engine LOP the temperatures drop just a little before it goes rough  
      and sometimes go flat or back up, so I typically operate just barely  
      LOP.   I don't have a good explanation for this behavior unless my  
      ram air induction is working so well that the injectors have no air  
      flow in them to atomize the fuel.  However, I don't see any fuel  
      stains around the injectors, so there apparently isn't any fuel  
      coming out the vents.  There is no way the engine would run 150 LOP  
      as Bob suggests below.  Any ideas on why this engine seems to operate  
      different than the norm?
      
      Gary Casey
      
      >   ....Once they all achieve
      > their peak temp at the same throttle position you should be able to  
      > get
      > as much as 150 degrees lean of peak before missfire.
      >
      > Bob
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Magneto P-leads
      
      Was the P lead connected to the magneto when you measured resistance to
      ground? If so, and the points were closed, you were measuring resistance of
      the points. You need the P lead off the mag, or the points open to get a
      good resistance reading.  I've seen a couple instances, (with old P-leads)
      of the internal insulation cracking and grounding to shield, but not too
      likely with relatively new wiring.
      
      On Nov 11, 2007 12:59 AM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS 
      wrote:
      
      > dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
      >
      >
      > I did a test on my magneto P-leads (one mag on left side, electronic on
      > right side)with an ohm meter.  Thinking that when the key switch is in the
      > off position, the resistance across the p-leads should measure close to
      > dead
      > short and, it does.  By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
      > ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded wire with
      > the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local
      > grounding).  But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
      > resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key.  Not
      > an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
      > time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not
      > so,
      > I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
      > resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite.  I suspect
      > that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not
      > a
      > problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test?  Did you
      > get
      > the same results? Thanks.
      >
      > Dean
      > RV-6A N197DM
      > closer to 1st flight.
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
From: 
"Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      
      I run an IO-360 angle valve engine. It will run nicely lean of peak to about
      60-70 lean of peak. At that point EGT can start back up or the engine start
      to quit. You are right...you only need 10-20 LOP if you are running 70% or
      less power. As your power goes up, you need to be leaner, maybe 30-40 LOP at
      75% or higher. Unless you have a turbo, you are unlikely to run much over
      85% LOP, so forget about much leaner. The turbo guys will cruise up to 90
      LOP on a big Continental. The Lyc turbo 540, at least as used in the Mooney
      TLS Bravo generally won't run LOP without turbine inlet temps going above
      redline. It is one of the few engines that simply doesn't like LOP.
      
      On Nov 11, 2007 7:02 AM, Gary Casey  wrote:
      
      >
      > Bob's comment brings up a question I have.  I've got a parallel-valve
      > IO-540 with 10:1 compression and electronic ignition on the top
      > plugs, mag on the bottom, timing set at 22.  The cylinders are very
      > closely matched for air/fuel, within about 1.5%.  When I lean the
      > engine LOP the temperatures drop just a little before it goes rough
      > and sometimes go flat or back up, so I typically operate just barely
      > LOP.   I don't have a good explanation for this behavior unless my
      > ram air induction is working so well that the injectors have no air
      > flow in them to atomize the fuel.  However, I don't see any fuel
      > stains around the injectors, so there apparently isn't any fuel
      > coming out the vents.  There is no way the engine would run 150 LOP
      > as Bob suggests below.  Any ideas on why this engine seems to operate
      > different than the norm?
      >
      > Gary Casey
      >
      > >   ....Once they all achieve
      > > their peak temp at the same throttle position you should be able to
      > > get
      > > as much as 150 degrees lean of peak before missfire.
      > >
      > > Bob
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
      
      
      Gary,
      
      One problem I see with your setup is the electronic ignition with a
      fixed timing mag.  I see why you went this way but you should be aware
      that when both systems fire, the first one is more or less the only one
      that counts.  So in order to get optimum performance you must know
      exactly when you electronic ignition fires and it must be the same as
      the mag at cruse and higher power or your working against yourself.  In
      other words for performance a single ignition system.
      
      Just a thought,
      
      Mike Larkin 
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Casey
      Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:03 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      
      
      Bob's comment brings up a question I have.  I've got a parallel-valve  
      IO-540 with 10:1 compression and electronic ignition on the top  
      plugs, mag on the bottom, timing set at 22.  The cylinders are very  
      closely matched for air/fuel, within about 1.5%.  When I lean the  
      engine LOP the temperatures drop just a little before it goes rough  
      and sometimes go flat or back up, so I typically operate just barely  
      LOP.   I don't have a good explanation for this behavior unless my  
      ram air induction is working so well that the injectors have no air  
      flow in them to atomize the fuel.  However, I don't see any fuel  
      stains around the injectors, so there apparently isn't any fuel  
      coming out the vents.  There is no way the engine would run 150 LOP  
      as Bob suggests below.  Any ideas on why this engine seems to operate  
      different than the norm?
      
      Gary Casey
      
      >   ....Once they all achieve
      > their peak temp at the same throttle position you should be able to  
      > get
      > as much as 150 degrees lean of peak before missfire.
      >
      > Bob
      
      
      10/2/2007 11:10 AM
      
      
      10/2/2007 11:10 AM
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osbtown.com>
Subject: 
540 EGT
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
      
       The EGT questions on my 540 could have many answers and I have now a 
      lot to look at, Since the winters are long here in the high Sierra 
      Nevada mountains this will give me enough info to continue forward. To 
      all the guys who responded, Thank you all very much.  Bob
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Post Mortem - Matronics List Pummeled By Spam...
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      Over a 3-day period, Thursday 11/8 though Saturday 11/10, the Matronics Lists were
      pummeled with over 450,000 spam emails causing posting delays and a few duplicate
      messages.  Yeah, I really said nearly half a million spams!  The good
      news is that I don't believe a single one of them actually made it to the Lists
      thanks to the aggressive List filtering code and the Barracuda spam filter.
      
      The bad news was that it caused quite a back log of email messages starting Friday
      and continuing until late Saturday when I noticed that delivery seemed a bit
      sluggish.  By about 11pm on Saturday night, I had managed to get the backlog
      cleared out of the spam filter by temporarily adjusting some of the filtering.
      
      A check of the queues this morning, and everything looks like its working great
      and there are no incoming filtering delays and spam levels appear to be back
      to "normal".
      
      There were a number of people asking what was going on, so I thought that I'd send
      out a follow up post mortem on the event...
      
      November is the annual List Fund Raiser.  Your contribution directly enables me
      to buy systems like the Barracuda spam filter that keep the List free of that
      garbage.  Please make a contribution to support your Lists!
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
steve korney <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 11, 2007
      
      
      Gary...
      
      What brand of electronic ignition do you have....?  I would think the EI wo
      uld have a lot more advance then the mag at almost any manifold pressure ot
      her then maybe sea level...
      
      Best... Steve
      
      > From: glcasey(at)adelphia.net
      > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      > Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:02:45 -0800
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > 
      > 
      > Bob's comment brings up a question I have.  I've got a parallel-valve  
      > IO-540 with 10:1 compression and electronic ignition on the top  
      > plugs, mag on the bottom, timing set at 22.  The cylinders are very  
      > closely matched for air/fuel, within about 1.5%.  When I lean the  
      > engine LOP the temperatures drop just a little before it goes rough  
      > and sometimes go flat or back up, so I typically operate just barely  
      > LOP.   I don't have a good explanation for this behavior unless my  
      > ram air induction is working so well that the injectors have no air  
      > flow in them to atomize the fuel.  However, I don't see any fuel  
      > stains around the injectors, so there apparently isn't any fuel  
      > coming out the vents.  There is no way the engine would run 150 LOP  
      > as Bob suggests below.  Any ideas on why this engine seems to operate  
      > different than the norm?
      > 
      > Gary Casey
      > 
      > >   ....Once they all achieve
      > > their peak temp at the same throttle position you should be able to  
      > > get
      > > as much as 150 degrees lean of peak before missfire.
      > >
      > > Bob
      > 
      > 
      ===========
      ===========
      ===========
      ===========
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      _________________________________________________________________
      Climb to the top of the charts!- Play Star Shuffle:- the word scramble 
      challenge with star power.
      http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oc
      t
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Magneto P-leads
Date: 
Nov 12, 2007
      
      
      Dean,
      I'm a little confused about which resistance you are concerned about,  
      but here is what you can expect to measure:  If the switch is  
      disconnected from the mag, a reading of the resistance from the P- 
      lead terminal to ground will be either (with the points closed)  
      essentially zero, or (with the points open) almost zero.  The circuit  
      inside the mag is from ground through the primary ignition coil  
      winding to the points and back to ground.  The P-lead is connected to  
      the connection between the coil and points.  If the mag is rotated so  
      the points are closed only the point resistance is in the circuit,  
      which should measure as zero.  When the mag is turned so the points  
      are open the only connection to ground is through the coil primary  
      winding, which will measure at something very low, but not zero.  It  
      will probably be less than 1 ohm.  I use this difference to set the  
      timing, eliminating the need for the "buzz box" that mechanics  
      normally use.  You can, if you like, check the connected ignition  
      switch by turning the mag until the points are open (ignition switch  
      has to be in the "on" position to know this)  and watching the  
      resistance of the P-lead to ground while turning the switch on and  
      off - there should be a small but noticeable change in resistance.   
      Oh, and when the switch is in the "R" position the right mag is on  
      (switch is open) and the left mag is off (shorted to ground).
      
      Hope I didn't confuse things more.
      
      Gary
      >
      > From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
      > Subject: Engines-List: Magneto P-leads
      >
      >
      > I did a test on my magneto P-leads (one mag on left side,  
      > electronic on
      > right side)with an ohm meter.  Thinking that when the key switch is  
      > in the
      > off position, the resistance across the p-leads should measure  
      > close to dead
      > short and, it does.  By the same logic, I thought that when the mag  
      > was
      > ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded  
      > wire with
      > the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local
      > grounding).  But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
      > resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the  
      > key.  Not
      > an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent  
      > (happens every
      > time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but  
      > not so,
      > I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and  
      > the
      > resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite.  I  
      > suspect
      > that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this  
      > is not a
      > problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test?   
      > Did you get
      > the same results? Thanks.
      >
      > Dean
      > RV-6A N197DM
      > closer to 1st flight.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 12, 2007
From: 
"Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      
      Not at all, The EI's will have both less and more advance depending on
      manifold pressure. Mags are set at 25deg which is a compromise between
      poor starting, high power operation and economy cruise.
      
      Pretty much all EI's run at about 25 DEG at full power but can advance
      to 40deg plus at low manifold pressure.
      
      I wonder if this engine is truly running balanced...what does "withing
      1.5%" mean?....If it means the cylinders flow the same amount of air on
      the bench then this is meaningless as far as blancing the injectors. 
      
      Each cylinder needs to get to peak EGT at the same fuel flow (mine is
      about 0.5GPH between richest and leanest)....Nothing else matters...If
      the cylinder don't all peak at the same fuel flow (or close to it) the
      engine will not run LOP very well.
      
      I think what we have here is some cylinders running ROP while the others
      are runnin so LOP that the flame is going out...I.e well LOP.
      
      
      Frank RV7a IO360
      
      ________________________________
      
      From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
      [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve
      korney
      Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:49 PM
      Subject: RE: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      
      
      Gary...
      
      What brand of electronic ignition do you have....?  I would think the EI
      would have a lot more advance then the mag at almost any manifold
      pressure other then maybe sea level...
      
      Best... Steve
      
      > From: glcasey(at)adelphia.net
      > Subject: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      > Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 06:02:45 -0800
      > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
      > 
      > 
      > Bob's comment brings up a question I have. I've got a parallel-valve 
      > IO-540 with 10:1 compression and electronic ignition on the top 
      > plugs, mag on the bottom, timing set at 22. The cylinders are very 
      > closely matched for air/fuel, within about 1.5%. When I lean the 
      > engine LOP the temperatures drop just a little before it goes rough 
      > and sometimes go flat or back up, so I typically operate just barely 
      > LOP. I don't have a good explanation for this behavior unless my 
      > ram air induction is working so well that the injectors have no air 
      > flow in them to atomize the fuel. However, I don't see any fuel 
      > stains around the injectors, so there apparently isn't any fuel 
      > coming out the vents. There is no way the engine would run 150 LOP 
      > as Bob suggests below. Any ideas on why this engine seems to operate 
      > different than the norm?
      > 
      > Gary Casey
      > 
      > > ....Once they all achieve
      > > their peak temp at the same throttle position you should be able to 
      > > get
      > > as much as 150 degrees lean of peak before missfire.
      > >
      &========================
      
      
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
      ________________________________
      
      Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble
      challenge with star power. Play Now!
      <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink
      _
      oct>  
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 13, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
List of Contributors
      
      
      Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
      that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of
      my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
      for the Lists. 
      
      Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
      (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
      at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
      tool as your typical magazine subscription! 
      
      Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
      that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
      fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: 
      
         http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      or by popping a personal check in the mail to: 
      
         Matt Dralle / Matronics 
         PO Box 347 
         Livermore CA 94551-0347 
      
      I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
      far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
      these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
      how the Lists have helped you! 
      
      Best regards, 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: 
Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
Date: 
Nov 13, 2007
      
      
      Thanks for the replies.  The ignition is the Lightspeed Plasma III,  
      which I'm sure you all know is a capacitive discharge wasted-spark  
      system.  The "III" as far as I know is sort of a double polarity  
      system that presumably strikes the arc twice, once in each  
      direction.  I'm not a fan of CD systems, but I think they work ok -  
      they're just much more electrically complex than an inductive  
      system.  I haven't had any luck extracting the advance curve from  
      Claus and I'm not sure why it seems to be a secret.  He sells a  
      monitor system that provides a panel readout of advance, but I don't  
      have that.
      
      My timing settings were static.  I set the mag (no impulse coupling)  
      at 22 degrees and attempted to set the Lightspeed at about the same  
      value.  During runup the rpm drops are about equal, confirming that  
      the Lightspeed timing is about the same as the mag.  I had no luck  
      trying to rig a timing light to check the advance.  I understand that  
      at rpms below something like 2000 there is no "vacuum" advance in the  
      Lightspeed, so it should be producing a spark at the base timing.  I  
      should have done mag checks at altitude, but I haven't.  My  
      assumption is that at higher rpm and the low manifold pressures at  
      altitude the Lightspeed provides a more advanced timing.  Does anyone  
      have information about the advance characteristics of the Lightspeed  
      unit?
      
      The "1.5%" I was talking about is the difference in fuel flow between  
      when the leanest and richest cylinders peak.  Frank says that his  is  
      within 0.5GPH - assuming the fuel flow of the IO360 is about 10GPH  
      that works out to 5% difference, significantly worse that what my  
      engine data indicates.  The 1.5% number I stated actually ranged from  
      0.8% to 3% depending on which of the 10 or so tests I look at.  The  
      standard deviation hangs around 0.7% indicating the data is  
      reasonably well behaved.  And, while the cylinders were presumably  
      "ported and flow balanced" I have no idea as to whether the air  
      distribution is precise.  However, it is unlikely that the air  
      distribution would be poor AND the injectors mismatched to exactly  
      compensate.  Therefore, I am reasonably confident that both air and  
      fuel distribution are very close.
      
      My next test will  be one to determine if the injector atomization  
      plays a part.  I plan to do a lean sweep at full throttle followed by  
      another with the throttle closed enough to reduce the manifold  
      pressure by 1 inch.  That should be enough to induce at least some  
      air flow through the injectors.
      Gary
      
      On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:56 PM, Engines-List Digest Server wrote:
      
      >
      > Subject: RE: Engines-List: Re: Lycoming EGT, IO 540
      > From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
      >
      > Not at all, The EI's will have both less and more advance depending on
      > manifold pressure. Mags are set at 25deg which is a compromise between
      > poor starting, high power operation and economy cruise.
      >
      > Pretty much all EI's run at about 25 DEG at full power but can advance
      > to 40deg plus at low manifold pressure.
      >
      > I wonder if this engine is truly running balanced...what does "withing
      > 1.5%" mean?....If it means the cylinders flow the same amount of  
      > air on
      > the bench then this is meaningless as far as blancing the injectors.
      >
      > Each cylinder needs to get to peak EGT at the same fuel flow (mine is
      > about 0.5GPH between richest and leanest)....Nothing else matters...If
      > the cylinder don't all peak at the same fuel flow (or close to it) the
      > engine will not run LOP very well.
      >
      > I think what we have here is some cylinders running ROP while the  
      > others
      > are runnin so LOP that the flame is going out...I.e well LOP.
      >
      >
      > Frank RV7a IO360
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Raven/Suzuki 1300
From: 
"kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net>
Date: 
Nov 13, 2007
      
      
      Hi,
      
      I'm building a CH701 and have WW conversion manual, so I'm eagerly waiting for
      WWs 701 Corvair project results... but I'm still keeping my eyes open for other
      possible fits for the 701. Does anyone have anything good or bad to say(with
      explanations) about the Raven 1300 cc Suzuki engine combo?
      
      Kevin
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145835#145835
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300
From: 
"RayStL" <ray.stlaurent(at)vsea.com>
Date: 
Nov 13, 2007
      
      
      Hi Kevin,
      
      I have a Raven svs1300 redrive Suzuki engine in my CH701. Although I have taxied
      it, it has not flown. My flight papers should arrive in a couple of days (finally).
      My first flight will be this weekend. About all that I can tell you now
      is that it is very smooth running on those engine mounts and with the belt redrive.
      
      
      -- Ray
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145883#145883
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300
From: 
"kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net>
Date: 
Nov 14, 2007
      
      
      Congrats on the new plane! can't wait to hear from you.
      
      --------
      Kevin
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145900#145900
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Russell Lassetter" <rblassett(at)alltel.net>
Subject: 
Construction/Restoration
Date: 
Nov 14, 2007
      
      
      Hello all,
      
      I would like to offer my aircraft construction/restoration services to the
      group.  I have a 40' X 60' hangar in NE Georgia and have a lifetime of
      experience with various aircraft.  I can construct large projects for $15.00
      per hour with first-class workmanship.  Please email me directly or give me
      a call.
      
      Russ Lassetter
      202 Aviation Blvd.
      Cleveland, GA 30528
      
      706-348-7514
      rblassett(at)alltel.net
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 15, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Value of the List...
      
      
      If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have
      written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least 0 or 0 worth
      of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription
      to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least
      that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get
      a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to
      think of it, you do...  :-)
      
      Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support the
      Lists? 
      
      Contribution Page: 
      
                 http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far
      during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively
      through YOUR generosity!! 
      
      Thank you for your support! 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Email List Admin. 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Alan Smith" <alsmith(at)olemac.net>
Subject: 
Re: Value of the List...
Date: 
Nov 15, 2007
      
      
      Unscribe
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
      Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:15 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Value of the List...
      
      
      >
      > If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you 
      > have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least 0 
      > or 0 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that 
      > for a subscription to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the 
      > List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could 
      > pay that amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, 
      > SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do...  :-)
      >
      > Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support 
      > the Lists?
      >
      > Contribution Page:
      >
      >           http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      >
      > Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution 
      > thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made 
      > possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!!
      >
      > Thank you for your support!
      >
      > Matt Dralle
      > Email List Admin.
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 18, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists...
      
      
      Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.  Please make a Contribution
      today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
      List services!!  And pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
      too! 
      
      The Contribution Site is fast and easy: 
      
             http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      Thank you! 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 20, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
[Please Read] Why I Have A Fund Raiser...
      
      
      Dear Listers, 
      
      Each year I like to explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the opportunity
      to express why I think the List Services here provide a superior experience
      over the commercial equivalents. 
      
      I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with running
      a high performance email list site such as this one. With the annual support from
      the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I have found I can run
      the entire site without having to inflect any of the members with those annoying
      banner ads flashing up all the time trying to sell little-blue-pills or other
      garbage nobody wants or needs. From the comments I've received over the years
      regarding the Lists, the great majority of the members really appreciate the
      non-commercialism of my List systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once
      a year during November to encourage members to support the Lists. 
      
      I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer many benefits over
      the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I believe to
      be significant is that you cannot receive a computer v*rus from any of these
      Lists directly. Each incoming message is filtered and dangerous attachments stripped
      off prior to posting. I also provide a Photo and File Share feature that
      allows members to share files and bitmaps with other members and everyone can
      be assured that these files will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before
      they are posted. More recently, I have enabled limited posting of a number of
      file formats including pictures and PDFs. 
      
      Another very important feature of this system in my opinion is the extensive List
      Archives that are available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives
      go all the way back to the very beginning of each List and with the very
      fast Search Engine, the huge size of some of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly
      finding the data you're looking for. 
      
      And added just a couple of years ago is the new Email List Forum that allows members who prefer the Web BBS-style of List interaction. The beauty of the new List Forums is that they contain the exact same content that is distributed via email. Messages posted via email are cross-posted to the respective Forum and vice versa. The Forums also allow for another convenient method of sharing pictures and other files (http://forums.matronics.com ). Additionally, added recently is the List Wiki that allows members to build their own "Online List Encyclopedia" of sorts, documenting various aspects of their project for all to share ( http://wiki.matronics.com ). 
      
      I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain since
      about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew and who where also building
      RVs. It has grown into nearly 70 different aviation-related Email Lists and
      an associated web site that receives over 34,000,000 hits each year!! Additionally,
      the List Email system forwarded well over 77,000 postings last year, accounting
      for an unbelievable 33,000,000 (yes, that's 33 MILLION) email messages
      delivered to Matronics List subscribers! I think there's a lot of value in supporting
      a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and improving
      a high quality service all _without any advertising budget_! 
      
      I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows in the
      quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email Message,
      Search the Archives, use the List Browser, or surf the Forums and Wiki sites.
      The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a
      while for free, that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate,
      and receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual
      List Fund Raiser! 
      
      List Contribution Web Site: 
      
          http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      Thank you, 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 22, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
What Are You Thankful For...?
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving.  Many
      of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous
      feasts of plenty and giving thanks for many blessings that have been bestowed
      upon us.
      
      Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are
      for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the
      assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists. 
      One of my favorite kind of comments is when write to me and says something like,
      "Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!".
      That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists.  Its
      always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning
      to check my List email!!
      
      Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for
      their continued operation and upgrade?
      
      The List Contribution Site is:
      
              http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you in advance for your kind consideration,
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 24, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Comments
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      Below are a few more of the nice comments Listers have been making along with their
      Contributions in support of the Lists this year.  Please make your Contribution
      today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services.
      Remember, there is _no advertising budget_ to keep these Lists funded.  It is
      solely through your generosity that they continue.
      
      Please make a Contribution:
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
      
      ------------------------------What Listers Are Saying------------------------------
      
      The list has been invaluable in the building of my Zenith CH701.
      
      						George R
      
      Thanks for keeping the lists a non-commercial venue for us
      to gather and share knowledge.
      
      						Neal G
      
      What a fantastic resource!
      
      						Ralph C
      
      It's a pretty cheep troubleshooting tool with and unlimited
      resource of personal knowledge.
      
      						Bruce G
      
      A full house of Info & Ideas...
      
      						Ellery B
      
      I really enjoy the Piet list.
      
      						Steven D
      
      The Lists are an indispensable resource for those of us 
      building OBAM aircraft.
      						Bret S
      
      ..a great service.
      
      						Frank D
      
      ..all in all it is a great resource if you ask specific 
      questions.
      						Richard S
      
      Your list has really helped me in my first build.
      
      						Michael W
      
      Always a pleasure to support this great resource...
      
      						Richard W
      
      I enjoy the lists very much, they are very beneficial.
      
      						Bob L
      
      Great place to chat with other builders and Flyers.
      
      						Ellery B
      
      Your lists are a great service to builders and owners!
      
      						Richard D
      
      
      A real good place for someone that is starting to get
      interested into flying without investing any money at 
      first.
      						Ellery B
      
      The list has been an great help to my building process.
      
      						David B
      
      I'm close to finishing my Zenith 601 thanks to you and 
      the Zenith List.
      
      						Jeff D
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 26, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Make Sure You're Listed!  List of Contributors Published
      Dec 1!
      
      
      Dear Listers, 
      
      The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner!  On December 1st I post
      a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists.
      Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their
      appreciation for the Lists. 
      
      As a number of people have pointed out in their Contribution comments, these Lists
      seems at least as valuable of a building/flying/recreating tool as a typical
      your magazine subscription!  And how interactive is a magazine, after all?
      
      
      Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC?  Tell others
      that you appreciate the Lists.  Making a Contribution to support the Lists
      is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: 
      
             http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: 
      
      	Matronics / Matt Dralle 
      	PO Box 347 
      	Livermore CA 94551-0347 
      	USA 
      	(Please include your email address on the check!) 
      
      I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
      far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
      these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment
      about how the Lists have helped you! 
      
      Thank you! 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 27, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
[Please Read] What are "The Lists" and Who's This Matt Dralle?
      
      
      Dear Listers, 
      
      Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists?  Well, I've been working in
      the information technology industry for nearly 25 years primarily in computer
      networking design and implementation.  I have also done extensive work in web
      development and CGI design during that time, along with some embedded system
      development as well. 
      
      I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders
      from around the world.  Since that time, I have added 63 other kinds of aircraft
      related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such
      as the Forums, Wiki, Archives and Search Engine just to name a few. 
      
      For flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here
      locally. Other List-related systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network
      infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter,
      a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial-grade business T1 Internet
      connection with full static addressing. 
      
      The computer servers found here include a quad-processor Xeon Linux server for
      List web services, a dual-processor Xeon Linux system dedicated to the email processing
      List functions, and another P4 Linux system serving as a remote storage
      disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line hard drive-based
      backup system with 3.2 Terra Bytes of storage!  This entire system is protected
      by three large, commercial-grade uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that
      assure the Lists are available even during a local power outage! Speaking
      of power, imagine how much electricity it takes to run all of these systems. One
      month last Summer, I had a staggering $1368 bill for electricity alone! 
      
      I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power
      feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer
      Center for the Matronics Email Lists.   Last year I added another rack to
      house the MONSTER quad-processor web system that didn't quite fit into the first
      rack!  Here's a composite photo of the List Computer Center before the addition
      of the second rack: 
      
             http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg 
      
      As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to
      providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister. 
      
      But building and running this system isn't cheap.  As I've stated before, I don't
      support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It is
      supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you...
      and YOU! 
      
      To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make
      a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding
      system.  Its solely YOUR Contributions that keeps it running! 
      
      Won't you please take a moment to make a Contribution to support these Lists! 
      
             http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: 
      
             Matronics / Matt Dralle 
             PO Box 347 
             Livermore CA 94551-0347 
             USA 
      
             (Please include your email address on the check!) 
      
      There are some great gifts available with qualifying Contribution levels too! 
      
      
      Thank you! 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 28, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Wow! A Ton of Comments!
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      I've been getting a ton of great comments from Listers along with their List Support
      Contributions lately!  I've shared a bunch more below.  Please read over
      some of them and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums.
      
      There are just a couple more days left before the official end of this year's Fund
      Raiser.  Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade
      and operation of these services.
      
      There are still lots of awesome gifts available, so browse the extensive selection
      and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution.
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you in advance for your generous support!  It is very much appreciated!
      
      Best regards,
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
      ----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists -----------
      
      In the big picture, you are most certainly saving lives. 
      The fact that you do it at a very good level of service, 
      quality, and simplicity is just icing on the cake. We 
      all owe you a debt of gratitude.
      						Bruce M
      
      Can't go a single day without reading my lists.  Even 
      when I am overseas.
      						Terry W
      
      Best list ever. No comparison.
      						Johann J
      
      I get the digest for the two lists I subscribe to each 
      morning -- they go great with my coffee!  I can't tell 
      you how much I've learned from this great service... 
      
      						Mark S
      
      ..great lists, best on the Net!
      						Robert S
      
      It is very nice to enjoy a SPAM free list.
      						Ken L
      
      You run a great list. Makes a builder feel like there's 
      lots of help out there for the asking, and it's 
      appreciated.
      						Steve T
      
      The list is a very valuable resource.
      						Thomas S
      
      You run a good list.
      						James G
      
      Thanks for a great forum.
      						Jimmy Y
      
      Thanks for a well-maintained list(s).
      						Michael M
      
      Great job!  Worth every penny!
      						Stephen T
      
      Helps me learn and think about issues I didn't know I
      didn't know.
      						Martin H
      
      I find the list very useful...
      						Robert F
      
      What you do provides me with daily contact with a passion 
      of my life, aviation.
      						Wendell M
      
      ..the list it is very valuable information.
      						Dwayne H
      
      ..a great service to homebuilders.
      						Andrew H
      
      I have learned quite a lot from reading the Forums.  I 
      have been reading at the forum pages and I like the way 
      it works.
      						Ron L
      
      [The List] makes a builder feel like there's lots of 
      help out there for the asking, and it's appreciated.
      	
      						Steve T
      
      The list service many purposes, not the least of which is 
      motivation to join my fellow RVer in completing my project 
      and getting in the air.
      						John S
      
      Thanks for running a great site.  Its simplicity is its
      greatness.  Don't know how I would have been successful
      without it.
      						Timothy F
      
      ..terrific service to experimental and general aviation.
      
      						James F
      
      You have a well run operation.  I am happy to support what
      you do.		
      						Mark S
      
      A wonderful service to the GA community.
      						David M
      
      Great list - let's keep it ad-free!
      						Ben C
      
      They have been of great help, learning and friendship 
      for all the members Worldwide.  Great job of yours, a 
      little idea that grew really big and wonderful.
      
      						Gary G
      
      ..a thoroughly enjoyable and informative List.
      
      						John W
      
      A GREAT LEARNING TOOL!!
      						Dwayne Y
      
      This is a very well-run list and it is a valuable resource
      for the Pietenpol enthusiast.
      						Graham H
      
      Thanks for running this great site - helps those of
      us on the east of the pond keep in touch.
      						Malcolm H
      
      Thanks for the major contribution to my continuing
      education program.
      						Oldbob S
      
      I'm just getting started in the building process & find
      Matronics to be the most valuable site.
      						Scott D
      
      Without the information and encouragement from the listers 
      my project would have been sitting in the corner of my shop 
      collecting dust long ago.  Now it's almost ready for final 
      assemble and covering.
      						Edward G
      
      Great List.  No Ads, just RV-10 builders.  Keep it
      going.
      						Rick E
      
      Wonderful source of info for building & flying...
      
      						Graham H
      
      The Yak-list is a superb single source to get answers to
      questions on the operation of these aircraft.
      						Craig W
      
      This list is valuable to everyone and your hard work is 
      very much appreciated.
      						Jim S
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"E. D. Eliot" <gr8pugs(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
Wow! A Ton of Comments!
Date: 
Nov 28, 2007
      
      
      Matt  - I don't use your lists because I am not really computer literate an
      d can't figure out how to simply go to your sites and view the recent posts
      .  I don't want my computer loaded up with posts so I don't get them from y
      ou any more.  If you want to tell me how to sign on and then view posts on 
      your lists (as I can do with the other net) then please advise me how to se
      t up my computer to do that.  If that isn;t possible then you may remove me
       from all of the lists that I signed up for as I don't use them.  Thanks, E
      d Eliot> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:28:39 -0800> To: engines-list@matronics.
      com> From: dralle(at)matronics.com> Subject: Engines-List: Wow! A Ton of Comme
      om>> > Dear Listers,> > I've been getting a ton of great comments from List
      ers along with their List Support Contributions lately! I've shared a bunch
       more below. Please read over some of them and see what your fellow Listers
       think of the Lists and Forums.> > There are just a couple more days left b
      efore the official end of this year's Fund Raiser. Please make a Contributi
      on today to support the continued upgrade and operation of these services.>
       > There are still lots of awesome gifts available, so browse the extensive
       selection and pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution.>
       > http://www.matronics.com/contribution> > Thank you in advance for your g
      enerous support! It is very much appreciated!> > Best regards,> > Matt Dral
      le> Matronics Email List Administrator> > > ----------- What Listers Are Sa
      ying About The Lists -----------> > In the big picture, you are most certai
      nly saving lives. > The fact that you do it at a very good level of service
      , > quality, and simplicity is just icing on the cake. We > all owe you a d
      ebt of gratitude.> Bruce M> > Can't go a single day without reading my list
      s. Even > when I am overseas.> Terry W> > Best list ever. No comparison.> J
      ohann J> > I get the digest for the two lists I subscribe to each > morning
       -- they go great with my coffee! I can't tell > you how much I've learned 
      from this great service... > > Mark S> > ..great lists, best on the Net!> R
      obert S> > It is very nice to enjoy a SPAM free list.> Ken L> > You run a g
      reat list. Makes a builder feel like there's > lots of help out there for t
      he asking, and it's > appreciated.> Steve T> > The list is a very valuable 
      resource.> Thomas S> > You run a good list.> James G> > Thanks for a great 
      forum.> Jimmy Y> > Thanks for a well-maintained list(s).> Michael M> > Grea
      t job! Worth every penny!> Stephen T> > Helps me learn and think about issu
      es I didn't know I> didn't know.> Martin H> > I find the list very useful..
      .> Robert F> > What you do provides me with daily contact with a passion > 
      of my life, aviation.> Wendell M> > ..the list it is very valuable informat
      ion.> Dwayne H> > ..a great service to homebuilders.> Andrew H> > I have le
      arned quite a lot from reading the Forums. I > have been reading at the for
      um pages and I like the way > it works.> Ron L> > [The List] makes a builde
      r feel like there's lots of > help out there for the asking, and it's appre
      ciated.> > Steve T> > The list service many purposes, not the least of whic
      h is > motivation to join my fellow RVer in completing my project > and get
      ting in the air.> John S> > Thanks for running a great site. Its simplicity
       is its> greatness. Don't know how I would have been successful> without it
      .> Timothy F> > ..terrific service to experimental and general aviation.> >
       James F> > You have a well run operation. I am happy to support what> you 
      do. > Mark S> > A wonderful service to the GA community.> David M> > Great 
      list - let's keep it ad-free!> Ben C> > They have been of great help, learn
      ing and friendship > for all the members Worldwide. Great job of yours, a >
       little idea that grew really big and wonderful.> > Gary G> > ..a thoroughl
      y enjoyable and informative List.> > John W> > A GREAT LEARNING TOOL!!> Dwa
      yne Y> > This is a very well-run list and it is a valuable resource> for th
      e Pietenpol enthusiast.> Graham H> > Thanks for running this great site - h
      elps those of> us on the east of the pond keep in touch.> Malcolm H> > Than
      ks for the major contribution to my continuing> education program.> Oldbob 
      S> > I'm just getting started in the building process & find> Matronics to 
      be the most valuable site.> Scott D> > Without the information and encourag
      ement from the listers > my project would have been sitting in the corner o
      f my shop > collecting dust long ago. Now it's almost ready for final > ass
      emble and covering.> Edward G> > Great List. No Ads, just RV-10 builders. K
      eep it> going.> Rick E> > Wonderful source of info for building & flying...
      > > Graham H> > The Yak-list is a superb single source to get answers to> q
      uestions on the operation of these aircraft.> Craig W> > This list is valua
      ble to everyone and your hard work is > very much appreciated.> Jim S> > > 
      ==> > > 
      _________________________________________________________________
      Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.Download today it's FREE
      !
      http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_sharelife_1120
      07
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 29, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Just Two Days Left...
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      There are just a couple days left for this year's List Fund Raiser.  Over all,
      participation has been good, but things have been pretty slow this week for some
      reason.  If you've been putting off making your Contribution until the last
      minute, this is it!  The last minute, that is... :-)
      
      Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
      and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
      during this Fund Raiser. 
      
      Please make a Contribution today! 
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution 
      
      Thank you! 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Nov 30, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
[Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser!
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      Its November 30th and that means a couple of things.  Its my 44th birthday for
      one, but I'm trying to forget about that...  But, it also means that its that
      last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser!  
      
      If you been drooling over one of the really sweet free gifts that are available
      this year with a qualifying Contribution, then now is the time to jump on one!!
      
      
      If you've been meaning to make a Contribution, but just keep putting it off, then
      now is the time!
      
      I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
      to be known as a person that supported the Lists!  Rather than the guy that,
      er, ah, forgot (or whatever)... :-)
      
      I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so far this
      year in support of our Lists.  It is your generosity that keeps this operation
      a float and I don't ever forget it.  Hopefully everyone will feel the same.
      
      
      The List Contribution page is fast and easy.  Please support our habit by making
      your Contribution right now:
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      Thank you all in advance!
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300
From: 
"mikef" <mikefapex(at)gmail.com>
Date: 
Dec 05, 2007
      
      
      Ray,
      
      Can you give us an idea of how LOUD that Suzuki/Raven is as a combination? 
      Can you sit in the cockpit without headphones?  Do headphones do a good job of
      making things quiet and comfortable?
      
      Thanks,
      
      Mike
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150640#150640
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Dec 05, 2007
From: 
"Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com>
Subject: 
Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300
      
      Sorry Mike, never flown that engine personally. It would of course depend
      on what plane too.
      
         As for me, I would not pilot any plane without my headphones.  I
      just like things a quiet as possible and I like in-flight music.
      
      Tracy
      
      On Dec 5, 2007 4:10 PM, mikef  wrote:
      
      >
      > Ray,
      >
      > Can you give us an idea of how LOUD that Suzuki/Raven is as a combination?
      > Can you sit in the cockpit without headphones?  Do headphones do a good
      > job of making things quiet and comfortable?
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Mike
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150640#150640
      >
      >
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Dec 06, 2007
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Matronics List Fund Raiser - 2007 List of Contributors
      
      
      Dear Listers, 
      
      I would like to thank everyone that made a Contribution in support of the Lists
      this year!  It was really nice to hear all great comments people had regarding
      the Lists!  As I have said many times before, running these Lists is a labor
      of love.  Your generosity during the List Fund Raiser underscores the great sentiments
      people have made regarding the Lists. 
      
      If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser please
      feel free to do so.  The great List Fund Raiser gifts will be available on
      the Contribution site for just a little while longer, so hurry and make your
      Contribution and get your great gift!  Once again, the URL for the Contribution
      web site is: 
      
               http://www.matronics.com/contribution
      
      
      I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of discounted merchandise.  These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products.  Thank you Andy, Jon and Bob!!  Your support is very much appreciated! 
      
      And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2007 List of Contributors current
      as of 12/6/07!  Have a look at this list of names as these are the people
      that make all of these List services possible!  I can't thank each of you enough
      for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser! 
      
      THANK YOU! 
      
               http://www.matronics.com/loc/2007.html
      
      
      I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and hope to have
      everything out by the end of the month.  In most cases, gifts will be shipped
      via US Postal Service.
      
      Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful! 
      
      Best regards, 
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jkrowe.1(at)netzero.net" <jkrowe.1(at)netzero.net>
Date: 
Dec 09, 2007
Subject: 
E-Mag & P-Mag Reliability
      
      I am about ready to order my engine and considering using an E-mag and P
      -mag instead of slick mags.  I was wanting to see if anybody has comment
      s about how they like them and if they have had any problems.  I talked 
      to someone this weekend and they said they heard that they have had some
       bugs and concerned about the reliability.  I would aprreciate any input
      .
      Thanks,
      Jason
      
      _____________________________________________________________
      Security Camera for your small business. Click Now!
      http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4tTgAVvLfYvFW35tkhL
      xc9kWhjAMPFvCWUkH8CPM47WjESEZ/
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
Subaru
Date: 
Dec 29, 2007
      
      
      I just got a call from an old flying buddy. We were on the same squadron in
      1965. His son is parting a Subaru and wonders if someone wants the engine -
      good shape for what it's worth. Unfamiliar with the endeavour, so not sure
      if these are rebuilt for homebuilt aircraft.
      	Would that mean anything to people? Otherwise it's into the dump.
      Season's compliments,
      Ferg Kyle, Europa monowheel
      VE3LVO(at)rac.ca
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: 
Re: Subaru
Date: 
Dec 29, 2007
      
      
      Some people are. There is even a Yahoo group about it.  Where is the engine?
      What condition?  Are all the computers, wiring harnesses and etc available?
      
      David
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
      Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 10:58 AM
      Subject: Engines-List: Subaru
      
      
      >
      > I just got a call from an old flying buddy. We were on the same squadron
      in
      > 1965. His son is parting a Subaru and wonders if someone wants the
      engine -
      > good shape for what it's worth. Unfamiliar with the endeavour, so not sure
      > if these are rebuilt for homebuilt aircraft.
      > Would that mean anything to people? Otherwise it's into the dump.
      > Season's compliments,
      > Ferg Kyle, Europa monowheel
      > VE3LVO(at)rac.ca
      >
      >
      > -- 
      12/28/2007 11:51 AM
      >
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Ford Model A aero mod?
From: 
"MF" <ferrari(at)lakenet.com>
Date: 
Jan 04, 2008
      
      
      Hi,
      I am working on a Pietenpol Aircamper and in my search for Ford Model A motor to
      power it with I came across sort of a strange motor.  It is an air/oil cooled
      Model A conversion.  I got a copy of an old article from a guy that was published
      back in the 1960's and, based on pictures in the article, it looks like
      this motor might be a Claude Sessions conversion from the 1930's.  Claude Sessions,
      who was from Illinois, turned the modification over to Lightening Aircraft
      Motor Company of St. Paul, MN.  They then passed it on to Universal Aircraft
      of Ft. Worth, TX.  That seems to be the only trace of history I can find on
      this thing.
      Anyone out there ever hear of anything like this?  
      I'm interested in the history of the motor and what it was used on and if this
      was a successful engine or a flop.
      
      Thanks,
      
      Matt
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155989#155989
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: 
Re: Ford Model A aero mod?
Date: 
Jan 05, 2008
      
      
      Matt
      
      This will seem like it coming from left field but might you consider a 
      redrive VW as a engine for your Pietenpol? My understanding is that the 
      Pietenpol is the ultimate experimental. It has had any number of engines 
      with low cost being the general theme. I have a friend that has a 
      continental powered Pietenpol and is helping another friend finish a Ford 
      powered Pietenpol. We have discussed the redrive VW and it looks like a good 
      match for the plane. It might be a bit overpowered and light but that isn't 
      usually a problem in aviation.
      
      I have a Kolb MKIIIC with a Redrive VW and it is a wonderful low-cost power 
      plant. There are a bunch of WWI replica airplanes that are using the redrive 
      VWs and they have been very happy with the cost, power and reliability.
      
      Just thought you might find this interesting.
      
      Rick Neilsen
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "MF" <ferrari(at)lakenet.com>
      Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:16 PM
      Subject: Engines-List: Ford Model A aero mod?
      
      
      >
      > Hi,
      > I am working on a Pietenpol Aircamper and in my search for Ford Model A 
      > motor to power it with I came across sort of a strange motor.  It is an 
      > air/oil cooled Model A conversion.  I got a copy of an old article from a 
      > guy that was published back in the 1960's and, based on pictures in the 
      > article, it looks like this motor might be a Claude Sessions conversion 
      > from the 1930's.  Claude Sessions, who was from Illinois, turned the 
      > modification over to Lightening Aircraft Motor Company of St. Paul, MN. 
      > They then passed it on to Universal Aircraft of Ft. Worth, TX.  That seems 
      > to be the only trace of history I can find on this thing.
      > Anyone out there ever hear of anything like this?
      > I'm interested in the history of the motor and what it was used on and if 
      > this was a successful engine or a flop.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Matt
      >
      >
      > Read this topic online here:
      >
      > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155989#155989
      >
      >
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Ford Model A aero mod?
Date: 
Jan 05, 2008
      
      
      A VW won't be overpowered on a Pietenpol :-)
      JimC
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
      Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 11:48 AM
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford Model A aero mod?
      
      
      > It might be a bit overpowered and light but that isn't 
      > usually a problem in aviation.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Jan 05, 2008
From: 
Dan Rogers <drogers(at)maf.org>
Subject: 
Re: Ford Model A aero mod?
      
      
      I know several guys who have flown or will fly a Pietenpol with a 
      Corvair.  Seems to work great!
      
      Dan
      
      jrc wrote:
      > 
      > A VW won't be overpowered on a Pietenpol :-)
      > JimC
      > 
      > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" 
      > 
      > To: 
      > Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 11:48 AM
      > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ford Model A aero mod?
      > 
      > 
      >> It might be a bit overpowered and light but that isn't usually a 
      >> problem in aviation.
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Ford Model A aero mod?
From: 
"MF" <ferrari(at)lakenet.com>
Date: 
Jan 08, 2008
      
      
      Thanks to all for your replies.  
      I have had a couple of Ford guys contact me off the forum.  I have some info on
      the way regarding this type of conversion and if I learn anything good I'll post
      it here.
      I'm pretty sure I want to go with the Ford.  I saw a Ford powered Piet years ago
      and filed that away in the gotta-have-one-someday box.  The motor I picked up
      is interesting from a historical and mechanical perspective but I intend to
      go with the more traditional Ford conversion.  I think I'll go through this air/oil
      cooled motor to see what makes it go, but I don't think I'll fly it.  If
      any of you think of anything else, I'm all ears.  
      
      Thanks again!
      
      Matt
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156830#156830
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300
From: 
"Bryan Ekholm" <bryanekholm(at)excite.com>
Date: 
Jan 29, 2008
      
      
      Ray,
      
      Does Raven supply the motor mount for the 701 or did you have to fabricate you
      own?  What cowl are you using?
      
      Bryan Ekholm
      
      --------
      Bryan Ekholm
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161055#161055
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300
From: 
"kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net>
Date: 
Jan 29, 2008
      
      
      Raven has engine mounts available.
      
      --------
      Kevin
      N701DZ Reserved
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161213#161213
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Feb 03, 2008
From: 
Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net>
Subject: 
Homebrew Injection Systems, Steep Approaches
      
      
      Hi alternate engine aficiondos,
      
      Thanks for recommending some interesting web sites.  There is no shortage
      of ideas out there.  I will be using a homebrew, constant flow injection
      system with no electronics. The core idea came from the book "Jungle Pilot" by
      Nate Saint. Three power settings will do the job --- takeoff, cruise, and approach.
      A blip-switch on the stick will enable zero thrust operations.  A
      light wooden propeller on a high compression engine will quit turning if the pilot
      slows it too much.  Mustn't let that happen.
      
      A little open cockpit parasol monoplane (Pietenpol) peels off into a steep slip
      to clear the tall spruce trees guarding a river gravel bar where the king salmon
      run.  Brppp, brppp, brppp sounds are trumpeting from the short Allison
      style stacks.  How cool is that?  Not much vertical surface aft of
      the aerodynamic center, large control surfaces, ignition interrupt to zero thrust
      -- the Piet can descend fast enough to get in plenty of trouble...don't let
      it bite you.
      
      Happy landings,
      
      Mike Fisher
      Talkeetna, Alaska
      
      Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Steep Approaches, Homebrew Injection
      Got any more details on that injection system? Sounds intriguing.
      
      Hi alternate engine aficionados,
      The injection system is only a concept at this point. Throttle body injection
      or carburetor results in wet manifold.  Intake port, multi-point injection
      keeps
      the manifold dry. --- Huge difference in Cyl. to Cyl. charge balance and icing
      resistance -- greatly favors dry manifold.  There is no need for sequential
      port injection at power settings much above an idle.   Many have adapted
      a carburetor
      to engines designed for injection.  This works better on systems that
      were originally throttle body.   I will be working on the 1.9L inverted
      Ford
      constant-flow, multi-point system whenever I get the dry sump oiling system operational.
      
      Mike Fisher
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: 
Coolant temp on a 914
Date: 
Feb 27, 2008
      
      
      Good-day,
      	In my writhing to complete the wiring for this project, I dimly
      recall the need to add a coolant temp sensor and indicator to the stack -
      and that someone had volunteered a source for same. I believe  the sensor
      lay in one of the coolant lines but not sure where.
      	I am begging for info on this topic (as I have for many before it)
      and would appreciate any reply.
      Cheers, Ferg
      PS: Am wiring in a Dynon EMS-D10 screen.
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Feb 28, 2008
From: 
Larry H <skyridersbn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: 
Re: Engines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 02/27/08
      
      I don't have an answer to your question but I might be able to steer you to a place
      that does.  Go to the "Zenith-List" on Matronics here.  That sight is VERY
      active.  I'm new so I have been monitoring this sight also.  Your post on here
      is the first one I've seen in two months of watching. Hopefully, the nice people
      over on Zenith will be more than willing to share any ideas and answers
      they might have.  
         
        Hope this helps you out.
        Larry H
      
      Engines-List Digest Server  wrote:
        *
      
      =================================================
      Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
      =================================================
      
      Today's complete Engines-List Digest can also be found in either of the 
      two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted 
      in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes 
      and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version 
      of the Engines-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor 
      such as Notepad or with a web browser. 
      
      HTML Version:
      
      http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 08-02-27&Archive=Engines
      
      Text Version:
      
      http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-02-27&Archive=Engines
      
      
      ===============================================
      EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
      ===============================================
      
      
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Engines-List Digest Archive
      ---
      Total Messages Posted Wed 02/27/08: 1
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      
      
      Today's Message Index:
      ----------------------
      
      1. 12:26 PM - Coolant temp on a 914 (Fergus Kyle)
      
      
      ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
      
      
      From: "Fergus Kyle" 
      Subject: Engines-List: Coolant temp on a 914
      
      
      Good-day,
      In my writhing to complete the wiring for this project, I dimly
      recall the need to add a coolant temp sensor and indicator to the stack -
      and that someone had volunteered a source for same. I believe the sensor
      lay in one of the coolant lines but not sure where.
      I am begging for info on this topic (as I have for many before it)
      and would appreciate any reply.
      Cheers, Ferg
      PS: Am wiring in a Dynon EMS-D10 screen.
      
      
             
      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 
Needley engine
From: 
"kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net>
Date: 
Mar 05, 2008
      
      
      Does anyone know anything about this engine? 
      http://www.needleyengines.com
      The engine on the site is 52 hp and 105ft-lbs @ 2750 and 2550rpm. But they state
      that they are working on a 4 cylinder 80 hp version. Since its a low rpm engine
      the torque should be high enough to look into for a 701.
      My question comes about, be cause the site was last updated in 2005 ,they don't
      answer the phone and their email bounces. Google searches barley bring up anything.
      I know it sound like belly up to me too, but its interesting enough to
      ask around. 
      
      Thanks
      
      Kevin
      
      --------
      Kevin
      N701DZ Reserved
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=167778#167778
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Mar 29, 2008
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Two New Lists Added to the Matronics Lineup!
      
      
      Dear Listers, 
      
      I've added two new Email Lists to the Matronics List and Forum lineup today.  These
      include the Rans-List and RV12-List.  Please surf over to the Matronics List
      Subscription page and sign up for these new Lists if they are of interest
      to you:
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
      
      Full support on the Forums, List Browse, Archives, etc. is available.
      
      Rans-List:
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rans-List
      
      RV12-List
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV12-List
      
      Best regards,
      
      Matt Dralle 
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Mike Schuler" <mike.schuler(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: 
Engine mounts
Date: 
Apr 26, 2008
      
      Is there any advantage using one type of dynafocal ring over another?
      
      I plan to install an IO-360 into a Falco.
      
      Thanks,
      
      Mike Schuler
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Apr 26, 2008
From: 
Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: Engine mounts
      
      
      Mike Schuler wrote:
      >
      > Is there any advantage using one type of dynafocal ring over another?
      >
      > I plan to install an IO-360 into a Falco.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Mike Schuler
      >
      
      Not sure what you're asking. The ring has to fit the engine. Type 1 is 
      by far the most common; type 2 was used on a few twins that had extended 
      hub props to streamline the engine nacelles better. The difference is 
      the point within the engine where the angles of the mounting bolts 
      converge to a point. It's supposed to be at the cg of the engine/prop 
      assembly.
      
      The 'ears' on the engine are cut differently for the type 1 & type 2 mounts.
      
      If you're buying a used engine, you *might* stumble upon an engine that 
      came off a twin with type 2 ears, but they are relatively rare. If 
      you're buying new, you'd probably have to beg to get one.
      
      As an example of how rare they are, Van's A/C no longer supplies type 2 
      mounts for their kits, & they probably sell more Lyc powered kits than 
      all the other kit makers combined.
      
      Does that help?
      
      Charlie
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Apr 26, 2008
From: 
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 
Four New Email Lists At Matronics!! 
      
      
      Dear Listers,
      
      I have added four new Lists to the Matronics line up today.  These include the
      following categories:
      
      	Citabria-List		Citabria, Decathlon, Scout, and Champ
      
      	Zenith601-List		Zenair Zodiac CH 601
      
      	Zenith640-List		Zenair Zodiac CH 640
      
      	Zenith701801-List	Zenair STOL CH 701 and CH 801
      
      
      All services are enabled and now available including Search, Browse, Digest, Archives,
      Forums, Chat, etc., etc. etc...:
      
      	Citabria:
      		http://www.matronics.com/navigator?citabria-list
      
      	Zenith601:
      		http://www.matronics.com/navigator?zenith601-list
      
      	Zenith640:
      		http://www.matronics.com/navigator?zenith640-list
      
      	Zenith701801:
      		http://www.matronics.com/navigator?zenith701801-list
      
      
      To subscribe, go to the Matronics Email List Subscription Form:
      
      	http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
      
      
      To check the new Lists out on the Matronics Forum go here:
      
      	http://forums.matronics.com
      
      
      Enjoy the new Lists!!  Don't forget me during the Fund Raiser!  :-)
      
      Best regards,
      
      Matt Dralle
      Matronics Email List Administrator
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
Subject: 
crooks at Performance Engines
Date: 
Apr 30, 2008
      
      Well, it's time I go public. Ron Munson / Performance Engines has owed me
      and promised to pay me back my $20,000 deposit for over two years now. I
      read Matt Throckmorton's account of his dealings with Mike Moore and mine is
      a very similar story. Bottom line here, no matter how you slice it Ron
      Munson is a liar and a cheat and should be in jail; let alone receive any
      orders from any of us or anyone else. His "salesman" Stuart Featherstone
      falls into the same category. I've tried being nice talking with him, I've
      had an attorney send nice letters, I've had an attorney send threatening
      letters, I've had a collections agency work to get my money back. So far, no
      joy.  Apparently Ron Munson has moved his banking to Nevada while
      maintaining operations in California; making it more difficult and expensive
      to go after him. Anyone with any ideas on what to do with this crook ?? I
      have no intention of letting this go J.
      _________________
      Larry E. James 
      Bellevue, WA 
      Super Decathlon 
      Rocket (under construction)
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"David M" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: 
Re: crooks at Performance Engines
Date: 
Apr 30, 2008
      
      hire Uncle Guido.  you'll get something back, anyway.
      
      David M.
      
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Larry James 
        To: rv-list(at)matronics.com ; rocket-list(at)matronics.com ; 
      engines-list(at)matronics.com ; lancair-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:34 PM
        Subject: Engines-List: crooks at Performance Engines
      
      
        Well, it's time I go public. Ron Munson / Performance Engines has owed 
      me and promised to pay me back my $20,000 deposit for over two years 
      now. I read Matt Throckmorton's account of his dealings with Mike Moore 
      and mine is a very similar story. Bottom line here, no matter how you 
      slice it Ron Munson is a liar and a cheat and should be in jail; let 
      alone receive any orders from any of us or anyone else. His "salesman" 
      Stuart Featherstone falls into the same category. I've tried being nice 
      talking with him, I've had an attorney send nice letters, I've had an 
      attorney send threatening letters, I've had a collections agency work to 
      get my money back. So far, no joy.  Apparently Ron Munson has moved his 
      banking to Nevada while maintaining operations in California; making it 
      more difficult and expensive to go after him. Anyone with any ideas on 
      what to do with this crook ?? I have no intention of letting this go J.
        _________________
        Larry E. James 
        Bellevue, WA 
        Super Decathlon 
        Rocket (under construction)
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      
      
        Checked by AVG. 
      4/29/2008 6:27 PM
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 
Apr 30, 2008
From: 
Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: 
Re: crooks at Performance Engines
      
      Larry,
      Man! I know your pain. Not with that slime ball but with a carbon canopy rip off
      for a RV.
      Contact the better business bureau. Contact the sherrifs dept. (where you live
      and where he lives )file a robbery/theft report. If this happened over the internet
      contact the FBI. Raise hell. 
      Get his phone number and publish it. Find out if there are others like you. Gang
      up on him. Hammer away and keep hammering, make his life a living hell.
      Grab ahold of him and shake until you get your money back. Never, ever, never,
      ever quit.
      I did all of the above and more and finally got a refund, which was probably some
      other poor suckers money but...
      Mike
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Larry James <larry(at)ncproto.com> 
      Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:37 pm 
      Subject: Engines-List: crooks at Performance Engines 
      
      > Well, it's time I go public. Ron Munson / Performance Engines has 
      > owed me 
      > and promised to pay me back my $20,000 deposit for over two years 
      > now. I 
      > read Matt Throckmorton's account of his dealings with Mike Moore 
      > and mine is 
      > a very similar story. Bottom line here, no matter how you slice it Ron 
      > Munson is a liar and a cheat and should be in jail; let alone 
      > receive any 
      > orders from any of us or anyone else. His "salesman" Stuart 
      > Featherstonefalls into the same category. I've tried being nice 
      > talking with him, I've 
      > had an attorney send nice letters, I've had an attorney send 
      > threateningletters, I've had a collections agency work to get my 
      > money back. So far, no 
      > joy.  Apparently Ron Munson has moved his banking to Nevada while 
      > maintaining operations in California; making it more difficult and 
      > expensiveto go after him. Anyone with any ideas on what to do with 
      > this crook ?? I 
      > have no intention of letting this go J. 
      > _________________ 
      > Larry E. James 
      > Bellevue, WA 
      > Super Decathlon 
      > Rocket (under construction) 
      > 
      > 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
"Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 
Re: crooks at Performance Engines
Date: 
Apr 30, 2008
      
      Put a add on barnstormers,under light sport and expermental.... ,that 
      good for openers,but most of all NEVER let  the a-hole up !!!   get your 
      money back   .Barnstormers.com             Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Michael Ice 
        To: engines-list(at)matronics.com 
        Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:35 PM
        Subject: Re: Engines-List: crooks at Performance Engines
      
      
        Larry,
      
        Man! I know your pain. Not with that slime ball but with a carbon 
      canopy rip off for a RV.
      
        Contact the better business bureau. Contact the sherrifs dept. (where 
      you live and where he lives )file a robbery/theft report. If this 
      happened over the internet contact the FBI. Raise hell. 
      
        Get his phone number and publish it. Find out if there are others like 
      you. Gang up on him. Hammer away and keep hammering, make his life a 
      living hell.
      
        Grab ahold of him and shake until you get your money back. Never, 
      ever, never, ever quit.
      
        I did all of the above and more and finally got a refund, which was 
      probably some other poor suckers money but...
      
        Mike
      
      
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Larry James <larry(at)ncproto.com> 
        Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:37 pm 
        Subject: Engines-List: crooks at Performance Engines 
        To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rocket-list(at)matronics.com, 
      engines-list(at)matronics.com, lancair-list(at)matronics.com 
      
        > Well, it's time I go public. Ron Munson / Performance Engines has 
        > owed me 
        > and promised to pay me back my $20,000 deposit for over two years 
        > now. I 
        > read Matt Throckmorton's account of his dealings with Mike Moore 
        > and mine is 
        > a very similar story. Bottom line here, no matter how you slice it 
      Ron 
        > Munson is a liar and a cheat and should be in jail; let alone 
        > receive any 
        > orders from any of us or anyone else. His "salesman" Stuart 
        > Featherstonefalls into the same category. I've tried being nice 
        > talking with him, I've 
        > had an attorney send nice letters, I've had an attorney send 
        > threateningletters, I've had a collections agency work to get my 
        > money back. So far, no 
        > joy.  Apparently Ron Munson has moved his banking to Nevada while 
        > maintaining operations in California; making it more difficult and 
        > expensiveto go after him. Anyone with any ideas on what to do with 
        > this crook ?? I 
        > have no intention of letting this go J. 
        > _________________ 
        > Larry E. James 
        > Bellevue, WA 
        > Super Decathlon 
        > Rocket (under construction) 
        > 
        > 
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
Joemotis(at)aol.com
Date: 
Apr 30, 2008
Subject: 
Re: crooks at Performance Engines
      
      Is this the company?
      
      NO ARCHIVE
      
      Joe Motis
      
      Contact
      
      Performance Engines Inc.
      1935 McKinley Ave Ste C
      La Verne, CA 91750
      
      Phone (909)  593-5008
      Fax (909) 593-3774
      e-mail _info(at)PerformanceEngines.com_ (mailto:info(at)PerformanceEngines.com) 
      
      
      Customer Support
      We are  experiencing an overwhelming amount of phone calls and questions. 
      Your business  is very important to us and in the interest of serving you better
      
      and answering  your questions regarding delivery dates, special requests and 
      scheduleing in a  precise and timely manner, we ask that you send your 
      questions in an e-mail to  _info(at)PerformanceEngines.com_ 
      (mailto:info(at)PerformanceEngines.com) . We  promise to respond to all inquiries within 24 hours.
      
      Thank you for your  understanding,
      Stuart Featherstone,
      Sales Manager
      
      
      **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
      listings at AOL Autos.      
      (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 
steve korney <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 
crooks at Performance Engines
Date: 
May 01, 2008
      
      
      Yes.... That's Ron Munson on the far left.....
      
      Best... Steve
      
      From: Joemotis(at)aol.com
      Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:10:28 -0400
      Subject: Re: Engines-List: crooks at Performance Engines
      
      
      Is this the company?
      
      NO ARCHIVE
      
      Joe Motis
      
      Contact
      
      Performance Engines Inc.
      1935 McKinley Ave Ste C
      La Verne, CA 91750
      

---

March 21, 2007 - May 02, 2008

Engines-Archive.digest.vol-aq

---