Engines-Archive.digest.vol-ar
May 02, 2008 - - - - , 20-
Phone (909)
593-5008
Fax (909) 593-3774
e-mail info(at)PerformanceEngines.com
Customer Support
We are
experiencing an overwhelming amount of phone calls and questions. Your busi
ness
is very important to us and in the interest of serving you better and answe
ring
your questions regarding delivery dates, special requests and scheduleing i
n a
precise and timely manner, we ask that you send your questions in an e-mail
to
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 A
OL Autos.
_________________________________________________________________
Spell a grand slam in this game where word skill meets World Series. Get in
the game.
http://club.live.com/word_slugger.aspx?icid=word_slugger_wlhm_admod_april
08
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List: RE: the money you owe me |
Dale,
Thank you and right on !!!! The support I am seeing and hearing on this
puts a big smile on my face and in my chest. Thank you.
This was the only correspondence I've had from Performance to date and
nothing has yet been done. I have more in the hopper and you are right
Dale; it will explode soon unless it is rectified straight away.
Larry
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale Walter
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: the money you owe me
Stuart,
You need to help your company succeed. Find the strengths and build on them.
Be honest about the weaknesses and work to resolve them. If you ask people
for help, in an honest way, many would lend a hand. Larry did, and what did
you and your team do for him? This will bring out all the lurkers, there
will be no more hiding. I too have worked with ex cons, and I did my best to
get them on the right path. Do the right thing; before this explodes. Ask
your management team to send him $100 a week or even $50 and see the
difference in public support.
We want good engine builders,
Dale
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry James
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:22 PM
Subject: RV-List: RE: the money you owe me
Hi Stuart,
The very fact that you are asking this speaks volumes.
The Performance Engines website calls you the Sales Manager. Holding this
position in the company and taking no action to remedy the situation defines
you as complicit. So where is my money ???
Larry E. James
425-885-1200
800-783-9782
From: SFeatherstone [mailto:stuart(at)performanceengines.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: the money you owe me
Larry,
Would you kindly explain.
If I do not own any part of Performance Engines.
And.
I make no financial decisions regarding any part of Performance Engines.
And.
The information provided to me comes only from the owner of Performance
Engines.
How exactly did I become a crook?
Thank you,
Stuart Featherstone
_____
From: Larry James [mailto:larry(at)ncproto.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 1:09 PM
Cc: 'Sara Halcomb'
Subject: the money you owe me
Importance: High
Ron and Stuart,
My public attack exposing you and your crooked business is quickly spinning
up. Within the last 1-1/2 days you have lost 3 engine sales that I am aware
of and directly responsible for. It seems people are reluctant to deal with
you because you don't return deposits for engines when you don't deliver
those engines. I am just getting started.
If you wish to control damage you can overnight me a check for the full
amount you owe me. I will not slow or halt my work exposing you until all
funds have cleared my bank.
Larry E. James
New Concepts
Redmond, WA
425-885-1200
800-783-9782
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry |
Hello all:
We're overhauling a C-145 Cont. in our EAA affiliated Flying Club
airplane.
Our Lifter bodies (cam followers?) are in near perfect shape including
the faces which engage the cam.
We want to just lightly touch the lifter faces for renewal.
Could someone please advise what coarseness (grit?) of stone or wheel
would be appropriate for this?
We have run a dial indicator over the face and it is not flat. The
center of the face is 3 to 5 thousandths higher than the edge.
This appears to be a straight, rather than radius (concave?) cut across
the lifter face. Do we have that right?
Can anyone advise what are the Continental specifications for renewing
the lifter face? Angles etc.
We have a lot of machine shop capability. Any help is greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
Chapter 163 flying club.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry |
You need someone that knows what they are doing. Regular engine
shops/repair stations such as One Stop or Lycon in CA can do a fine
job for you on inspecting/machining/certifying the major parts you
want to reuse.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Randy L. Thwing wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> We're overhauling a C-145 Cont. in our EAA affiliated Flying Club airplane.
>
> Our Lifter bodies (cam followers?) are in near perfect shape including the
> faces which engage the cam.
>
> We want to just lightly touch the lifter faces for renewal.
>
> Could someone please advise what coarseness (grit?) of stone or wheel would
> be appropriate for this?
>
> We have run a dial indicator over the face and it is not flat. The center
> of the face is 3 to 5 thousandths higher than the edge.
>
> This appears to be a straight, rather than radius (concave?) cut across the
> lifter face. Do we have that right?
>
> Can anyone advise what are the Continental specifications for renewing the
> lifter face? Angles etc.
>
> We have a lot of machine shop capability. Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy, Las Vegas
>
> Chapter 163 flying club.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OIL CARTRIDGE/REVMASTER |
| From: | "60231" <kopecky(at)milwpc.com> |
Hi Folks!
I'm new to this site and hope that someone can help me. I own a Kitfox Classic
IV with a Revmaster R2100D engine. I'm looking for a cartridge filter to fit
my oil filter cooler. Thus far I'm using FRAM oil filters and they work just
great, but I'm trying to restore the engine to its original state. Revmaster
has no replacement parts. Anyone know what I'm talking about and can help?
If I find out how to add an attachment I'll do that next time around.
Thanks.
LPK
Kitfox
--------
LPK
Kitfox Classic IV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=187039#187039
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry |
Those surfaces are originally ground, at I believe, a 3deg angle
to facilitate rotation. I have a fully equipped racing engine shop,
but normally send them out to a shop already set up to do them.
Cheaper than doing them ourselves.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry
Hello all:
We're overhauling a C-145 Cont. in our EAA affiliated Flying Club
airplane.
Our Lifter bodies (cam followers?) are in near perfect shape including
the faces which engage the cam.
We want to just lightly touch the lifter faces for renewal.
Could someone please advise what coarseness (grit?) of stone or wheel
would be appropriate for this?
We have run a dial indicator over the face and it is not flat. The
center of the face is 3 to 5 thousandths higher than the edge.
This appears to be a straight, rather than radius (concave?) cut
across the lifter face. Do we have that right?
Can anyone advise what are the Continental specifications for renewing
the lifter face? Angles etc.
We have a lot of machine shop capability. Any help is greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
Chapter 163 flying club.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry |
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
Do NOT grind a conical taper on the lifters. They are ground with a 30
inch spherical radius. If they are not pitted I would not touch them
with anything except assembly lube. If they have any pitting whatsoever
they should be replaced and the camshaft ground. Aircraft Specialties
Services in Tulsa does excellent work. Their phone is
918-836-6872.
Monty Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Archie
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry
Those surfaces are originally ground, at I believe, a 3deg angle
to facilitate rotation. I have a fully equipped racing engine shop,
but normally send them out to a shop already set up to do them.
Cheaper than doing them ourselves.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing <mailto:n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Cont. C-145 lifter body, end geometry
Hello all:
We're overhauling a C-145 Cont. in our EAA affiliated Flying
Club airplane.
Our Lifter bodies (cam followers?) are in near perfect shape
including the faces which engage the cam.
We want to just lightly touch the lifter faces for renewal.
Could someone please advise what coarseness (grit?) of stone or
wheel would be appropriate for this?
We have run a dial indicator over the face and it is not flat.
The center of the face is 3 to 5 thousandths higher than the edge.
This appears to be a straight, rather than radius (concave?) cut
across the lifter face. Do we have that right?
Can anyone advise what are the Continental specifications for
renewing the lifter face? Angles etc.
We have a lot of machine shop capability. Any help is greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
Chapter 163 flying club.
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 |
Dear Listers,
What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical Lycoming engine?
In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400 engine designed
around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks pretty nice. At $30,000
new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming IO-390 solutions and, if you believe
the Superior mantra, a better designed engine in general.
What is the real-world quality and reliability of Superior-built engines?
Has anyone flown behind one of these new XP-400s?
Has anyone Dyno'd the XP-400 to prove the 220hp claim?
XP-400 Information: http://www.xp-360.com/index.asp?content=14
Avweb Article: http://www.avweb.com/news/motorhead/189629-1.html?type=pf
Thanks for your insight!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 # 82880
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 |
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
BPE has dyno tested the XP-400 engine.
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 Matt
Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:36 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
Dear Listers,
What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical
Lycoming engine?
In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400
engine designed around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks
pretty nice. At $30,000 new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming IO-390
solutions and, if you believe the Superior mantra, a better designed
engine in general.
What is the real-world quality and reliability of Superior-built
engines?
Has anyone flown behind one of these new XP-400s?
Has anyone Dyno'd the XP-400 to prove the 220hp claim?
XP-400 Information: http://www.xp-360.com/index.asp?content=14
Avweb Article:
http://www.avweb.com/news/motorhead/189629-1.html?type=pf
Thanks for your insight!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 # 82880
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 |
Hi Monty,
Well, that's cool. Please share the results!
Matt
At 09:49 AM 7/22/2008 Tuesday, you wrote:
>
>BPE has dyno tested the XP-400 engine.
>
>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 Matt
>Dralle
>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:36 AM
>To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical
>Lycoming engine?
>
>In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400
>engine designed around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks
>pretty nice. At $30,000 new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming IO-390
>solutions and, if you believe the Superior mantra, a better designed
>engine in general.
>
>What is the real-world quality and reliability of Superior-built
>engines?
>
>Has anyone flown behind one of these new XP-400s?
>
>Has anyone Dyno'd the XP-400 to prove the 220hp claim?
>
> XP-400 Information: http://www.xp-360.com/index.asp?content=14
>
> Avweb Article:
>http://www.avweb.com/news/motorhead/189629-1.html?type=pf
>
>Thanks for your insight!
>
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 # 82880
>
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 |
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
Matt,The data is proprietary and is not mine to share. The engine is
still here for further testing and development. All I can tell you
about it is that the HP is close, but not close enough. We ran a WOT-
RPM - BHP curve, a prop load curve, and a mixture sweep with 2 different
injection systems.
The bore and stroke is 5 1/4 X 4 5/8 respectively. The compression
ratio is
8.5:1. The engineer who was working on that with SAP is no longer
there.
MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
Hi Monty,
Well, that's cool. Please share the results!
Matt
At 09:49 AM 7/22/2008 Tuesday, you wrote:
>
>BPE has dyno tested the XP-400 engine.
>
>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 Matt
>Dralle
>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:36 AM
>To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical
>Lycoming engine?
>
>In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400
>engine designed around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks
>pretty nice. At $30,000 new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming
IO-390
>solutions and, if you believe the Superior mantra, a better designed
>engine in general.
>
>What is the real-world quality and reliability of Superior-built
>engines?
>
>Has anyone flown behind one of these new XP-400s?
>
>Has anyone Dyno'd the XP-400 to prove the 220hp claim?
>
> XP-400 Information: http://www.xp-360.com/index.asp?content=14
>
> Avweb Article:
>http://www.avweb.com/news/motorhead/189629-1.html?type=pf
>
>Thanks for your insight!
>
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 # 82880
>
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390 |
The SAP site specs now show 220hp but at 8.7/1. Would that close the "not close
enough" gap?
Greg
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:56:53
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
Matt,The data is proprietary and is not mine to share. The engine is
still here for further testing and development. All I can tell you
about it is that the HP is close, but not close enough. We ran a WOT-
RPM - BHP curve, a prop load curve, and a mixture sweep with 2 different
injection systems.
The bore and stroke is 5 1/4 X 4 5/8 respectively. The compression
ratio is
8.5:1. The engineer who was working on that with SAP is no longer
there.
MB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
Hi Monty,
Well, that's cool. Please share the results!
Matt
At 09:49 AM 7/22/2008 Tuesday, you wrote:
>
>BPE has dyno tested the XP-400 engine.
>
>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 Matt
>Dralle
>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:36 AM
>To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Engines-List: Superior vs. Lycoming; XP-400 vs. IO-390
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>What is the common opinion of Superior XP engines vs. the typical
>Lycoming engine?
>
>In looking over the Superior web site, they have a new 220hp XP-400
>engine designed around the basic IO-360 Angle Valve chassis that looks
>pretty nice. At $30,000 new, its $3-4k cheaper than the Lycoming
IO-390
>solutions and, if you believe the Superior mantra, a better designed
>engine in general.
>
>What is the real-world quality and reliability of Superior-built
>engines?
>
>Has anyone flown behind one of these new XP-400s?
>
>Has anyone Dyno'd the XP-400 to prove the 220hp claim?
>
> XP-400 Information: http://www.xp-360.com/index.asp?content=14
>
> Avweb Article:
>http://www.avweb.com/news/motorhead/189629-1.html?type=pf
>
>Thanks for your insight!
>
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 # 82880
>
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aerovee engine kit ? |
Hi all,
A buddy is considering an Aerovee 2.0 engine kit for his project.
Any opinions as to the quality and reliability ?
Thanks in advance for your inputs,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Is there a word for these types of flames? |
| From: | "alice123" <tb315207995(at)yahoo.cn> |
I am seeing the words torch and jet used with lighters that have that type of "jet" flame. But I see two differnt kinds of flames and both kinda look like jets but both are different. This website www.lducompany.com has both kinds so I will use it to show you what I mean. Here is one type of flame http://www.liangdianup.com/inventory/505008.htm and the other type of flame looks stronger and looks like this http://www.liangdianup.com/inventory/509931.htm and then there is the type of lighter with a flame that I would call conventional that look like this http://www.liangdianup.com/inventory/505012.htm I have search all over the internet but have not been able to get a clear answer on the names of these different flames. Help?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197846#197846
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | culpspecial(at)yahoo.com |
| Subject: | Yahoo! Auto Response |
I am away from a computer until Sunday, September 14. I will respond to your email
at that time.
Thank you,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November! |
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation
and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's through soley through the
Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site ( http://forums.matronics.com ), Wiki site ( http://wiki.matronics.com ), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matronics.com/search ), List Browse ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisments.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every few days
reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages.
The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the
bills associated with running these lists. Your personal Contribution counts.
Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with
the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided
by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and
have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates.
This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/).
These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective
web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product
line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Andy, and Jon for their generous support
of the Lists again this year!!
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. All three methods
afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with
a qualifying Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below:
https://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years. I know it sounds a little cliche, but you guys really
do feel like family.
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Contribution Site URL Clarification |
Dear Listers,
In my List Fund Raiser kickoff email last night, I mistyped the URL for the *initial*
Contribution web site and couple of people reported receiving SSL certificate
errors. The actual payment entry pages where were correct, however, so
there were no certificate issues that impacted payment data. I'm sorry for the
confusion.
Please use the following URL to start your List Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cumins" <jcumins(at)jcis.net> |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November! |
Matt
I own an ISP in Fairfield shoot me a e-mail off list.
John G. Cumins
President
JC'S Interactive Systems
2499 B1 Martin Rd
Fairfield Ca 94533
707-425-7100
707-425-7576 Fax
Your Total Technology Solution Provider
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dralle(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 12:21 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November!
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued
operation and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's through soley
through the Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are
possible.
You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on
any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site (
http://forums.matronics.com ), Wiki site ( http://wiki.matronics.com ), or
other related pages such as the List Search Engine (
http://www.matronics.com/search ), List Browse (
http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a
List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely
Airplanes and not about annoying advertisments.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every few
days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your
patience and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these
regular messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I
have to pay all of the bills associated with running these lists. Your
personal Contribution counts.
Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along
with the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been
provided by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on
Matronics Lists and have been either donated or provided at substantially
discounted rates.
This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric
Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's
Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/).
These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their
respective web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful
aviation-related product line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Andy,
and Jon for their generous support of the Lists again this year!!
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. All
three methods afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free
gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below:
https://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND
moral support over the years. I know it sounds a little cliche, but you
guys really do feel like family.
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Raven/Suzuki 1300 |
| From: | "kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net> |
Any updates Ray?
Kevin
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211785#211785
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
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!! 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser |
A couple of years ago I implemented an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for
the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes
a
Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, he or she will instantly
cease to receive these Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its
just that simple. Don't you wish PBS worked that way! :-)
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 huge electric bill
to
keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. 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 commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet
these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites.
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
[Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution
related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages,
when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are
anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FORGED 4340 CORVAIR CRANKSHAFTS |
| From: | "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com> |
Gentlemen,
This morning at 10:00 am FedEx left with us the first and only 3 forged 4340 Corvair
crankshafts in existence that we aware of. Today is a day that will go down
in Corvair-powered aircraft history as these are one of the most important
developments for our engines. We are very excited about their long awaited arrival
and we are, so far, very pleased with the results. More information and
pictures are forthcoming this week.
For inquiring minds, as measured this morning, the main bearing journal radii are
.125", and the rod bearing journals radii are .100".
Check our website often for updates on this exciting and long-awaited project!
Thank you,
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212540#212540
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | FORGED 4340 CORVAIR CRANKSHAFTS |
Congratulations on a significant achievement.
While I fly a rotary powered Rv-6A, at Sun & Fun it's always great to see
the Corvair powered Kr-2s and other covair installations in different
airframes in the same parking area. We could use more vendors such as
yourself in the alternative engine lineup. I'm sure all corvair enthusiasts
everywhere will be pleased with this development.
Best Regards
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brady
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:00 PM
Subject: Engines-List: FORGED 4340 CORVAIR CRANKSHAFTS
Gentlemen,
This morning at 10:00 am FedEx left with us the first and only 3 forged 4340
Corvair crankshafts in existence that we aware of. Today is a day that will
go down in Corvair-powered aircraft history as these are one of the most
important developments for our engines. We are very excited about their
long awaited arrival and we are, so far, very pleased with the results.
More information and pictures are forthcoming this week.
For inquiring minds, as measured this morning, the main bearing journal
radii are .125", and the rod bearing journals radii are .100".
Check our website often for updates on this exciting and long-awaited
project!
Thank you,
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=212540#212540
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Just a quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics
Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided
for my your Contributions during this time of the year.
Your personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email
Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution |
Today!
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 dropping 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: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists |
Dear Listers,
There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums.
The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November
Fund Raiser.
Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade
of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution
too!
You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551-0347
Thank you in advance for your generous support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser Lagging Last Year By Over 30%... |
As of the 13th, the Fund Raiser is currently about 30% behind last year in terms
of the number of Contributions. Yet, oddly the number of messages posted per
day is up by 10 to 20% on the average. It costs real money to run these Lists
and they are supported 100% though your Contributions during the Fund Raiser.
Won't you please take a minute right now to make your Contribution to keep
these Lists up and running?
Contribution Page:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What's My Contribution Used For? |
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question.
Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides
for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on
the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing
List services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades
enabling the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search
Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for 19+ years worth of online archive
data available for instant random search and access. And, it offsets the
many hours spent writing, developing, and maintaining the custom applications
that power this List Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, Forums,
Wiki and PhotoShare.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your
peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation,
censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many
places on the Internet can you make all those statements these days?
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable
List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its
one of the best investments you can make in your Sport...
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Members Are Saying... |
Dear Listers,
November is the Annual Matronics List Fund Raiser. The Lists are supported solely
through your generous Contributions during this time. Please make your Contribution
today and pick up a really nice free gift at this same time:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Listers have been including some really nice comments regarding what the Lists
mean to them along with their Contributions this year. I've included a few of
them below. Please read them over and see if some perhaps echo your feelings
as well.
Thank you for your support this year!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best bargain in the entire industry!!
-Owen B
Every year your lists are better, sure #1 in e-mail list in the world.
-Gary G
Thank you for an awesome site!
-Ashley M
Your lists are important to me and well worth paying for.
-Calvin A
Thank you for providing such and informative and ad free environment
to learn by.
-Myron H
As always, a valuable and extremely useful resource.
Stephen T
As always, a great service.
-Reade G
Very much appreciate this site and the communications it has
enabled between builders.
-Larry M
This service is worth every penny.
-Robert S
Great site! Thanks a ton for its functionality!
-Peter B
The RV-10 list feels like my community.
-Dave S
The lists are fantastic, a great source!
-Jimmy Y
I've learned a lot from the List.
-Gabriel F
A wonderful resource.
-Gerald G
Well done.
-Richard N
Years of good service.
-William M
Valuable service.
-Keith H
The site is quite helpful.
-Jon M
Very interesting List that I read form the beginning.
-Alain L
A well managed site.
-Carl B
Great service.
-Svein Kare J
Still the most useful program on the computer.
-Fergus K
Great contribution to my project!
-Robert K
Thanks for keeping a great list.
-Dt G
The List continues to provide excellent information.
-Tony C
This is a wonderful resource that has easily saved me a bunch on
my build-time.
-Ralph C
Thank you for providing a great service. The Zenith builder's community
would be in sad shape without the Zenith-List's.
-Terrence P
I really do get pleasure out of reading the List every day.
-Bill V
Great source of information.
-Arthur V
Thanks for a great service. Very enjoyable.
-Louis B
You know we all could not do without your support!!
-James S
Great resource!
-Douglas D
Thanks for the great service.
-John B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Behind By 21% - Advertising May Be Needed...? |
Dear Listers,
The percentage of people making a Contribution to support the Lists this year is
currently lagging behind last year by approximately 21%! I'm hoping that everyone
is just waiting until the last minute to show their support... ;-)
Please remember that it is solely your direct Contributions that keep these Lists
up and running and most importantly - AD FREE! If the members don't want to
support the Lists directly, then I will likely have to start adding advertisements
to offset the costs of running the Lists. But I *really* don't want to
have to start doing that. I really like the non-commercial atmosphere here and
I think that a lot of the members appreciate that too.
Please take a moment to make a Contribution today in support of the continued ad-free
operation of all these Lists:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I want to send out a word of appreciation to all of the members that have already
made their generous Contribution to support the Lists! Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
we urgently buy cooling turbine 586110-7, anybody who have pls contact me by email:
tanyanfang(at)fy-ic.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215460#215460
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
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:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
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
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 $20 or $30
worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a
subscription to some lame magazine or even just a single dinner out. Isn't the
List worth at least that much to you?
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: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few More Days... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser. There are
some great gifts available when you make a qualifying Contribution and there's
plenty still available. Don't forget that its *your* Contribution that keeps
the computers running, the electricity turned on, and the computer room AC cooling!
If you look forward to reading your List email each day, won't you please take
a minute right now to make your personal Contribution?
Credit Card or Paypal:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Personal Check:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just 3 Days Left - Please Make Your List Contribution Today! |
There are only three days left until the end of this year's List Fund Raiser.
Please take a minute to show your support as so many others have this year and
make sure YOUR name is on the forthcoming List of Contributors 2008!
Its quick and easy using the secure web site with a credit card or PayPal:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by sending your personal check to:
Matronics Lists c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551-0347
(Please write your email address on the check!)
Thank you in advance for your support of these List services!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Listers Have Been Saying |
Wow! Many of the members making a List Support Contribution this year have been
using the Comments field to leave a personal message about the Lists. Thank
you! I have included a number of them below. Please read over a few and see
if you perhaps can echo some of the same sentiments regarding the value of the
Lists to you...
There is only a couple more days left for this year's List Fund Raiser and we're
still way behind previous years. If you've been waiting until the last minute
to show your support, Now is the Time! Please make your Contribution and pick
up a great gift at the same time!
By Credit Card or Paypal:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or By Personal Check:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
Thank you in advance!!
Matt Dralle
Email List and Forums Administrator
Here is some of the great feedback members have been including along with their
personal Contributions this year...
Over the years, the info I have received from the RV-List has
saved me thousands of dollars, and dozens of hours of time by
helping me avoid bad purchases, pointing me at vendors with
low prices and excellent support, and providing solutions to
the typical head scratchers that you run into.
Kevin H
Valuable service. Best List(s) on the Internet!
George A
Please accept this token not as an indicator of what
this list has been worth to me this past year.
Lew G
Great information and entertainment.
Tim V
Thanks again for another great year of service. This
project would be beyond me if it were not for the list.
Moreover, the friendships I have found are worth their
weight in GOLD!
Robert B
Great support you provide to all the subscribers!
Freddie H
Read it every day.
PF B
Thanks for your excellent management of the Matronics
Lists! Your services are head and shoulders above the
rest.
James M
Without the "List", there would be no Kolb "community".
Bill T
Thanks, Matt, for a great service! I've been monitoring
and using the lists since 1999.
Richard D
Thanks for such a terrific site and for all the work and
effort you put into it.
John R
A great service year after year.
John D
..another year of fantastic service.
Jerry B
This list is a great resource.
Arden A
Great list.
James M
Lists were a great help while building HRII N561FS.
John S
Great resources for both the beginner and experienced.
George R
Good service.
Gary G
The List is an invaluable resource!
William C
AeroElectric list is a great source of info and learning!
Janice J
Thank you, Matt for being there for us making it all happen
on the List for so many years - Great JOB!
Sam S
Thank you for providing a great venue. You definitely hit
the nail on the head with your solicitation asking if
readers look forward to receiving the email digests. I
certainly do and when I move from a dreamer to a builder, I
expect the anticipation will only increase.
Joe S
Thanks for a Perfect working list.
Hans-Peter R
Great List
Bryan K
Such a great selection of valuable forums!
David G
Nice job!
Walt E
Good resource...
Robert P
Thank you for another great year!
Scott S
I could not do this without you...
Robert D
I believe I've been a list member for over a decade
now. Thanks for the service!
Tim L
Great List
Hendrik W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
Its November 30th and that means three things:..
1) Today I am now officially 45 years old...
2) It marks that last "official" day of this year's List Fund Raiser!
3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year!
If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and
no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support
their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way
to keep the List bills paid.
I will be posting the List of Contributors next week so make sure your name is
on it!
Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly
appreciated.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List of Contributors 2008 |
Dear Listers,
This year's Fund Raiser has drawn to a close and I want to thank everyone that
so generously made a contribution this year in support of the Matronics Email
List and Forum operation. Your generosity keeps the wheels on this cart and I
truly appreciate the many kind words of encouragement and financial reimbursement.
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 a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution
today and still get your great gift! Once again, the URL for the Contribution
web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by personal check to:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP ( 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 2008 List of Contributors current
as of 12/7/08! 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/2008.html
I will be shipping out all of the gifts around the end of December. 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: | "Dennis Holbrook" <dholbrook7(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Electroair ignition |
Greetings:
I have an HIO-360-B1A installed on an RV6 with dual Electroair igns.
This is a recent "upgrade" from a '90s Electroair version that worked
beautifully... well, until it didn't. Anyway, the new version's
magnetic timing sensors are apparently more sensitive to some
ill-defined variation that Electroair tells me is causing the controller
to "reset" -- meaning the ignition shuts off for some fraction of a
second. Not noticeable above 900 RPM or so... other than I know it's
there. Below 900 RPM there is a noticeable drop and much below that
with just the single ignition selected the engine will quit completely.
This is only on one side -- the other works as advertised. My local A&P
has looked over the mag drive gears and finds absolutely nothing wrong.
So Electroair is telling me nothing's wrong with the ignition and my A&P
is telling me nothing's wrong with engine... but I still have a problem.
Anybody out there with a similiar experience? Or experience with the
"modern" version of Electroair?
Thanks, Dennis
Virginia Beach, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
Anyone have a few words of wisdom for me:
I'm pulling my hair out over a crappy engine idle that I can't seem to tame.
The basic problem is that I'll start the engine and it fires right up and
runs at about 700-750 RPM just like the book says it should. But from
there, all it seems to want to do is gradually idle slower and slower as the
engine warms up until it barely runs (between 450-500 RPM) by the time I've
done all my checks and am ready to take the runway for takeoff.
The engine is a new Mattituck built TMX-IO360 Lycoming clone with Lightspeed
electronic ignition on one side and a magneto on the other. It also has
Airflow Performance fuel injection with purge valve, a Sterba wood prop and
Mark Landoll's 11 pound steel inertia ring bolted to the flywheel. The
configuration is updraft with the AFP fuel controller bolted to the bottom
of the sump (like carbureted engines) and uses Van's airbox. I've read the
AFP manual and talked to the tech there and adjusted the idle mixture and
stop numerous times but I can't seem to stabilize it. When I have the
cowling off, I make the adjustments and taxi around a bit to warm up the
engine and it seems to be ok. Then I'll put the cowling back on and the
symptoms seem to reappear. There isn't anything banging against the cowling
that I can see that would be causing trouble so I'm totally stumped!
Anyone else having this problem? I'm flying out of a long but narrow strip
with trees on three sides and no good places to land near the airport.
Needless to say it makes me nervous, even though the engine runs strong just
off idle and at full power. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
4.1 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bud Williams" <rambud(at)windstream.net> |
I am no expert by any means, and I would not claim to have all of the
answers. I had a somewhat similar problem in an old C-35 Bonanza that had
spent a lot of time in the AZ desert. The engine started great, ran
beautifully and we never had a problem with it when we flew. The problem
ALWAYS occurred after landing and roll-out. We would bring the throttle back
to idle and the engine would die. We tweaked the fuel pressure until it was
at the stop. Same thing. During the annual we finally discovered the
culprit: the fuel line from the aux tank (in the baggage compartment) to the
engine was filled with sand (remember it came from the desert).
You may want to check your fuel lines for some possible contaminant. While I
am sure you don't have any sand, you may find you have something that takes
time to travel through the system to cause your problem.
Alternatively, you say that it runs fine with the cowling off but you have
the same problem when you put the cowling back on. Perhaps there is some
sort of blockage in your induction system between the cowling (air filter)
and the airbox?
I know these things sound simple and you most likely have looked into them,
but in the event you have not, sometimes it is the most simple of things
that creates our problems.
Bud
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN
PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 3:42 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Lousy Idle
Anyone have a few words of wisdom for me:
I'm pulling my hair out over a crappy engine idle that I can't seem to tame.
The basic problem is that I'll start the engine and it fires right up and
runs at about 700-750 RPM just like the book says it should. But from
there, all it seems to want to do is gradually idle slower and slower as the
engine warms up until it barely runs (between 450-500 RPM) by the time I've
done all my checks and am ready to take the runway for takeoff.
The engine is a new Mattituck built TMX-IO360 Lycoming clone with Lightspeed
electronic ignition on one side and a magneto on the other. It also has
Airflow Performance fuel injection with purge valve, a Sterba wood prop and
Mark Landoll's 11 pound steel inertia ring bolted to the flywheel. The
configuration is updraft with the AFP fuel controller bolted to the bottom
of the sump (like carbureted engines) and uses Van's airbox. I've read the
AFP manual and talked to the tech there and adjusted the idle mixture and
stop numerous times but I can't seem to stabilize it. When I have the
cowling off, I make the adjustments and taxi around a bit to warm up the
engine and it seems to be ok. Then I'll put the cowling back on and the
symptoms seem to reappear. There isn't anything banging against the cowling
that I can see that would be causing trouble so I'm totally stumped!
Anyone else having this problem? I'm flying out of a long but narrow strip
with trees on three sides and no good places to land near the airport.
Needless to say it makes me nervous, even though the engine runs strong just
off idle and at full power. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
4.1 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G Vogt <teamgrumman(at)aol.com> |
Call Ken Tunnell at LyCon
(559) 651-1070
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2008, at 12:42 PM, "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" wrote:
> >
>
> Anyone have a few words of wisdom for me:
>
> I'm pulling my hair out over a crappy engine idle that I can't seem
> to tame.
> The basic problem is that I'll start the engine and it fires right
> up and
> runs at about 700-750 RPM just like the book says it should. But from
> there, all it seems to want to do is gradually idle slower and
> slower as the
> engine warms up until it barely runs (between 450-500 RPM) by the
> time I've
> done all my checks and am ready to take the runway for takeoff.
>
>
> The engine is a new Mattituck built TMX-IO360 Lycoming clone with
> Lightspeed
> electronic ignition on one side and a magneto on the other. It also
> has
> Airflow Performance fuel injection with purge valve, a Sterba wood
> prop and
> Mark Landoll's 11 pound steel inertia ring bolted to the flywheel.
> The
> configuration is updraft with the AFP fuel controller bolted to the
> bottom
> of the sump (like carbureted engines) and uses Van's airbox. I've
> read the
> AFP manual and talked to the tech there and adjusted the idle
> mixture and
> stop numerous times but I can't seem to stabilize it. When I have the
> cowling off, I make the adjustments and taxi around a bit to warm up
> the
> engine and it seems to be ok. Then I'll put the cowling back on and
> the
> symptoms seem to reappear. There isn't anything banging against the
> cowling
> that I can see that would be causing trouble so I'm totally stumped!
>
> Anyone else having this problem? I'm flying out of a long but narrow
> strip
> with trees on three sides and no good places to land near the airport.
> Needless to say it makes me nervous, even though the engine runs
> strong just
> off idle and at full power. Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> 4.1 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Look for an intake manifold leak. Also, are you certain all plugs are good?
Do you have an engine analyzer? If so, look for a cold cylinder, one not
running close to the other 3 on EGT or CHT. See how it idles on just the
magneto, or just the Lightspeed.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:42 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> wrote:
> dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
>
> Anyone have a few words of wisdom for me:
>
> I'm pulling my hair out over a crappy engine idle that I can't seem to
> tame.
> The basic problem is that I'll start the engine and it fires right up and
> runs at about 700-750 RPM just like the book says it should. But from
> there, all it seems to want to do is gradually idle slower and slower as
> the
> engine warms up until it barely runs (between 450-500 RPM) by the time I've
> done all my checks and am ready to take the runway for takeoff.
>
>
> The engine is a new Mattituck built TMX-IO360 Lycoming clone with
> Lightspeed
> electronic ignition on one side and a magneto on the other. It also has
> Airflow Performance fuel injection with purge valve, a Sterba wood prop and
> Mark Landoll's 11 pound steel inertia ring bolted to the flywheel. The
> configuration is updraft with the AFP fuel controller bolted to the bottom
> of the sump (like carbureted engines) and uses Van's airbox. I've read the
> AFP manual and talked to the tech there and adjusted the idle mixture and
> stop numerous times but I can't seem to stabilize it. When I have the
> cowling off, I make the adjustments and taxi around a bit to warm up the
> engine and it seems to be ok. Then I'll put the cowling back on and the
> symptoms seem to reappear. There isn't anything banging against the
> cowling
> that I can see that would be causing trouble so I'm totally stumped!
>
> Anyone else having this problem? I'm flying out of a long but narrow strip
> with trees on three sides and no good places to land near the airport.
> Needless to say it makes me nervous, even though the engine runs strong
> just
> off idle and at full power. Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> 4.1 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miguel Azevedo" <azevedoflyer(at)gmail.com> |
Dean,
Have you notice any symptons of engine running richer and richer as the idle
slows down?
Like brown smoke coming out of exhaust?
If you have a paper air filter, try without it. I've seen some paper filters
clog up under higher temps.
Cheers,
Miguel Azevedo
N8714D
PA22/20-150
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:42 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> wrote:
> dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
>
> Anyone have a few words of wisdom for me:
>
> I'm pulling my hair out over a crappy engine idle that I can't seem to
> tame.
> The basic problem is that I'll start the engine and it fires right up and
> runs at about 700-750 RPM just like the book says it should. But from
> there, all it seems to want to do is gradually idle slower and slower as
> the
> engine warms up until it barely runs (between 450-500 RPM) by the time I've
> done all my checks and am ready to take the runway for takeoff.
>
>
> The engine is a new Mattituck built TMX-IO360 Lycoming clone with
> Lightspeed
> electronic ignition on one side and a magneto on the other. It also has
> Airflow Performance fuel injection with purge valve, a Sterba wood prop and
> Mark Landoll's 11 pound steel inertia ring bolted to the flywheel. The
> configuration is updraft with the AFP fuel controller bolted to the bottom
> of the sump (like carbureted engines) and uses Van's airbox. I've read the
> AFP manual and talked to the tech there and adjusted the idle mixture and
> stop numerous times but I can't seem to stabilize it. When I have the
> cowling off, I make the adjustments and taxi around a bit to warm up the
> engine and it seems to be ok. Then I'll put the cowling back on and the
> symptoms seem to reappear. There isn't anything banging against the
> cowling
> that I can see that would be causing trouble so I'm totally stumped!
>
> Anyone else having this problem? I'm flying out of a long but narrow strip
> with trees on three sides and no good places to land near the airport.
> Needless to say it makes me nervous, even though the engine runs strong
> just
> off idle and at full power. Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> 4.1 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Connecting rod length |
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
I can't find the connecting rod length of either the O320 or O360. =C2-Can
anyone help?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For Sale Very Good Continental 0-200 and Access, FWF CH701 |
| From: | "dougjones" <djonesutah(at)digis.net> |
I am removing my Continental 0-200, accessories, and the firewall forward from
my CH701. The engine was "0" timed in 1993 (as far as my understanding but verify
with me if it is critical) , and currently has slightly less than 400 hours.
The engine itself is certified, but the electrical accessories, a B&C lightweight
starter and B&C 8 amp alternator, are not. The alternator keeps up with
landing lights, strobes, portable radio, electric fuel pump, at cruise RPM's,
but with these loads at taxi it is not large enough to charge. Complete logs
from "0" time. I can't find records of the mags (and can't remember right now
if the are Slick or Bendix). MS carburetor.
The engine runs perfectly. The oil pressure is right where you'd expect a new engine
to operate. The cylinders are chrome. Oil consumption is appx 8-12 hours
per quart. This engine has the Continental $200 + breather elbow found in 0-200
powered C-150 Aerobats. Oil Cooler. Last annual 4/2008 compressions were low
to mid 70's/80. Relatively dry inside cowling. Always a spot on concrete from
breather tube when parked
Warp Drive composite ground adjustable 3 blade prop.
Engine mount, pressure cowling for CH 701 if wanted.
This engine is currently installed and flown appx every two weeks. I intend to
remove it in April.
If you are really serious about a potential purchase, would like scanned images
of the logs, would like videos of it operating, pictures of the installation,
or would like to come inspect please contact me.
Asking $8300 for all. I'd rather sell everything all at once. I plan to advertise
on Barnstormers, engine/accessories only for $7800, in the next couple of weeks.
If interested leave message at (435)-734-2050 or email djonesutah(at)digis.net.
The engine is in Northern Utah.
--------
CH 701, Luscombe 8A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=231680#231680
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod length |
| From: | Miguel Azevedo <azevedoflyer(at)gmail.com> |
Teamgrumman,
>From Ray Crist, Lycoming Engineering:
Part Number 78030
Length between centers is 6.4985 / 6.5015 in (min. / max.)
Cheers,
Miguel Azevedo
PA22/20 - 150
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:39 AM, wrote:
> I can't find the connecting rod length of either the O320 or O360. Can
> anyone help?
> ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Boyter" <wboyter(at)q.com> |
Good Morning
I'm building lycoming O-230 E2A engine, when I disassembled the
engine the number on the rods was facing the cam shaft. the book said to
put he numbers towards the sump. The overhaul manual is a old 1979
edition any help wood be appreciate.
Thanks
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Crowe" <groups(at)bobcroweaircraft.com> |
Face all numbers forward and any writing in the pistons the correct way up.
_____
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Boyter
Sent: 05 March 2009 13:38
Subject: Engines-List: rods
Good Morning
I'm building lycoming O-230 E2A engine, when I disassembled the engine
the number on the rods was facing the cam shaft. the book said to put he
numbers towards the sump. The overhaul manual is a old 1979 edition any help
wood be appreciate.
Thanks
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
Wayne,
My Lycoming Overhaul Manual for 235 and 290-D page 34 section 8.. First...
"the cap must be assembled to the rod so that the numbers are adjacent to
each other. In other words, the cap must not be assembled with its number
on the opposite side from the number on the rod."
Second..."It is important, also to assemble the connecting rods to the
crankshaft in such a manner that numbers stamped on the rods will be in the
downward position when the engine is finally assembled."
I also verified this with a Lyc tech sometime ago during an engine rebuild
as well. Have a great time building. Take Care.
Jim Wickert
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Boyter
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:38 AM
Subject: Engines-List: rods
Good Morning
I'm building lycoming O-230 E2A engine, when I disassembled the engine
the number on the rods was facing the cam shaft. the book said to put he
numbers towards the sump. The overhaul manual is a old 1979 edition any help
wood be appreciate.
Thanks
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Propeller loads and felected power ect.. |
| From: | "kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net> |
My brother gave me a performance chart for the A65,75 and 85 engine
It has fuel burn full throttle hp and something called propeller load. What exactly
is this? Also when people talk about power absorbed by the prop what does
this mean?
Thanks and sorry if its obvious.
Kevin
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=233868#233868
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/a65_performance_chart_101.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Generation 3 ignition" <mail(at)g3ignition.com> |
| Subject: | Generation 3 Ignition |
Hello Dave,
All mags should be inspected @ the recommended time interval. Example,
I have inspected Slick mags with 400hrs on them and they were excellent
for the G3i system modification. Depending on what fails in the mag, in
some scenarios, the electronic will back -up the mag and continue to
fire just fine. During run-up, a system off, normal (L-R) mag drop is
recommended to revel any potential ignition problems. We do the mag
modification here and inspections/ repairs. Since the spark plug gap is
slightly larger than the stock (.018") recommendation. New total air gap
being increased to .020" - .026" the secondary voltage range to ionize
the spark adds roughly .2 - .5kv to the overall window. It is the
synchronized multiple discharge that make the G3i systems performs so
well. Here is a link to Larry Vettermans/ Vettermans Exhaust website
scroll down to Hartzell Blended Airfoil vs Whirlwind 200RV Series props
on my RV-7A..Larry Vetterman for info. on his test findings or give him
a call.
Sincerely,
Thomas Shpakow
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:59 PM
Subject: FormContactus
Do the mags still need overhaul at 500 hours? What does the system
do in the case of a mag failure?
I plan to order a stock IO-540 from Van's Aircraft in a few weeks.
Can I send you the mags for conversion?
Is the spark voltage energy increased over standard mag voltage? So
far your system sounds very good however I have not been able to get
much feedback in the field about it. How many systems do you have
flying? Thanks for taking the barrage of questions!!
Dave
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: FormContactus
Hello Dave,
Well, there is really no comparison, Slick/Unison LASAR would be
the closest since it still has the mag redundancy. There are many
benefits to electronic ignitions systems out there, however our product
has the best fall back on redundancy available. You don't have to run
half a ignition system to still have mag redundancy. Its doesn't require
back-up batteries to still operate if you lose the aircraft electrical
system, and/or if a sensor or some other electronic ignition component
fails, the G3i system reverts back to the original magnetos to still
continue ignition firing. The G3i system fires both ignition systems
together in perfect sync. which produces engine smoothness and
performance/economy gains. Fuel economy gains are realistically are from
8% to 14%. On static dynamotor test pulls, 2% - 5% has been record in
pounds of thrust @ 100% power. On starting the G3i provides multiple
spark to both L&R ignitions instantly in sync. making starting much
easier. Does not need 3 crankshaft revolutions to see a signal on when
to fire. Installation is straight forward and easily done. Please ck out
our website on the install manual or give us a call about our product.
We will be in KOSH Airventure booth 1148 this year also.
Thank you for you inquiry.
Sincerely,
Thomas Shpakow
Interfacing Aircraft Magnetos
Electronic Multiple Spark Technology
GENERATION 3 IGNITION
2331 W. Hampden Ave. 130
Englewood, CO. 80110
T 303-781-9449
C 303-906-6846
F 303-806-5120
www.g3ignition.com
mail(at)g3ignition.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: FormContactus
> hearabout: matronics RV-10 list
> question: How does your system compare to LASAR or Electroair
and others?
> I am building an RV-10. I was considering Electroair until I
saw your product.
> Ease of install? Any better performance than others? Thanks.
>
> Dave
> RV-10
> Submit32: Submit
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Generation 3 Ignition" <mail(at)g3ignition.com> |
| Subject: | Re: timing advance |
Hello Dave,
Well first off, we all know the aircraft engine is of large
displacement, which has a very small rpm window of operation, and to top
it off also, it has very poor air/fuel atomization with a huge
combustion chamber. So, how? Well the fuel economy and extra hp comes
from the Multiple Spark Discharge (MSD). When the first firing event of
the MSD takes place, a flame front is created. As this flame front is
burning in the combustion chamber, there is a swirling turbulence that
takes place. Drawing unburned air/fuel mixture passed the spark plugs.
This is where the MSD come into play. The second and third firing event
then ignites this air/fuel mixture, which creates a quicker complete
burn of the air/fuel mixture as the piston passes through TDC. The MSD
spark is not hotter and doesn't need to be, that is why we do not use
huge spark plug air gaps. As the saying goes, screwing a 75 watt light
bulb into a 300 watt socket the bulb is not going to burn any brighter.
The others all claim to get their advantage from timing advance along
with hotter spark. The key word in the sentence is "spark" that's
singular. With one spark you need more time to get that complete
combustion since it is so slow. The only way is to ramp up (advance)
the timing close to the verge of detonation, and also deliver a hotter
spark hoping that it will have a better chance (only chance) of
ignition. With these timing advances, the cylinder pressures go up
tremendously as the piston travels towards and over TDC. This creates
more ware on engine internals from these pressures. As for a =BD and =BD
mag/electronic advance ignition system.. For example, the electronics
are firing @, let's say 35 degrees and the mag is set at 25 degrees.
Since the combustion has already started, that mag is now confronted
with firing though an incredible amount of cylinder pressure, if it can
at all. I have seen mag failure on the =BD and =BD systems. I hope this
helps some, these will be some of the topics spoken in great detail @
our booth at AirVenture this year.
Sincerely,
Thomas S.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:43 PM
Subject: ***SPAM***Re: FormContactus timing advance
So you are saying there is negligible benefit to advancing timing
greater than 25 degrees BTDC below 12,500 pressure altitude and only a
1% advantage above? Where then does the fuel economy and extra hp you
see with your system come from? The hotter spark? I am really trying
to understand all the different systems out there and yours seems to be
the easiest to install, and I like the mag back-up. But the others all
claim to get their advantage from timing advance along with hotter
spark. I'll be frank, I am torn between your system and Electroair. I
would use a single mag and the Electroair system. Sell me on yours.
Thanks!!
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: FormContactus timing advance
Hello Dave,
The G3i system dose not have a timing advance built in. A timing
control module can be added which will give you a adjustable timing
window of 15 degrees from base timing angle. We found in flight
testing/research working with different timing angles, the benefits of
economy and performance of running more than a couple of degrees higher
than the stock manufacture timing setting were not all that beneficial
below 12K. And less than 1% @ altitudes above 12,500ft and less than
60% power. All performance and economy specs.show are @ the stock engine
manufacturer timing angle.
Sincerely,
Thomas Shpakow
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:29 PM
Subject: ***SPAM***Re: FormContactus
Does your system advance timing?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: FormContactus
Hello Dave,
Well, there is really no comparison, Slick/Unison LASAR would be
the closest since it still has the mag redundancy. There are many
benefits to electronic ignitions systems out there, however our product
has the best fall back on redundancy available. You don't have to run
half a ignition system to still have mag redunecy. Its doesn't require
back-up batteries to still operate if you lose the aircraft electrical
system, and/or if a sensor or some other electronic ignition component
fails, the G3i system reverts back to the original magnetos to still
continue ignition firing. The G3i system fires both ignition systems
together in perfect sync. which produces engine smoothness and
performance/economy gains. Fuel economy gains are realistically are from
8% to 14%. On static dynamotor test pulls, 2% - 5% has been record in
pounds of thrust @ 100% power. On starting the G3i provides multiple
spark to both L&R ignitions instantly in sync. making starting much
easier. Does not need 3 crankshaft revolutions to see a signal on when
to fire. Installation is straight forward and easily done. Please ck out
our website on the insall manual or give us a call about our product.
We will be in KOSH Airventure booth 1148 this year also.
Thank you for you inquiry.
Sincerely,
Thomas Shpakow
Interfacing Aircraft Magnetos
Electronic Multiple Spark Technology
GENERATION 3 IGNITION
2331 W. Hampden Ave. 130
Englewood, CO. 80110
T 303-781-9449
C 303-906-6846
F 303-806-5120
www.g3ignition.com
mail(at)g3ignition.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: FormContactus
> hearabout: matronics RV-10 list
> question: How does your system compare to LASAR or Electroair
and others?
> I am building an RV-10. I was considering Electroair until I
saw your product.
> Ease of install? Any better performance than others? Thanks.
>
> Dave Leikam
> RV-10
> Submit32: Submit
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Maynard <bk_maynard(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
----------- Would someone have a rough idea of what c
ompression ratio I could run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run 100LL- instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are 9.0:1 for regular.
-
Thanks,-- Brad=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | steve korney <s_korney(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
At least 10:1 with 100LL
Best... Steve
Date: Wed=2C 13 May 2009 08:17:42 -0700
From: bk_maynard(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
Would someone have a rough idea of what compression ratio I cou
ld run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run 100LL instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are 9.0:1 for regular.
Thanks=2C Brad
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE has a new way to see what's up with your friends.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_WhatsNew1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
Theoretical limit is 11.2:1 with premium autofuel. I don't think I'd go
that high. I do know from experience that 9.5:1 is OK on premium with
28 degrees advance on an O-200, but I have trouble on shutdown with
regular.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From: steve korney
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
At least 10:1 with 100LL
Best... Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:17:42 -0700
From: bk_maynard(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Would someone have a rough idea of what compression
ratio I could run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run 100LL instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are 9.0:1 for regular.
Thanks, Brad
http://www.matronics.com/N================
========http://www.matronics.com/contrib======
========
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Hotmail=AE has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it
out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
I don't think I would use 100 LL in an auto engine for a couple of
reasons.
1. Avgas burns at a slower rate
2. One of the products of combustion with leaded fuel is lead bromide,
which is somewhat corrosive and abrasive.
Aircraft lubricating oil has an additive package to deal with lead
bromide whereas motor oil does not.
an interesting side note. I rebult a Ford Flathead for a 46 Coupe I
have and the engine is considerably pumped up. I ran it on the dyno
here in the BPE shop and ran it on 100 LL. mixture was not quite right
and during the process of straightening out power valves, jetting, etc.
I also tested with 91 Oct mogas. The CR on this engine is 9.25:1 which
is quite a bit for a flathead. The engine made slightly more power on
mogas with the timing not changed. FYI
Monty Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brad
Maynard
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:18 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs.
octane
Would someone have a rough idea of what compression ratio I
could run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run 100LL instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are 9.0:1 for regular.
Thanks, Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
If compression were the only consideration, it would be so simple. It
isn't that simple.
Cam design plays more of a roll in detonation limits than compression
alone. You can easily make 8.5:1 compression produce 145 pounds
cranking pressure if you know what you're doing. Likewise, 11:1 can
produce less than 140 pounds with the right lobe separation angle.
I recommend measuring the cranking pressure. 145 pounds cranking
pressure is easy with 100LL. 155 would be a little on the edge.
Anything in the 130 range (125 to 135) is a piece of cake.
-----Original Message-----
From: jrc <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wed, 13 May 2009 9:34 am
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
Theoretical limit is 11.2:1 with premium autofuel. I
don't think I'd gothat high. I do know from experience that 9.5:1 is
OK on premium with 28 degrees advance on an O-200, but I have trouble
on
shutdown with regular.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From:
steve
korney
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:16
AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine -
compression ratio vs. octane
At least 10:1 with 100LL
Best... Steve
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:17:42 -0700
From: bk_maynard(at)yahoo.com
Subject:
=2
0 Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
Would someone have a rough idea of what compression ratio I
could
run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run
100LL instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are
9.0:1 for regular.
Thanks,
Brad
http://www.matronics.com/N=======================
http://www.matronics.com/contrib==============
Hotmail has a new way to see what's up with your friends.
Check it out.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List"http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
Interesting..And seems to be evidence that mogas is better for an aircraft
engine too, assuming its not a turbo'ed 540.
I know my IO 360 loves mogas and runs well even with 10% Ethanol blends...A
lthough I have not flown it above 15000ft so cannot attest to vphase sepera
tion, water fallout predictions.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-se
rver(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Monty Barrett Sr
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:41 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
I don't think I would use 100 LL in an auto engine for a couple of reasons.
1. Avgas burns at a slower rate
2. One of the products of combustion with leaded fuel is lead bromide, whi
ch is somewhat corrosive and abrasive.
Aircraft lubricating oil has an additive package to deal with lead brom
ide whereas motor oil does not.
an interesting side note. I rebult a Ford Flathead for a 46 Coupe I have a
nd the engine is considerably pumped up. I ran it on the dyno here in the
BPE shop and ran it on 100 LL. mixture was not quite right and during the
process of straightening out power valves, jetting, etc. I also tested with
91 Oct mogas. The CR on this engine is 9.25:1 which is quite a bit for a
flathead. The engine made slightly more power on mogas with the timing not
changed. FYI
Monty Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
Hi Frank,
I've used 87-octane with 10% ethanol for the last two years and only on
one occasion did "phase separation" occur. The aircraft had set for 4 months
with less than a gallon in the tank after the pre winter annual
inspection. The small amount of fuel did look nearly opaque and gray. I
drained the remaining
and added new fuel when flying weather returned. No telling how long the
gas had set in the retailers tank before I got it.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
> Interesting..And seems to be evidence that mogas is better for an
> aircraft engine too, assuming its not a turbo'ed 540.
>
> I know my IO 360 loves mogas and runs well even with 10% Ethanol
> blends...Although I have not flown it above 15000ft so cannot attest
> to vphase seperation, water fallout predictions.
>
> Frank
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Monty
> Barrett Sr
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:41 AM
> *To:* engines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
>
> I don't think I would use 100 LL in an auto engine for a couple of
> reasons.
> 1. Avgas burns at a slower rate
> 2. One of the products of combustion with leaded fuel is lead
> bromide, which is somewhat corrosive and abrasive.
> Aircraft lubricating oil has an additive package to deal with lead
> bromide whereas motor oil does not.
>
> an interesting side note. I rebult a Ford Flathead for a 46 Coupe I
> have and the engine is considerably pumped up. I ran it on the dyno
> here in the BPE shop and ran it on 100 LL. mixture was not quite
> right and during the process of straightening out power valves,
> jetting, etc. I also tested with 91 Oct mogas. The CR on this engine
> is 9.25:1 which is quite a bit for a flathead. The engine made
> slightly more power on mogas with the timing not changed. FYI
>
> Monty Barrett
> Barrett Precision Engines
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
Good input Larry..Sounds like the remaining fuel absorbed the water from condensation.
Fit for the lawnmower only after 4 months is a certainty now..:)
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryMcFarland
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
-->
Hi Frank,
I've used 87-octane with 10% ethanol for the last two years and only on one occasion
did "phase separation" occur. The aircraft had set for 4 months with less
than a gallon in the tank after the pre winter annual inspection. The small
amount of fuel did look nearly opaque and gray. I drained the remaining and added
new fuel when flying weather returned. No telling how long the gas had set
in the retailers tank before I got it.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
Given that the lower the octane rating, the more energy a specific volume of
gasoline has, I am not surprised that with auto fuel you got more power than
with 100LL. The higher octane fuel has less energy content and only real
purpose is prevent detonation with high compression engines. Many believe
that higher octane means more power than lower octane fuels, but only if you
are able to run higher compression or forced induction systems (which in
effect increase compression ratio).
100LL contains approx 120,000 BTU/Gallon whereas 87 Octane contains approx
125,000 BTU/Gallon or about 4% more energy.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Monty Barrett
Sr
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
I don't think I would use 100 LL in an auto engine for a couple of reasons.
1. Avgas burns at a slower rate
2. One of the products of combustion with leaded fuel is lead bromide,
which is somewhat corrosive and abrasive.
Aircraft lubricating oil has an additive package to deal with lead
bromide whereas motor oil does not.
an interesting side note. I rebult a Ford Flathead for a 46 Coupe I have
and the engine is considerably pumped up. I ran it on the dyno here in the
BPE shop and ran it on 100 LL. mixture was not quite right and during the
process of straightening out power valves, jetting, etc. I also tested with
91 Oct mogas. The CR on this engine is 9.25:1 which is quite a bit for a
flathead. The engine made slightly more power on mogas with the timing not
changed. FYI
Monty Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brad Maynard
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:18 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
Would someone have a rough idea of what compression ratio I
could run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run 100LL instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are 9.0:1 for regular.
Thanks, Brad
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew M" <andrew(at)oc384.net> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
In that case is there an aviation oil including the additive that can be
run in auto conversion engines? Or can the additive be bought and added
when filling up with 100LL? If you're flying into places w/out mogas it
sounds like you need it.
-Andrew
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Monty Barrett
Sr
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
I don't think I would use 100 LL in an auto engine for a couple of reasons.
1. Avgas burns at a slower rate
2. One of the products of combustion with leaded fuel is lead bromide,
which is somewhat corrosive and abrasive.
Aircraft lubricating oil has an additive package to deal with lead
bromide whereas motor oil does not.
an interesting side note. I rebult a Ford Flathead for a 46 Coupe I have
and the engine is considerably pumped up. I ran it on the dyno here in the
BPE shop and ran it on 100 LL. mixture was not quite right and during the
process of straightening out power valves, jetting, etc. I also tested with
91 Oct mogas. The CR on this engine is 9.25:1 which is quite a bit for a
flathead. The engine made slightly more power on mogas with the timing not
changed. FYI
Monty Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brad Maynard
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:18 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
Would someone have a rough idea of what compression ratio I
could run on my chevy auto
Conversion if I run 100LL instead of regular unleaded?
Specs for my 3.4 V6 are 9.0:1 for regular.
Thanks, Brad
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07:04:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
The big automotive engines of the 1960s took compression ratios to their
ultimate state of the art with premium leaded auto gas. Ratios from 10.5 to
11.5 to 1 were common place with 100 octane auto fuel. Since the unleaded
mandate, computer analysis has advanced the state of the art in combustion
chamber technology so that 9.5 to 1 ratios are possible on regular unleaded
fuel (87 octane) without detonation. If you use computerized engine control
with knock sensing you could probably go even higher. And with avgas being
the equivalent of somewhere around 110 octane autofuel, the sky should be
the limit (not quite but it would be an interesting exercise to see how high
one could go using a modern auto engine with avgas).
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Struggling with erratic idle on 0-360
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane |
I had a friend who regularly ran his 426 Hemi Charger on high octane Avgas
before the advent of 100 LL.
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: 15 May 2009 01:14 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
The big automotive engines of the 1960s took compression ratios to their
ultimate state of the art with premium leaded auto gas. Ratios from 10.5 to
11.5 to 1 were common place with 100 octane auto fuel. Since the unleaded
mandate, computer analysis has advanced the state of the art in combustion
chamber technology so that 9.5 to 1 ratios are possible on regular unleaded
fuel (87 octane) without detonation. If you use computerized engine control
with knock sensing you could probably go even higher. And with avgas being
the equivalent of somewhere around 110 octane autofuel, the sky should be
the limit (not quite but it would be an interesting exercise to see how high
one could go using a modern auto engine with avgas).
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Struggling with erratic idle on 0-360
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stu Brown <stu_brown(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/15/09 |
Drawing a comparison between an automobile and aircraft engines based
upon compression can get you into trouble. Temperatures vary greatly in
the AC engine and the ignition timing is fixed. Automobile engines use a
timing curve based upon rpm, load, temp. etc. Ain't technology great?
Stu Brown
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 09-05-15&Archive=Engines
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-05-15&Archive=Engines
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Engines-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 05/15/09: 1
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 06:58 AM - Re: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane (Noel)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Noel" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
>
>
> I had a friend who regularly ran his 426 Hemi Charger on high octane Avgas
> before the advent of 100 LL.
>
> 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: 15 May 2009 01:14 AM
> Subject: RE: Engines-List: Auto Engine - compression ratio vs. octane
>
>
>
>
> The big automotive engines of the 1960s took compression ratios to their
> ultimate state of the art with premium leaded auto gas. Ratios from 10.5 to
> 11.5 to 1 were common place with 100 octane auto fuel. Since the unleaded
> mandate, computer analysis has advanced the state of the art in combustion
> chamber technology so that 9.5 to 1 ratios are possible on regular unleaded
> fuel (87 octane) without detonation. If you use computerized engine control
> with knock sensing you could probably go even higher. And with avgas being
> the equivalent of somewhere around 110 octane autofuel, the sky should be
> the limit (not quite but it would be an interesting exercise to see how high
> one could go using a modern auto engine with avgas).
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Struggling with erratic idle on 0-360
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/15/09 |
And also a huge difference in volumetric efficiency.
Ken
Stu Brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Drawing a comparison between an automobile and aircraft engines based
> upon compression can get you into trouble. Temperatures vary greatly in
> the AC engine and the ignition timing is fixed. Automobile engines use a
> timing curve based upon rpm, load, temp. etc. Ain't technology great?
>
> Stu Brown
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, so
most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine
failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engines, and
would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Continental o-200...There are just so few moving parts..and what there is,
is moving pretty slowly..:)
Depending on what electrical load you have you could maybe put an SD 8 (amp
) alternator on the vacuum pad...Hard to get more reliable/simple.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-se
rver(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Engines-List: reliability
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, s
o most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine fa
ilure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engines, and
would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
Frank and all,
> The Rotax is a proven engine but it is more complex, has both water and air cooling,
spins faster. Not sure I understand the "far greater low speed thrust
potential"????
>
> Props turn at roughly 2500 RPM no matter what engine is driving them so what
does this statement mean?
There are many Rotax engines flying far beyond TBO in my country, with
virtually no mechanical trouble.
With a Rotax, the prop turns at about 2400 RPM at takeoff and at
2000-2100 RPM in cruise. Propulsion efficiency is higher, and -what is
most important in western Europe- the engine and prop are much much quieter.
FWIW,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
Have you considered the Jabiru 3300? Jabiru USA is currently
developing a firewall-forward package to install this engine in the
CH750 which should be ready soon. These engines have a proven track
record for reliability- I have flown them for over 500 hours and am
pretty impressed with them. See usjabiru.com for information.
Mark Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:16 am
Subject: Engines-List: reliability
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in
Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain.
An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the
following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the
"most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
I've been running an O-200 on mogas for several years with no problems.
Pistons still look good.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability
>
>
> I would guess the Contininenetal could be had with hardened valvea and
> seats (all the Lycomings are) that make it equally compatible with
> mogas..As long as the carb seal/needle floats are compatible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability.
It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance
would be less.
The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close
to Continentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will
have the most thrust for weight of all your choices.
The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to
really establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo
Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if
reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from them.
The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If reliability
is your number one concern you should stay away from new engines. The
260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a
shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be
less. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing
lots of thrust.
The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would be
a real new engine.
As always the info is worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Subject: Engines-List: reliability
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in
Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain.
An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the
following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the
"most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com> |
I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the actu
al in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field is ano
ther consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of maintenance
and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect. Most of the Rota
x parts that might be required have automotive-type substitutes.
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (somethi
ng like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent. Costly over
hauls certainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engin
e which has developed some marginal characteristics.
Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling: they do
n't blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as often
.
I suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience by fin
ding a flight school that operates Katanas. They have been fitted with bot
h engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a lot of a
buse.
Bruce
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-se
rver(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard & Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. It i
s going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance would be
less.
The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close to C
ontinentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will have the m
ost thrust for weight of all your choices.
The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to really e
stablish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental engine
s their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is your major
concern you may want to stay away from them.
The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If reliability is
your number one concern you should stay away from new engines. The 260iS is
a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a shorter pro
p than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be less. The CH 750
would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots of thrust.
The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would be a
real new engine.
As always the info is worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan<mailto:keninalaska(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Subject: Engines-List: reliability
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in Alaska, s
o most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An engine fa
ilure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following engines, and
would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Parker <zeus45601(at)yahoo.com> |
Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a dies
el engine that can use Jet A?=C2- I plan to start building a CH-801 withi
n a year or so, but I'm not in any hurry until there are a few light weight
diesels on the market to choose from.=C2- I know Deltahawk seems to be t
he closest to be marketable, but the last I heard was that they'll take you
r money for a pre-order but nothing=C2-gets delivered yet. Thought is sho
uld have been certified by now. I'm still waiting for the engine that sound
s too good to be true, the Zoche aero diesel, the wonder engine which is co
mpact in size, lighter in weight that most gas engines, and will probably g
et you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared down to 200HP from it's natura
l 300HP http://www.zoche.de/zoche_brochure.pdf=C2-,which the company says
they can do easily.=C2- Their 150 HP would do nicely in the 750 and mayb
e even the 701 if geared down getting 5.57 gal/hr, unaltered. Truly a mirac
le engine,
which has been almost certified for the past 15 years according to the own
er/developer.=C2- What the heck is going on there?=C2- The guy's sittin
g on a gold mine and doing nothing.=C2- I'll believe it when I see it.=C2
- But why can't the other manufacturers develop a=C2-radial diesel like
the Zoche?=C2-Fewer parts and things to go wrong, should be a snap for t
he other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be cheaper than 100
LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Europe.=0A=0AJay=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Bruce Campbell <brcamp
(at)windows.microsoft.com>=0ATo: "engines-list(at)matronics.com" =0ASent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:48:36 AM=0ASubject: RE: Engi
nes-List: reliability=0A=0A=0AI suspect there is a bit more to the engine r
eliability thing than the actual in-flight failure rates.=C2-=C2- The a
vailability of parts in the field is another consideration should you have
an issue, as is the cost of maintenance and overhaul.=C2- All of these fa
vour the Rotax, I suspect.=C2- =C2-Most of the Rotax parts that might b
e required have automotive-type substitutes.=C2- =0A=C2-=0AAlso, overha
ul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental (something like $5k
vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent.=C2- Costly overhauls c
ertainly make one consider long and hard before overhauling an engine which
has developed some marginal characteristics.=0A=C2-=0ARotaxes (Rotaces?)
also get something back from the liquid cooling: they don=99t blow c
ylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as often.=0A=C2-
=0AI suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience by
finding a flight school that operates Katanas.=C2- They have been fitted
with both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a
lot of abuse.=0A=C2-=0A=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2- Bruce =0A=C2-=0A=C2-=0AFrom:owner-engines-list-serve
r(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
Of Richard & Martha Neilsen=0ASent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM=0ATo: en
gines-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: Engines-List: reliability=0A=C2-
=0AKen=0A=C2-=0AThe Continental 0-200 is=C2-most likely your best choic
e for reliability. It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices s
o performance would be less.=0A=C2-=0AThe Rotax 912 series of engines are
proving to be reliable,=C2-very close to Continentals. The engines are v
ery light and with right prop will have the most thrust for weight of=C2-
all your choices.=0A=C2-=0AThe Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just are
n't enough flying to really establish a real reliability record. If you loo
k at turbo Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so
if=C2-reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from th
em.=0A=C2-=0AThe UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If
reliability is your number one concern you should stay away from new engine
s. The 260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to us
e a shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be le
ss. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots
of thrust.=0A=C2-=0AThe UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would
think this would be a real new engine.=0A=C2-=0AAs always the info is wo
rth what you paid for it.=0A=C2-=0ARick Neilsen=0ARedrive VW powered Kolb
MKIIIC=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom:Ken Ryan =0ATo:engines-list@
matronics.com =0ASent:Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM=0ASubject:Engines-Li
st: reliability=0A=C2-=0AI'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose
an engine. I'm in Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very r
ugged terrain. An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering
the following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the "mo
st reliable:"=0A=0AContinental 0-200=0ARotax 912ULS=0ARotax 914=0AUL Power
260iS=0AUL Power 360=0A=0AKen Ryan=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0Ahref="http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?E
ngines-List=0Ahref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.
com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.c
om/c=0A =C2-=0A =C2-=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A
=============
________________________________________________________________________________
Jay and all,
> until there are a few light weight diesels on the market to choose from.
The problem is, a light weight diesel is by no means lighter than a
light weight gas engine. A diesel is heavier by design : more pressure
in the combustion chambers, more torque variations, etc.
> Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost certified for the past
> 15 years according to the owner/developer.
"Almost certified" engines are almost suitable for your airplane. Your
airplane will almost fly ;-)
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Campbell <brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Mckenna" <mmckenna(at)bellsouth.net> |
There are a lot of Continental parts available "in the field", maybe more
so than Rotax.
It does not cost 20k to overhaul a O-200 Continental. A new one can be
purchased at 20 to 22k. Probably 8 to 10k to overhaul.
Continentals have problems with valve leakage by 500hrs. Not a catastrophic
failure. Cheap and easy to repair as needed.
The Kantanas in my area started out with Rotax power. They are now using
Continental.
I am not at all against the Rotax brand. But your arguments against O-200
Continental do not agree with their long standing, proven track record.
As others have commented. The key to reliable power plants is the
owner/operator.
Mike Mckenna
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce Campbell
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:49 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability
I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the
actual in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field is
another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of
maintenance and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect. Most
of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type substitutes.
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental
(something like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent.
Costly overhauls certainly make one consider long and hard before
overhauling an engine which has developed some marginal characteristics.
Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling: they
don't blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least not nearly as
often.
I suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience by
finding a flight school that operates Katanas. They have been fitted with
both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and a lot of
abuse.
Bruce
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard &
Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability. It
is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance would be
less.
The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close to
Continentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will have the
most thrust for weight of all your choices.
The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to really
establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo Continental
engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if reliability is your
major concern you may want to stay away from them.
The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If reliability is
your number one concern you should stay away from new engines. The 260iS is
a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would have to use a shorter prop
than a Continental or Rotax so prop efficiency would be less. The CH 750
would be happier with a big slow turning prop producing lots of thrust.
The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would be a
real new engine.
As always the info is worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Subject: Engines-List: reliability
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in
Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain. An
engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the following
engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the "most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Engines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.m
atronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronic
s.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
There is a three cylinder six piston Diesel engine with crank shafts on
both ends of the engine. I don't remember the name but it is a rework of
a WWII German diesel aircraft engine. It is a radical design that is
reported to have power weight and price completive with the Continental
0-200 with much lower fuel consumption. I have seen it on display at
Oshkosh for a few years and at the LSA Expo at Sebring this year they
said it was being installed on a LSA by spring of this year.
Has anyone else heard any more current updates?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Parker
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Since we're on this topic of engines, when are they going to develop a
diesel engine that can use Jet A? I plan to start building a CH-801
within a year or so, but I'm not in any hurry until there are a few
light weight diesels on the market to choose from. I know Deltahawk
seems to be the closest to be marketable, but the last I heard was that
they'll take your money for a pre-order but nothing gets delivered yet.
Thought is should have been certified by now. I'm still waiting for the
engine that sounds too good to be true, the Zoche aero diesel, the
wonder engine which is compact in size, lighter in weight that most gas
engines, and will probably get you around 8 gal/hr when it's been geared
down to 200HP from it's natural 300HP
http://www.zoche.de/zoche_brochure.pdf ,which the company says they can
do easily. Their 150 HP would do nicely in the 750 and maybe even the
701 if geared down getting 5.57 gal/hr, unaltered. Truly a miracle
engine, which has been almost certified for the past 15 years according
to the owner/developer. What the heck is going on there? The guy's
sitting on a gold mine and doing nothing. I'll believe it when I see
it. But why can't the other manufacturers develop a radial diesel like
the Zoche? Fewer parts and things to go wrong, should be a snap for the
other manufacturers of gas engines. Jet A appears to be cheaper than
100LL at the moment and more plentiful if you're flying in Europe.
Jay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: Bruce Campbell <brcamp(at)windows.microsoft.com>
To: "engines-list(at)matronics.com"
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:48:36 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: reliability
I suspect there is a bit more to the engine reliability thing than the
actual in-flight failure rates. The availability of parts in the field
is another consideration should you have an issue, as is the cost of
maintenance and overhaul. All of these favour the Rotax, I suspect.
Most of the Rotax parts that might be required have automotive-type
substitutes.
Also, overhaul for a rotax is dirt cheap compared to a continental
(something like $5k vs $20k, give or take), if somewhat more frequent.
Costly overhauls certainly make one consider long and hard before
overhauling an engine which has developed some marginal characteristics.
Rotaxes (Rotaces?) also get something back from the liquid cooling:
they don=99t blow cylinder heads or crack cylinders, or at least
not nearly as often.
I suspect you could get access to considerable first hand experience
by finding a flight school that operates Katanas. They have been fitted
with both engines, and a school plane would have seen a lot of hours and
a lot of abuse.
Bruce
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard &
Martha Neilsen
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:54 AM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Ken
The Continental 0-200 is most likely your best choice for reliability.
It is going to be a bit heaver than your other choices so performance
would be less.
The Rotax 912 series of engines are proving to be reliable, very close
to Continentals. The engines are very light and with right prop will
have the most thrust for weight of all your choices.
The Rotax 914 is turbo charged. There just aren't enough flying to
really establish a real reliability record. If you look at turbo
Continental engines their reliability suffers with the turbo so if
reliability is your major concern you may want to stay away from them.
The UL engines are new and could have teething problems. If
reliability is your number one concern you should stay away from new
engines. The 260iS is a higher RPM engine like the Jabiru so you would
have to use a shorter prop than a Continental or Rotax so prop
efficiency would be less. The CH 750 would be happier with a big slow
turning prop producing lots of thrust.
The UL web site doesn't even list the 360 so I would think this would
be a real new engine.
As always the info is worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered Kolb MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Ryan
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Subject: Engines-List: reliability
I'm building a Zenith CH 750 and need to choose an engine. I'm in
Alaska, so most of my flying is over remote, often very rugged terrain.
An engine failure can be a very bad thing. I am considering the
following engines, and would like opinions as to which would be the
"most reliable:"
Continental 0-200
Rotax 912ULS
Rotax 914
UL Power 260iS
UL Power 360
Ken Ryan
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http:
//forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http
://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-Listhttp://forums.matronics.co
mhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
_ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution" target=_blank
======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Parker <zeus45601(at)yahoo.com> |
Well, if you can believe what Mr. Zoche says, his 300 HP engine only weighs
271 lbs which lighter than any gas engine at the same HP and probably any
-at 200HP.- His design is an old fashion radial with air cooling fins.
11.13 gal/hr is-pretty damn precise numbers if he doesn't have a working
engine.- I am frustrated that he's been sitting on this (for over 15 year
s)if it truly has the stats he claims. http://www.zoche.de/specs.html.- T
he size is a compact, 25.5" W x 25.5" H x 32.9" L.- Comp. ratio 17 to 1.
- He's either a fantastic liar or crazy for not having it certified somew
here.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Gille
s Thesee =0ATo: engines-list(at)matronics.com=0A
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:23:54 PM=0ASubject: Re: Engines-List: reliab
@ac-grenoble.fr>=0A=0AJay and all,=0A=0A=0A>- until there are a few light
weight diesels on the market to choose from.=0A=0AThe problem is, a light
weight diesel is by no means lighter than a light weight gas engine. A dies
el is heavier by design : more pressure in the combustion chambers, more to
rque variations, etc.=0A=0A> Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost
certified for the past 15 years according to the owner/developer.=0A=0A"Alm
ost certified" engines are almost suitable for your airplane. Your airplane
will almost fly ;-)=0A=0ABest regards,=0A-- Gilles=0Ahttp://contrails.free
===================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Davis" <charlesd1(at)telkomsa.net> |
You don't think, maybe, he is being paid to keep a lid on it by one of the
'established' aircraft powerplant manufacturers ? ... or am I just too
sceptical ?
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jay Parker
Sent: 22 May 2009 01:06 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
Well, if you can believe what Mr. Zoche says, his 300 HP engine only
weighs 271 lbs which lighter than any gas engine at the same HP and probably
any at 200HP. His design is an old fashion radial with air cooling fins.
11.13 gal/hr is pretty damn precise numbers if he doesn't have a working
engine. I am frustrated that he's been sitting on this (for over 15
years)if it truly has the stats he claims. http://www.zoche.de/specs.html.
The size is a compact, 25.5" W x 25.5" H x 32.9" L. Comp. ratio 17 to 1.
He's either a fantastic liar or crazy for not having it certified somewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:23:54 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: reliability
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Jay and all,
> until there are a few light weight diesels on the market to choose
from.
The problem is, a light weight diesel is by no means lighter than a light
weight gas engine. A diesel is heavier by design : more pressure in the
combustion chambers, more torque variations, etc.
> Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost certified for the past 15
years according to the owner/developer.
"Almost certified" engines are almost suitable for your airplane. Your
airplane will almost fly ;-)
Bnbsp; ======================
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
and is believed to be clean. (c) Internet Uncapped
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Parker <zeus45601(at)yahoo.com> |
Got to be something like that, someone is paying him to keep it off the mar
ket.- I would think he'd make much more money though if he'd just release
the thing to the general public as it would be in huge demand.- He's eve
n got-the prototype in a video that is-so quiet it was amazing.-Most
of the noise came from the propeller blades.- Patent the silly thing and
get it on the market, because there's nothing remotely close to that diesel
now. It makes the-Thielert Centurian- and DeltaHawks engines looks lik
e heavy beasts, the likes of-something-the Flintstones would use if the
y could fly.=0A=0AJay=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom
: Charles Davis =0ATo: engines-list(at)matronics.com
=0ASent: Friday, May 22, 2009 7:28:56 AM=0ASubject: RE: Engines-List: relia
bility=0A=0A=0AYou don't think, maybe, he is being paid to keep a lid on it
by one of the 'established' aircraft powerplant manufacturers ? ... or am
I just too sceptical ?=0A-=0ACharles=0A-=0A-=0A-----Original Message-
----=0AFrom: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-
list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jay Parker=0ASent: 22 May 2009 01:06
PM=0ATo: engines-list(at)matronics.com=0ASubject: Re: Engines-List: reliabili
ty=0A=0A=0AWell, if you can believe what Mr. Zoche says, his 300 HP engine
only weighs 271 lbs which lighter than any gas engine at the same HP and pr
obably any-at 200HP.- His design is an old fashion radial with air cool
ing fins. 11.13 gal/hr is-pretty damn precise numbers if he doesn't have
a working engine.- I am frustrated that he's been sitting on this (for ov
er 15 years)if it truly has the stats he claims. http://www.zoche.de/specs.
html.- The size is a compact, 25.5" W x 25.5" H x 32.9" L.- Comp. ratio
17 to 1.- He's either a fantastic liar or crazy for not having it certif
ied somewhere.=0A=0A=0A-=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFr
om: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>=0ATo: engines-list@matroni
cs.com=0ASent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:23:54 PM=0ASubject: Re: Engines-Lis
es.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>=0A=0AJay and all,=0A=0A=0A>- until there are a
few light weight diesels on the market to choose from.=0A=0AThe problem is,
a light weight diesel is by no means lighter than a light weight gas engin
e. A diesel is heavier by design : more pressure in the combustion chambers
, more torque variations, etc.=0A=0A> Truly a miracle engine, which has bee
n almost certified for the past 15 years according to the owner/developer.
=0A=0A"Almost certified" engines are almost suitable for your airplane. You
r airplane will almost fly ;-)=0A=0ABnbsp; - - - - - - - -
- -======================
==0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List=0Ai
cs.com=0A.matronics.com/contribution=0A=0A=0A-- =0AThis message has been sc
anned for viruses and dangerous content=0Aand is believed to be clean. =A9
=========================0A
========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Rogers <drogers(at)maf.org> |
I've been watching this thing for 15 years. If something sounds too
good to be true it probably is!! I did hear that he is getting some
kind of government financing while in development. So why finish
development? Also, maybe the thing really can't do what he is promising
so he just keeps on promising and living off his government.
Much of the above is hearsay, but I certainly would say, 'Don't hold
your breath for this engine!'
Dan Rogers
Charles Davis wrote:
> You don't think, maybe, he is being paid to keep a lid on it by one of
> the 'established' aircraft powerplant manufacturers ? ... or am I just
> too sceptical ?
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]*On Behalf Of *Jay
> Parker
> *Sent:* 22 May 2009 01:06 PM
> *To:* engines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Engines-List: reliability
>
> Well, if you can believe what Mr. Zoche says, his 300 HP engine only
> weighs 271 lbs which lighter than any gas engine at the same HP and
> probably any at 200HP. His design is an old fashion radial with air
> cooling fins. 11.13 gal/hr is pretty damn precise numbers if he
> doesn't have a working engine. I am frustrated that he's been
> sitting on this (for over 15 years)if it truly has the stats he
> claims. http://www.zoche.de/specs.html. The size is a compact,
> 25.5" W x 25.5" H x 32.9" L. Comp. ratio 17 to 1. He's either a
> fantastic liar or crazy for not having it certified somewhere.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> *To:* engines-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:23:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Engines-List: reliability
>
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr >
>
> Jay and all,
>
>
> > until there are a few light weight diesels on the market to
> choose from.
>
> The problem is, a light weight diesel is by no means lighter than a
> light weight gas engine. A diesel is heavier by design : more
> pressure in the combustion chambers, more torque variations, etc.
>
> > Truly a miracle engine, which has been almost certified for the
> past 15 years according to the owner/developer.
>
> "Almost certified" engines are almost suitable for your airplane.
> Your airplane will almost fly ;-)
>
> Bnbsp; ======================
>
>
>
> *
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> ics.com
> .matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
> and is believed to be clean. Internet Uncapped
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Carburator to manifolt nuts on Lycoming |
Well, studs and nuts actually. While taking the carb off my Lycoming
0-360 A1A, my mechanic commented on why the factory used a coarse thread stud,
and a nut without safety wire, over a flat washer and star washer.
He thought a MS rated metal self locking nut over a flat washer seemed more
appropriate.
Can I legally do that on a certificated aircraft? Thanks, Skip
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
=JulystepsfooterNO115)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Carburator to manifolt nuts on Lycoming |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
Your mechanic needs to go to the O-320 parts manual, and use the parts
called for, which I am pretty certain are the parts you mention, but
there should be a lock tab or equivalent that prevents the nut from
rotating. Parts substitution is not acceptable, he needs to have the
proper and current parts manual and go by the parts specified,
assuming it is on a certified engine on certified aircraft. He should
not be introducing his own idea of what is correct.
Experimental, you do what you want, and assume the risks.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, wrote:
> Well, studs and nuts actually. While taking the carb off my Lycoming 0-360
> A1A, my mechanic commented on why the factory used acoarse thread stud, and
> a nut without safety wire, over a flat washer and star washer.
>
> He thought a MS rated metal self locking nut over a flat washer seemed more
> appropriate.
>
> Can I legally do that on a certificated aircraft? Thanks, Skip
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | The micro-turbojet engine |
| From: | "Nanchang CJ6" <lcdzkj(at)live.cn> |
We can supply as belows,if who need pls feel free to contact me:lcdzkj(at)live.cn
A. HN-40-65
The micro-turbojet engine HN-40-65(hereafter referred to as the turbojet) is a
highly reliable, low-cost, single-shaft turbine jet engine. It consists of centrifugal
compressor, bearing lubricating system, annular firebox, radial turbine,
simple convergent nozzle and electron fuel controller.
The thrust of HN-40-65 is 650N . The engine is developed and whole owned by our
company.
B. HN-40-45
The micro-turbojet engine HN-40-45(hereafter referred to as the turbojet) is a
highly reliable, low-cost, single-shaft turbine jet engine. It consists of centrifugal
compressor, bearing lubricating system, annular firebox, radial turbine,
simple convergent nozzle and electron fuel controller.
The thrust of HN-40-45 is 450N . The engine is developed and whole owned by our
company.
C. HN-40-20
The micro-turbojet engine HN-40-20(hereafter referred to as the turbojet) is a
highly reliable, low-cost, single-shaft turbine jet engine. It consists of centrifugal
compressor, bearing lubricating system, annular firebox, radial turbine,
simple convergent nozzle and electron fuel controller.
The thrust of HN-40-20 is 200N . The engine is developed and whole owned by our
company.
--------
Sarah:86-13468610692
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=258376#258376
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Woodward vs McCauley Governor Height |
Does anybody know if the Woodward governor is shorter than the McCauley governor?
I've got a McCauley on my IO-390 and was doing the left front floor baffle
last night and with the cutout for the governor, there isn't enough room for
the big, square fiberglass intake hole between the governor and the left sidewall.
Its something like 1/4" to 1/2" too narrow and that *doesn't* take into
account any mounting flange space. I'm wondering if the Woodward governor is
shorter by a 1/2" or so which will make this all work. Basically, I don't see
how I'm going to get the McCauley to work at this point.
Anybody have any height specs on the Woodward governor? Basically from the boss
mount to the top of the arm would be helpful.
Thanks!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends....... What a piece of work he is !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
On the "801"
=93This is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
"The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours.
Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYQ341760CGHyTbKdxgY
PZzzuP1Q4CtxSQc47CrmEh93KGSgRAWOXG/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Michaels <nov32394(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you ar
e only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the weigh
t. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is more carry
ing that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
=0AOn the "801"
=0A=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incor
rectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
=0A"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
=0AThe numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
=0ASomething is seriously wrong.
=0A=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
=0AWhat he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
=0AThis person is totally clueless.
=0AI am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
=0APaul Lamar=9D
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
=0AI don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
=0AI am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
=0AMy project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
=0AI built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=0A=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300
hours.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
=0AMy responses..
=0A1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
=0A2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
=0A3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
=0A4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
=0A5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
=0A6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice th
e
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
=0A7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
=0A8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
=0A9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor th
at
rich.
=0A10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
=0A11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
=0A12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor
alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
=0A13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
=0AAnd in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=0A=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
=0A=C2-
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
=0A=0A
____________________________________________________________=0A
Digital Photography - Click Now.
=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ogoodwin(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation) up.=C2
- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain range.
=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of a supe
rcharged engine without the mechanical complexity.=C2- He's also using su
ch a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty well last
forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him.=C2- He
can carry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bottle le
vels.
His numbers make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the engine.
=C2- Many of us are used to pulling the max power the engine will put out
for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" <nov32394(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you ar
e only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the weigh
t. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is more carry
ing that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
On the "801"
=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrec
tly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=9D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hou
rs.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor alo
t
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
put in 4 full sized adults and 60+ gallons of fuel and the GEO engine "
Might" be able to get it to taxi to the active runway... .... He can
have his opinion,, BUT,,, calling me clueless is petty, naive and not a
nything close to the truth... If he had actually built and flown an exp
erimental plane, in my eyes that would go far in my respect for him. Key
board pilots/engineers/ wanna bee's need to listen,,,, not proclaim exce
llence... IMHO... Thanks for your feedback Danial.
tailwinds.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Daniel Michaels <nov32394(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you
are only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the
weight. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is m
ore carrying that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends....... What a piece of work he is !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2-------------------------------------------------------------
--
On the "801"
=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incor
rectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
"The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=9D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2-------------------------------------------------------------
---
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hours.
Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Click now for prescreened plumbing contractors.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYePbjMAHwHCm7egwgff
ZNQFLlKObyybAIkEWOFnmbZCkKIojcUUco/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
I had a customer call several weeks ago saying his engine felt 'weird' on a landing,
kind of like it wanted to stall. ?As he rolled out onto the taxiway, the
engine felt normal. ?We made an appointment to check it out, and left it at that.
?The next few flights were about the same. ?He didn't worry much about the
engine. ?
A couple of weeks ago (oh, he never did come down to have it checked out) he called
saying it was worse. ?
Note: ?He has a Cheetah, O320-E2G. ?Several years ago I had a customer with the
same symptoms with his Cheetah and it was the mixture needle working it's way
out. ?
I had him check the mixture screw and turn it in a 1/4 turn and said to bring it
in. ?He planned to bring it in but never did. ?The engine 'felt' better. ?
Last week, he called saying it was getting a lot worse. ?He said it barely ran
at idle. ?He finally brought it in last Friday. ?
I looked for all of the basic stuff, leaks at the intake tubes, mixture screw,
looked for leaks on the carb . . . . nothing. ?We removed the cowling and airbox.
?Several years ago, the accelerator nozzle in the carb on my Cheetah had fallen
out and was lying in the bottom of the airbox. ?I expected to find something
like that. ?Nothing. ?Venturi was tight,?accelerator nozzle was tight . .
. ?nothing. ?I removed the carb.
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. ?Nothing. ?Then I noticed
one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel. ?These are
the white floats. ?They should have been changed. ?Except that, the carb had been
overhauled in 2005. ?All new parts. ?
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Float doesn't |
Easy... Find the yellow tag that was sent with the rebult carb/engine an
d take a pic of the floats. send it in to the local FSDO/FSFO etc... If
they are going to charge a premium price for aircraft quality work then
by gosh they need to deliver.. MHO.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Subject: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:01:59 -0400
I had a customer call several weeks ago saying his engine felt 'weird' o
n a landing, kind of like it wanted to stall. As he rolled out onto the
taxiway, the engine felt normal. We made an appointment to check it ou
t, and left it at that. The next few flights were about the same. He d
idn't worry much about the engine.
A couple of weeks ago (oh, he never did come down to have it checked out
) he called saying it was worse.
Note: He has a Cheetah, O320-E2G. Several years ago I had a customer w
ith the same symptoms with his Cheetah and it was the mixture needle wor
king it's way out.
I had him check the mixture screw and turn it in a 1/4 turn and said to
bring it in. He planned to bring it in but never did. The engine 'felt
' better.
Last week, he called saying it was getting a lot worse. He said it bare
ly ran at idle. He finally brought it in last Friday.
I looked for all of the basic stuff, leaks at the intake tubes, mixture
screw, looked for leaks on the carb . . . . nothing. We removed the cow
ling and airbox. Several years ago, the accelerator nozzle in the carb
on my Cheetah had fallen out and was lying in the bottom of the airbox.
I expected to find something like that. Nothing. Venturi was tight, a
ccelerator nozzle was tight . . . nothing. I removed the carb.
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. Nothing. Then I n
oticed one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel
. These are the white floats. They should have been changed. Except t
hat, the carb had been overhauled in 2005. All new parts.
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Let everyone in on the conversation with a new conference phone. Click n
ow!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYWJeKJcg1FpC1NG5uWB
o4KMoPRUSqsTqvxPydbIScty6bSzGVj8gY/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Smith" <edflying(at)sandyvalley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
Does this guy even know what an 801 is. To suggest a little geo for
an 801 is a little odd for such a large plane Ed Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: ogoodwin(at)comcast.net
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation)
up. I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain
range. By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of a
supercharged engine without the mechanical complexity. He's also using
such a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty well
last forever. Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him. He can
carry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bottle
levels.
His numbers make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the
engine. Many of us are used to pulling the max power the engine will
put out for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" <nov32394(at)yahoo.com>
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada
Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out
front if you are only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out
at half the weight. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your
fuel burn is more carrying that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com
wrote:
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by
several
friends....... What a piece of work he is !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
On the "801"
=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor
mount is incorrectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension
and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450
pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of
beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during
landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on
the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over designed to begin with
having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am
presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is
producing
5.9 0 -6.3 gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about
engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an
hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP
giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the
BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute
maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP
at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
"The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine
weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit
in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to
400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700
engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=9D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications
are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any
other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my
experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and
installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god
only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half
built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I
have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other
planes.
My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300
hours.
Been flown in air from 97f to -37f. Has over 500 landing,
been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a
couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other
power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to -
2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to
do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to
my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting
angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the
area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't
mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems
to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just
because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at
a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine has
twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle
back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4
GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three
times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would
have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw
a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he
can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a
motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie,
different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will
not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because
it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # from ? I turn the motor
alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy
but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large
diameter
prop.
13- """ Totally Clueless""" Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ogoodwin(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
If you're replying to me, I wasn't commenting on the use of a Geo, but sugg
esting a reason for having an engine that has more power than might be cons
idered absolutely necessary.=C2- Obviously, a Geo isn't near enough.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Smith" <edflying(at)sandyvalley.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:49:56 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=EF=BB
=C2-=C2- Does this guy even know what an 801 is.=C2-To suggest a litt
le geo for an 801 is a little odd for such a large plane=C2-=C2- Ed Smi
th
----- Original Message -----
From: ogoodwin(at)comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation) up.=C2
- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain range.
=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of a supe
rcharged engine without the mechanical complexity.=C2- He's also using su
ch a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty well last
forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him.=C2- He
can carry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bottle le
vels.
His numbers make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the engine.
=C2- Many of us are used to pulling the max power the engine will put out
for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" <nov32394(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
I think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out front if you ar
e only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at half the weigh
t. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn is more carry
ing that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
This posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
On the "801"
=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incorrec
tly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
Something is seriously wrong.
=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
This person is totally clueless.
I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
Paul Lamar=9D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300 hou
rs.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
My responses..
1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor that
rich.
10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor alo
t
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List p://forums.
matronics.com blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?
Engines-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.c
om href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
===========
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Michaels <nov32394(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
I do know what a 801 is, I was just making an observation of amount of hp t
hat was being used in cruise. Application is everything. In general the les
s weight you are carrying the better off you are. If you are operating at 1
4,000' you will need more than the 50% he was using. I went totally by the
hp he mentioned he was using as an example.
The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm that's equivalent to 70 mph on the
freeway. Turbo that engine and you get your rated hp as high as you want to
normalize it to. Little over 115 hp to be conservative. Ever notice how mu
ch faster a plane gets off the ground with 200# less weight.
I was just making an observation on why Paul thought using such a large eng
ine was not practical. I was not endorsing either one. I do know that Paul
is very knowledgeable on engine hp, fuel flows and the ability of an engine
to produce any hp at any specific BSFC.
Dan
--- On Sun, 9/20/09, Ed Smith wrote:
From: Ed Smith <edflying(at)sandyvalley.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 11:49 PM
=EF=BB=0A=0A =0A#yiv449018188 P {=0AMARGIN:0px;}=0A=0A=0A=C2-=C2- Do
es this guy even know what an 801 =0Ais.=C2-To suggest a little geo for a
n 801 is a little odd for such a large =0Aplane=C2-=C2- Ed Smith=0A=0A
----- Original Message ----- =0A From: =0A ogoodwin(at)comcast.net =0A To:
engines-list(at)matronics.com =0A Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05
=0A AM=0A Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul =0A Lamar. !!!=0A
=0A =0A Possibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevati
on) =0A up.=C2- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft
mountain =0A range.=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has
the effect of a =0A supercharged engine without the mechanical complexity.
=C2- He's also using =0A such a small amount of the engine's potential t
hat it should pretty well last =0A forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little
fuel is worth it to him.=C2- He can =0A carry the power the Geo makes a
t sea level up into the oxygen bottle =0A levels.=0A =C2-=0A His numbe
rs make sense if you factor in the way he's operating the =0A engine.=C2
- Many of us are used to pulling the max power the engine will put =0A o
ut for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.=0A =C2-=0A Olen=0A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" =0A <nov32394(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: =0A Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada =0A
Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=0A =0A =0A =0A I think what he is saying is why have such a bi
g engine =0A out front if you are only going to use what a little GE
O engine will put =0A out at half the weight. Not only are you carry
ing extra weight, but your =0A fuel burn is more carrying that weigh
t.
Just an =0A observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, =0A n801bh(at)netzero.com wro
te:
=0A
From: =0A n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: =0A Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 =0A PM
=0A =0A This =0A posting that was on the interne
t was forwarded to me by several =0A
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
=0A --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------=C2=AD--------------------------------------------------------
------- =0A
=0A On the "801"
=0A =9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor moun
t is =0A incorrectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in =0A tension a
nd
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least =0A 450 pound
s
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made =0A of bee
fing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending =0A loads during
landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased =0A bending loads on
the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =0A =C2-designed to begin with
having very
thin skins.
=0A "The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am present
ly =0A
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is =0A pr
oducing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
=0A The numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about e
ngine =0A
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour =0A
or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP =0A gi
ving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely =0A event the
BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the =0A absolute maxim
um. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight =0A putting out 93 HP
at
cruise.
=0A Something is seriously wrong.
=0A =C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine
=0A weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that =0A will fit
in most
airframes."
=0A What he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to
400 =0A HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 =0A en
gine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
=0A This person is totally clueless.
=0A I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
=0A
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
=0A Paul Lamar=9D
=0A --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------=C2=AD--------------------------------------------------------
-------- =0A
=0A I don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications a
re =0A but..
=0A I am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
=0A My project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any ot
her =0A
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my =0A exper
imental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and =0A installati
ons are
a one off and done to the best of my ability =0A using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, =0A cars and god
only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years. =0A
=0A I built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half
=0A built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. =0A I
have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other =0A planes
.
=0A =C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 year
s and =0A 300 hours.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 =0A landin
g, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full =0A throttle, !! over a co
uple of
dozen times to test it for strength. =0A Been flown in all other p
ower
settings to comfirm and quantify =0A data. Tested to +3.5g's to -
2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not =0A trucked there as others seem to d
o to
display their creations. =0A
=0A My responses..
=0A 1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
=0A 2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to
my =0A web
site and look at the pics.
=0A 3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting
=0A angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the =0A are
a is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it =0A doesn't me
an crap.
=0A 4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems
to. =0A And
it is less then his "estimation"
=0A 5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just beca
use I =0A
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a =0A
free
shot.
=0A 6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-ha
s =0A twice the
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half. =0A
=0A 7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle b
ack =0A to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 =0A G
PH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three =0A tim
es the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I =0A would hav
e built
another type plane. You would think a guy like =0A him could draw
a simple
conclusion.
=0A 8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he
can =0A
dream about.
=0A 9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune
a =0A motor that
rich.
=0A 10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
=0A
throttled back.
=0A 11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie,
=0A different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor =0A will no
t gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 =0A Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 =0A because i
t for
sure doen not need any more power.
=0A 12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn
the =0A motor alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda =0A noisy bu
t
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a =0A large di
ameter
prop.
=0A 13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
=0A And in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. =0A Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very =0A long time. "
=0A =C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
=0A
=0A =C2-
Ben =0A Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________ =0A
Digital Photography - Click =0A Now.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
> On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
> The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
> spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
>
Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
even challenged the statement, but there you go.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
For the reasons you cited, the rotary BSPC is not as good as a comparable
piston engine. The best I have seen is around 0.5 - 0.55 although some
claims up to 0.47.
However, Mazda has a completely new design rotary (16X) developmental engine
they have shown. The have gone to a narrower rotor housing and doubled the
length of the throw on the eccentric shaft (thereby doubling the torque at
all rpm over the current 13B) and also increased the diameter of the rotor.
They have also changed from the heavy cast iron side housings to aluminum
side housings. The rotor is narrower but larger in diameter all to improve
the BSFC.
The preliminary figures suggest that the block will weigh approx 20-30 lbs
less than the current block with the cast iron side housings and will
produce in the vicinity of 220-230 HP naturally aspire.
If they do come out with in an automobile package before 2012, I intend to
swap out my older 13B with 450 hours and 10 years on it.
The rotary is a very reliable engine, however, the BSFC is never going to
be quite as good as the better piston engines. Fortunately, it has a number
of other attributes that continue to make it the alternative engine of
choice for a growing number.
Just a biased personal opinion of course {:>)
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
> On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
> The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
> spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
>
Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
even challenged the statement, but there you go.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Lundin <rlundin46(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hi-Rev car engines |
Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it is the percent
of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine at 70mph is
putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use 70-80 percent of
the total in cruse.
Rick
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:06 AM
> It will rev that high,,,,,, if ya leave
> it in third gear..
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Randy L. Thwing"
>
> To:
> Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
>
>
> do not
> archive
>
> Hello All:
>
> Today I read this on this
> list:
>
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
>
> Could everyone or anyone
> please verify that this is even in the ball
> park.
>
> In the last several years
> that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I have often
> heard statements such as above where:
>
> "These new hi-revving
> car engines run all day long at high rpms.
>
> Between my own experience,
> and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> following:
>
> I had a '89 Jeep
> Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
> engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned
> 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have a '89 Firebird
> with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
>
> I have a '98 Toyota
> 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400rpm@
> 70mph.
>
> I have polled friends with
> compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall
> any turning at orover 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
>
> If I have this wrong,
> please point out specific examples.
>
> Most later models cars
> have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy, Las
> Vegas
>
>
> ===================================
> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> ===================================
> tronics.com
> ===================================
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Become
> a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> Here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dee Young <henrysfork1(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Hi-Rev car engines |
Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
> Date: Wed=2C 23 Sep 2009 04:09:49 -0700
> From: rlundin46(at)yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Let's also remember=2C it's not just how many rpm you're turning=2C it is
the percent of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine
at 70mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use
70-80 percent of the total in cruse.
> Rick
>
> --- On Tue=2C 9/22/09=2C n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
>
> > From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday=2C September 22=2C 2009=2C 9:06 AM
> > It will rev that high=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C if ya leave
> > it in third gear..
> >
> >
> > Ben Haas
> > N801BH
> > www.haaspowerair.com
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> >
> > To:
> > Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > Date: Mon=2C 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
> >
> >
> > do not
> > archive
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Today I read this on this
> > list:
> >
> > "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> > that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> >
> > Could everyone or anyone
> > please verify that this is even in the ball
> > park.
> >
> > In the last several years
> > that car engines have been adapted to aircraft=2C I have often
> > heard statements such as above where:
> >
> > "These new hi-revving
> > car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> >
> > Between my own experience=2C
> > and polling friends with small cars=2C I haven't found
> > that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> > have no experience with a GEO=2C but I have noted the
> > following:
> >
> > I had a '89 Jeep
> > Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup=2C Identical
> > engines and running gear=2C 4.0 litre straight six=2C turned
> > 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '89 Firebird
> > with a 2.8 lite V6=2C gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> > 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '98 Toyota
> > 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6=2C 2400 rpm@
> > 70 mph.
> >
> > I have polled friends with
> > compact Pontiacs=2C Chevys & Toyotas=2C and don't recall
> > any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> >
> > If I have this wrong=2C
> > please point out specific examples.
> >
> > Most later models cars
> > have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> >
> >
> > Regards=2C
> >
> > Randy=2C Las
> > Vegas
> >
> >
> > =======================
============
> > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> > =======================
============
> > tronics.com
> > =======================
============
> > www.matronics.com/contribution
> > =======================
============
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Become
> > a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> > Here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Bing=99 brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.
Try it now.=0A
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&cre
a=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony Crowe <groups(at)bobcroweaircraft.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hi-Rev car engines |
Dee
You have to do this yourself
On 23 Sep 2009, at 13:17, Dee Young wrote:
> Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:09:49 -0700
> > From: rlundin46(at)yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >
>
> >
> > Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it
> is the percent of total horse power that you're using. The average
> car engine at 70mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its
> total. Airplanes use 70-80 percent of the total in cruse.
> > Rick
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/22/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> >
> > > From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:06 AM
> > > It will rev that high,,,,,, if ya leave
> > > it in third gear..
> > >
> > >
> > > Ben Haas
> > > N801BH
> > > www.haaspowerair.com
> > >
> > > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > > From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> > >
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
> > >
> > >
> > > do not
> > > archive
> > >
> > > Hello All:
> > >
> > > Today I read this on this
> > > list:
> > >
> > > "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> > > that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> > >
> > > Could everyone or anyone
> > > please verify that this is even in the ball
> > > park.
> > >
> > > In the last several years
> > > that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I have often
> > > heard statements such as above where:
> > >
> > > "These new hi-revving
> > > car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> > >
> > > Between my own experience,
> > > and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> > > that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> > > have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > I had a '89 Jeep
> > > Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
> > > engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned
> > > 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> > >
> > > I have a '89 Firebird
> > > with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> > > 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> > >
> > > I have a '98 Toyota
> > > 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400 rpm@
> > > 70 mph.
> > >
> > > I have polled friends with
> > > compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall
> > > any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> > >
> > > If I have this wrong,
> > > please point out specific examples.
> > >
> > > Most later models cars
> > > have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Randy, Las
> > > Vegas
> > >
> > >
> > > ==========
> > > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> > > ==========
> > > tronics.com
> > > ==========
> > > www.matronics.com/contribution
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Become
> > > a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> > > Here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >====================
> > _===
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bing=84=A2 brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one
place. Tr
> y it now.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hi-Rev car engines |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
It is a self help program:
You get off the same way you got on...there is a link on every message at
the bottom to go to change your subscription options.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Dee Young wrote:
> Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks* *
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> *
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
>
>
> > On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
> > The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
> > spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
> >
> Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
> smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
> engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
> have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
> strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
> the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
> surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
> even challenged the statement, but there you go.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
> Tedd,
Rightly so that you got smacked down... lower BSFC is good, higher is bad.
so 2-strokes have HIGH BSFC.
That being said, the rotary is in NO WAY (not effectively or otherwise) a
2-stroke.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dee Young <henrysfork1(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Hi-Rev car engines |
I have un-subscribed about 6 times with no results. I will try again.
Thanks
Date: Wed=2C 23 Sep 2009 08:54:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
From: apilot2(at)gmail.com
It is a self help program:
You get off the same way you got on...there is a link on every message at t
he bottom to go to change your subscription options.
On Wed=2C Sep 23=2C 2009 at 8:17 AM=2C Dee Young wrot
e:
Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.=0A
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd_062009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dee Young <henrysfork1(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Hi-Rev car engines |
Tony=2C been there and done that a number of time with no results. I have w
ent to
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-ListThen click on engines (unsub
scribe is highlighted) then click execute and nada
Thanks
Dee
From: groups(at)bobcroweaircraft.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
Date: Wed=2C 23 Sep 2009 13:43:39 +0100
Dee
You have to do this yourself
On 23 Sep 2009=2C at 13:17=2C Dee Young wrote:
Please un-subscribe me from this list. Thanks
> Date: Wed=2C 23 Sep 2009 04:09:49 -0700
> From: rlundin46(at)yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Let's also remember=2C it's not just how many rpm you're turning=2C it is
the percent of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine
at 70mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use
70-80 percent of the total in cruse.
> Rick
>
> --- On Tue=2C 9/22/09=2C n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
>
> > From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday=2C September 22=2C 2009=2C 9:06 AM
> > It will rev that high=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C=2C if ya leave
> > it in third gear..
> >
> >
> > Ben Haas
> > N801BH
> > www.haaspowerair.com
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: "Randy L. Thwing"
> >
> > To:
> > Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> > Date: Mon=2C 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
> >
> >
> > do not
> > archive
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Today I read this on this
> > list:
> >
> > "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> > that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> >
> > Could everyone or anyone
> > please verify that this is even in the ball
> > park.
> >
> > In the last several years
> > that car engines have been adapted to aircraft=2C I have often
> > heard statements such as above where:
> >
> > "These new hi-revving
> > car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> >
> > Between my own experience=2C
> > and polling friends with small cars=2C I haven't found
> > that to be true. I'm not challenging anyone and I
> > have no experience with a GEO=2C but I have noted the
> > following:
> >
> > I had a '89 Jeep
> > Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup=2C Identical
> > engines and running gear=2C 4.0 litre straight six=2C turned
> > 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '89 Firebird
> > with a 2.8 lite V6=2C gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
> > 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> >
> > I have a '98 Toyota
> > 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6=2C 2400 rpm@
> > 70 mph.
> >
> > I have polled friends with
> > compact Pontiacs=2C Chevys & Toyotas=2C and don't recall
> > any turning at or over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> >
> > If I have this wrong=2C
> > please point out specific examples.
> >
> > Most later models cars
> > have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> >
> >
> > Regards=2C
> >
> > Randy=2C Las
> > Vegas
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> > ==========
> > tronics.com
> > ==========
> > www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Become
> > a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> > Here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >====================
> _===
>
>
>
Bing=99 brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place. Tr
y it now.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that=92s right for you.=0A
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
On 23-Sep-09, at 6:19AM, David Leonard wrote:
> Rightly so that you got smacked down... lower BSFC is good, higher
> is bad. so 2-strokes have HIGH BSFC.
Good point. I meant "worse," not "lower," as you obviously realized,
but thanks for clarifying.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hi-Rev car engines |
On 23-Sep-09, at 4:09AM, Richard Lundin wrote:
> Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it
> is the percent of total horse power that you're using.
It depends what you're concerned about, Richard. If you're concerned
about internal stresses then, when you get to the higher RPMs,
inertial forces dominate and BMEP is relatively unimportant.
Also, remember that while your car engine's duty cycle typically
involves lower BMEP than and airplane engine's does, the car engine is
designed to last 6,000 to 8,000 hours, not a mere 1,500 or 2,000.
That's the other side of the equation that is often forgotten. What's
really interesting is that, since testing for 8,000 hours is pretty
impractical (you'd be on the dyno for nearly a year straight), auto
manufacturers use accelerated testing regimes that look amazingly like
an airplane engine duty cycle! So, in actual fact, production auto
engines are tested for exactly the sort of environment they would see
if installed in an airplane, even though that's not the specific
intent of the testing.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Michaels <nov32394(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul Lamar. !!! |
I was just reading the excerpts from the post. If the poster said something
like "I need 200 hp to get off the ground on my small strip, but once in t
he air I only use 80 HP." It was just to me the poster was bragging that he
got great mileage by only using 80 hp. Which is fine, nothing wrong with p
owering back. There is such a thing as optimal power though. A place where
you get the best mileage for the least weight or HP. It also goes to the ki
nd of flying you do. If you are powering back to 80 hp most of the time you
obviously do not need much more than 100 or so. My 260 Viking has the IO 4
70 260 hp the "Viking" has the 300 hp engine which is heavier and the engin
e mount had to be beefed up then the wings then the landing gear. Now my pl
ane is faster than it, because it is lighter.
I was mostly commenting on "I only use 5 or 6 gph because I only use 80 hp
out of my engine."
Dan
--- On Mon, 9/21/09, ogoodwin(at)comcast.net wrote:
From: ogoodwin(at)comcast.net <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 9:40 AM
#yiv438438901 p {margin:0;}If you're replying to me, I wasn't commenting on
the use of a Geo, but suggesting a reason for having an engine that has mo
re power than might be considered absolutely necessary.=C2- Obviously, a
Geo isn't near enough.=0A=C2-=0AOlen=0A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Smith" <edflying(at)sandyvalley.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:49:56 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=EF=BB =0A#yiv438438901 P {=0AMARGIN:0px;}=0A=0A=0A=C2-=C2- Does thi
s guy even know what an 801 is.=C2-To suggest a little geo for an 801 is
a little odd for such a large plane=C2-=C2- Ed Smith=0A=0A----- Origina
l Message ----- =0AFrom: ogoodwin(at)comcast.net =0ATo: engines-list@matronics
.com =0ASent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:05 AM=0ASubject: Re: Engines-L
ist: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!=0A
=0A=0APossibly the fact that he's operating from 6000msl (field elevation)
up.=C2- I don't think a Geo would work well crossing a 14000 ft mountain
range.=C2- By flat rating (limiting the power used) he has the effect of
a supercharged engine without the mechanical complexity.=C2- He's also us
ing such a small amount of the engine's potential that it should pretty wel
l last forever.=C2- Maybe giving up a little fuel is worth it to him.=C2
- He can carry the power the Geo makes at sea level up into the oxygen bo
ttle levels.=0A=C2-=0AHis numbers make sense if you factor in the way he'
s operating the engine.=C2- Many of us are used to pulling the max power
the engine will put out for takeoff, then 75% for cruise, and so forth.=0A
=C2-=0AOlen=0A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Michaels" <nov32394(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:00:45 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: =C2-Paul Lamar. !!!
=0A=0A=0A=0AI think what he is saying is why have such a big engine out fro
nt if you are only going to use what a little GEO engine will put out at ha
lf the weight. Not only are you carrying extra weight, but your fuel burn i
s more carrying that weight.
Just an observation.
Dan
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
=0A
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Paul Lamar. !!!
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 11:30 PM
=0A=0AThis posting that was on the internet was forwarded to me by several
friends.......=C2- What a piece of work he is=C2- !
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD---------------------------------------------------------------
=0AOn the "801"
=0A=9CThis is an accident waiting to happen. The motor mount is incor
rectly
designed with un triangulated bays and bent tubes in tension and
compression. The firewall forward weight is at least 450 pounds
aluminum block or no aluminum block. No mention is made of beefing up
the fuselage to take the vastly increased bending loads during landing
and high G turns not to mention the increased bending loads on the
wing spars. Zenairs are not over =C2-designed to begin with having very
thin skins.
=0A"The fuel burn is better then expected though and I am presently
confirming the JPI 450 for accuracy. Cruise @ 11,000 msl is producing
5.9 0 -6.3 =C2-gallons an hour."
=0AThe numbers quoted above shows a lack of understanding about engine
engineering in general. The fuel burn quoted at 6 gallons an hour or
37 pounds an hour means the engine is only generating 83 HP giving it
the benefit of a BSFC number of .45. In the unlikely event the BSFC is
as low as .40 the HP then would be 93 HP at the absolute maximum. Now
you have a 450 pound firewall forward weight putting out 93 HP at
cruise.
=0ASomething is seriously wrong.
=0A=C2- "The numbers I am shooting for are one pound of engine weight for
each horsepower and a small total engine profile that will fit in most
airframes."
=0AWhat he is saying here is he things he is going to get 350 to 400 HP
with a 1.43:1 PSRU ratio. With a 2600 RPM prop that is 3700 engine
RPM. No way is that going to happen.
=0AThis person is totally clueless.
=0AI am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time.
=0APaul Lamar=9D
=0A------------------------------------------------------------------------
---=C2=AD----------------------------------------------------------------
=0AI don't know who this "person" is or what his qualifications are but..
=0AI am compelled to answer his hatchet job on every topic.
=0AMy project is a one of a kind. I had no group, forum or any other
source to go to during the design, and test flying of my experimental
aircraft, so all the calculations, fabrications and installations are
a one off and done to the best of my ability using past life
experiences from fabricating stuff on race boats, cars and god only
knows whatever I have modified in earlier years.
=0AI built my plane, 3000 + hours of MY time. I didn't but a half built
one, or a completed one to use a test bed for my powerplant. I have
been flying for almost 30 years and owned several other planes.
=0A=C2- =C2- My experimental plane has been flying for 5 years and 300
hours.
Been flown in air from 97f =C2- to -37f. Has over 500 landing, been flown
from JAC, 6430 msl to 18,000 feet, full throttle, !! over a couple of
dozen times to test it for strength. Been flown in all other power
settings to comfirm and quantify data. Tested to +3.5g's to - 2.5 g's.
Flown to OSH and back... not trucked there as others seem to do to
display their creations.
=0AMy responses..
=0A1- When is this " accident" going to happen ??
=0A2- The mount is designed by me using triangulation, just go to my web
site and look at the pics.
=0A3- There are NO bent tubes in my mount. there are intersecting angles
but that happens on ALL mounts. At those intersections the area is
beefed up internally. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean crap.
=0A4- I know EXACTLY what it weighs. I don't guess like he seems to. And
it is less then his "estimation"
=0A5- Of course I beefed up the airframe as I built it. Just because I
didn't state that on my website should not give him a pass at a free
shot.
=0A6- Zenith Aircraft seem to be an "issue" to him. Mine =C2-has twice th
e
"suggested" HP and still has not broken in half.
=0A7- The plane has so much power that at cruise I can throttle back to
ALOT.. A 801 has alot of aerodynamic drag. I can run 90@ 6.4 GPH or
110@ 17 GPH. The plane hits a brick wall so why burn three times the
fuel to go a little faster. If I wanted to go fast I would have built
another type plane. You would think a guy like him could draw a simple
conclusion.
=0A8- I have probably built, raced and tested more engines hen he can
dream about.
=0A9- BSFC of .45 ??? =C2- Jeez. I would be embarrased to tune a motor th
at
rich.
=0A10- Nothing is " seriously wrong"............. I am seriously
throttled back.
=0A11- The motor is capable of 600 + Hp in different trim. ie, different
redrive ratio, different intake design, etc. The motor will not gain
any more weight by changing componants, so 350-400 Hp is a no
brainer.. On MY plane I purposely stayed with 1.43-1 because it for
sure doen not need any more power.
=0A12- Where did he get the 3700 RPM # =C2-from ? =C2-I turn the motor
alot
higher then that on take off. Yeah, the prop is kinda noisy but
nothing worse then what noise a seaplane makes with a large diameter
prop.
=0A13- =C2-""" Totally Clueless""" =C2-Ya wanna bet..
=0AAnd in closing all I can add is
" I am really worried here. Probably one of the most dangerous
airplanes I have seen in a very long time. "
=0A=C2-Geez... Where was he 5 years and 300 hours ago ??????.
=0A=C2-
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Engines-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=0A
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Michaels <nov32394(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Hi-Rev car engines |
It will run far longer at 4500 if you lug it at 3000.
Dan
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, Mel Lewis wrote:
From: Mel Lewis <mlewis(at)mlode.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:38 AM
My RAV4 at 75MPH is somewhere around 3000.
BUT! . . .If I am going up hill at all, it
is so under powered it drops down a gear or two and the RPM will go to 4500 at
full power to climb the hill.
I am sure it would run at that 4500 RPM
and full power all day long.
-Mel-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Michaels <nov32394(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hi-Rev car engines |
A GEO is far from average.
Dan
--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Richard Lundin wrote:
From: Richard Lundin <rlundin46(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 6:09 AM
Let's also remember, it's not just how many rpm you're turning, it is the p
ercent of total horse power that you're using. The average car engine at 70
mph is putting out between 20-30 percent of its total. Airplanes use 70-80
percent of the total in cruse.
Rick
--- On Tue, 9/22/09, n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote:
> From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 9:06 AM
> It will rev that high,,,,,, if ya leave
> it in third gear..
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Randy L. Thwing"
>
> To:
> Subject: Engines-List: Hi-Rev car engines
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:39:42 -0700
>
>
> do not
> archive
> -
> Hello All:
> -
> Today I read this on this
> list:
> -
> "The GEO engine runs all day at 4800 rpm
> that's equivalent to 70 mph on the freeway."
> -
> Could everyone or anyone
> please verify that this is even in the ball
> park.
> -
> In the last several years
> that car engines have been adapted to aircraft, I have often
> heard statements such as above where:
> -
> "These new hi-revving
> car engines run all day long at high rpms.
> -
> Between my own experience,
> and polling friends with small cars, I haven't found
> that to be true.- I'm not challenging anyone and I
> have no experience with a GEO, but I have noted the
> following:
> -
> I had a '89 Jeep
> Cherokee and a "88 Jeep Comanche pickup, Identical
> engines and running gear, 4.0 litre straight six, turned
> 2100 rpm@ 70 mph.
> -
> I have a '89 Firebird
> with a 2.8 lite V6, gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway.-
> 2500 rpm@ 70 mph.
> -
> I have a '98 Toyota
> 4Runner with 3.4 litre V6, 2400-rpm@
> 70-mph.
> -
> I have polled friends with
> compact Pontiacs, Chevys & Toyotas, and don't recall
> any turning at or-over 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
> -
> If I have this wrong,
> please point out specific examples.
> -
> Most later models cars
> have tachs so it's not too hard to check.
> -
> -
> Regards,
> -
> Randy, Las
> Vegas
> -
>
> ========================
===========
> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
> ========================
===========
> tronics.com
> ========================
===========
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> ========================
===========
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Become
> a Court Reporter with an accredited degree. Free info. Click
> Here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
- - -
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tracy Crook <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
A rotary tuned for all out best power production (especially if ported for
racing etc) might indeed clock in at .65 BSFC. That has little to do with
what you can expect at cruise conditions in an aircraft application.
Using Van's Aircraft HP required vs airspeed chart published some time
ago, I computed my BSFC at .45 - .47 BSFC at cruise conditions. That's a
tiny bit worse than Lycoming numbers when run LOP but not enough to matter.
Especially considering it happily burns 87 octane auto fuel.
Tracy Crook
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM, David Leonard wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > On his forum/sandbox someone sent in two dyno sheets for a rotary.
>> > The BSFC numbers were in the .65 range... Funny, not one person
>> > spoke up about that, not even the "wizzard".
>> >
>> Some people in the rotary community are sensitive about that. I got
>> smacked down on the RV List a few years ago for suggesting (based on
>> engineering references) that it was an accepted fact that rotaries
>> have a lower BSFC than piston engines, generally speaking. Being two-
>> strokes, effectively, and having a very poor surface-volume ratio in
>> the combustion chamber (compared to a piston engine) it's not
>> surprising that they would have low BSFC. I found it odd that anyone
>> even challenged the statement, but there you go.
>>
>> Tedd McHenry
>> Surrey, BC
>>
>>
>> Tedd,
> Rightly so that you got smacked down... lower BSFC is good, higher is
> bad. so 2-strokes have HIGH BSFC.
>
> That being said, the rotary is in NO WAY (not effectively or otherwise) a
> 2-stroke.
>
> --
> David Leonard
>
> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> http://RotaryRoster.net
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> Using Van's Aircraft HP required vs airspeed chart published some
> time ago, I computed my BSFC at .45 - .47 BSFC at cruise conditions.
Tracy:
If your airframe has lower drag than Van assumed -- as it likely does,
due to your lower cooling drag -- then Van's power-required numbers
would have been too high, and the BSFC you calculated would have been
low. Any conservatism on Van's part (and he is famous for it) would
also have lowered your BSFC result.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
>> Using Van's Aircraft HP required vs airspeed chart published some
>> time ago, I computed my BSFC at .45 - .47 BSFC at cruise conditions.
>
> Tracy:
>
> If your airframe has lower drag than Van assumed -- as it likely does,
> due to your lower cooling drag -- then Van's power-required numbers
> would have been too high, and the BSFC you calculated would have been
> low. Any conservatism on Van's part (and he is famous for it) would
> also have lowered your BSFC result.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
Possible, but not likely. It's pretty rare (do-able, but rare) for
homebuilt liquid cooled a/c to get cooling drag lower than a Lyc.
I've flown two 400+ mile cross countries in my 160 hp Lyc powered -4
with Tracy (he burns 87mogas, I burn 93mogas), flying the same flight
profiles for each flight, and each time he burned ~1.5-2.5 gal more than
me. My oil burn probably offset that difference.
It should also be noted that I lean my stock Lyc *far* more aggressively
than most Lyc drivers are willing to risk.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> >
>
> Possible, but not likely. It's pretty rare (do-able, but rare) for
> homebuilt liquid cooled a/c to get cooling drag lower than a Lyc.
I'm not familiar with Tracy's installation, specifically, but cooling
drag is one of the key advantages of liquid-cooled engines. You're
probably right that most homebuilts don't exploit that advantage very
well. You only have to look at the installations to see that. But,
given that Tracy's a pretty smart cookie, I'm giving him the benefit
of the doubt and suggesting that is why his BSFC estimate is optimistic.
The numbers Tracy published would be quite good for an automotive
piston engine. When I see numbers like that for a 13B-based rotary I
begin to look for alternate explanations.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Float doesn't |
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
And what would that prove? ?The carb was rebuilt using the then current specifications.
?
It's not surprising to me the float failed. ?It's not like floats in carbs haven't
been around for 100 years. ?It doesn't surprise to me that the floats used
in planes are inferior to those used in cars. ?
The hoops the FAA requires a manufacture to jump through completely eliminates
the possibility for improving a product. ?Some of the testing they require and
the standards that they work to are totally out-of-sink with reality. ?Companies
are so gun shy when it comes to making improvements because it's like saying,
"Hey, we knew the previous version sucked, now we're making a better one."
?An improvement means they are liable for all the junk they sold before. ?Airworthiness
Directive or not. ?
Putting it another way: ?The avionics, engines, materials, autopilots, practically
everything available to the experimental aircraft builder is the better than
that available to the certified aircraft owner. ?Even when the products are
exactly the same, those for the certified plane are 3 or 4 times the price. ?Not
because they are better; because of the ridiculous?FAA testing required on
a product on top of the testing done just to get the product to market. ?
What amazes me most is, the FAA has no liability for a product failure. ?None.
?It cost me 9 years and $150,000 to get a fiberglass cowling STCd as a replacement
for a metal cowling. ?Fiberglass is an insulator. ? I had to pay $5,000 for
a burn test (Plus $1,000 to make 4 test panels to spec) so they could be burned
and show they wouldn't disintegrate if there was an engine fire. ?I had to
redo all of the carb heat rise testing even though none of my changes involved
anything to do with carb heat. ?WHY? ?Because I "MIGHT" have changed the amount
of pressure in the cowling enough to affect the carb heat rise. ?And, I couldn't
say the cowling reduced drag or made the plane more efficient because
then I'd have to include a completely new set of?performance?testing for changes
to the POH.
Now that the STC is signed off I can say, the cowling adds about 6 to 10 knots.
?But, don't tell the FAA. ?[smile]
-----Original Message-----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Easy... Find the yellow tag that was sent with the rebult carb/engine and take
a pic of the floats. send it in to the local FSDO/FSFO etc... If they are going
to charge a?premium price for aircraft quality work then by gosh they need to
deliver.. MHO.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Subject: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:01:59 -0400
I had a customer call several weeks ago saying his engine felt 'weird' on a landing,
kind of like it wanted to stall. ?As he rolled out onto the taxiway, the
engine felt normal. ?We made an appointment to check it out, and left it at that.
?The next few flights were about the same. ?He didn't worry much about the
engine. ?
A couple of weeks ago (oh, he never did come down to have it checked out) he called
saying it was worse. ?
Note: ?He has a Cheetah, O320-E2G. ?Several years ago I had a customer with the
same symptoms with his Cheetah and it was the mixture needle working it's way
out. ?
I had him check the mixture screw and turn it in a 1/4 turn and said to bring it
in. ?He planned to bring it in but never did. ?The engine 'felt' better. ?
Last week, he called saying it was getting a lot worse. ?He said it barely ran
at idle. ?He finally brought it in last Friday. ?
I looked for all of the basic stuff, leaks at the intake tubes, mixture screw,
looked for leaks on the carb . . . . nothing. ?We removed the cowling and airbox.
?Several years ago, the accelerator nozzle in the carb on my Cheetah had fallen
out and was lying in the bottom of the airbox. ?I expected to find something
like that. ?Nothing. ?Venturi was tight,?accelerator nozzle was tight . .
. ?nothing. ?I removed the carb.
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. ?Nothing. ?Then I noticed
one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel. ?These are
the white floats. ?They should have been changed. ?Except that, the carb had been
overhauled in 2005. ?All new parts. ?
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
===================================
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
===================================
tronics.com
===================================
www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
____________________________________________________________
Let everyone in on the conversation with a new conference phone. Click now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Float doesn't |
My mistake. I thought the Semi- transparent floats were not legal to us
e back in 2005
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. Nothing. Then I n
oticed one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel
. These are the white floats. They should have been changed. Except t
hat, the carb had been overhauled in 2005. All new parts.
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:33:30 -0400
And what would that prove? The carb was rebuilt using the then current
specifications.
It's not surprising to me the float failed. It's not like floats in car
bs haven't been around for 100 years. It doesn't surprise to me that th
e floats used in planes are inferior to those used in cars.
The hoops the FAA requires a manufacture to jump through completely elim
inates the possibility for improving a product. Some of the testing the
y require and the standards that they work to are totally out-of-sink wi
th reality. Companies are so gun shy when it comes to making improvemen
ts because it's like saying, "Hey, we knew the previous version sucked,
now we're making a better one." An improvement means they are liable fo
r all the junk they sold before. Airworthiness Directive or not.
Putting it another way: The avionics, engines, materials, autopilots, p
ractically everything available to the experimental aircraft builder is
the better than that available to the certified aircraft owner. Even wh
en the products are exactly the same, those for the certified plane are
3 or 4 times the price. Not because they are better; because of the rid
iculous FAA testing required on a product on top of the testing done jus
t to get the product to market.
What amazes me most is, the FAA has no liability for a product failure.
None. It cost me 9 years and $150,000 to get a fiberglass cowling STCd
as a replacement for a metal cowling. Fiberglass is an insulator. I
had to pay $5,000 for a burn test (Plus $1,000 to make 4 test panels to
spec) so they could be burned and show they wouldn't disintegrate if the
re was an engine fire. I had to redo all of the carb heat rise testing
even though none of my changes involved anything to do with carb heat.
WHY? Because I "MIGHT" have changed the amount of pressure in the cowli
ng enough to affect the carb heat rise. And, I couldn't say the cowling
reduced drag or made the plane more efficient because then I'd have to
include a completely new set of performance testing for changes to the P
OH.
Now that the STC is signed off I can say, the cowling adds about 6 to 10
knots. But, don't tell the FAA. [smile]
-----Original Message-----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Easy... Find the yellow tag that was sent with the rebult carb/engine an
d take a pic of the floats. send it in to the local FSDO/FSFO etc... If
they are going to charge a premium price for aircraft quality work then
by gosh they need to deliver.. MHO.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Subject: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:01:59 -0400
I had a customer call several weeks ago saying his engine felt 'weird' o
n a landing, kind of like it wanted to stall. As he rolled out onto the
taxiway, the engine felt normal. We made an appointment to check it ou
t, and left it at that. The next few flights were about the same. He d
idn't worry much about the engine.
A couple of weeks ago (oh, he never did come down to have it checked out
) he called saying it was worse.
Note: He has a Cheetah, O320-E2G. Several years ago I had a customer w
ith the same symptoms with his Cheetah and it was the mixture needle wor
king it's way out.
I had him check the mixture screw and turn it in a 1/4 turn and said to
bring it in. He planned to bring it in but never did. The engine 'felt
' better.
Last week, he called saying it was getting a lot worse. He said it bare
ly ran at idle. He finally brought it in last Friday.
I looked for all of the basic stuff, leaks at the intake tubes, mixture
screw, looked for leaks on the carb . . . . nothing. We removed the cow
ling and airbox. Several years ago, the accelerator nozzle in the carb
on my Cheetah had fallen out and was lying in the bottom of the airbox.
I expected to find something like that. Nothing. Venturi was tight, a
ccelerator nozzle was tight . . . nothing. I removed the carb.
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. Nothing. Then I n
oticed one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel
. These are the white floats. They should have been changed. Except t
hat, the carb had been overhauled in 2005. All new parts.
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
========================
============t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigato
r?Engines-List====================
================tronics.com=====
========================
=======www.matronics.com/contribution=======
========================
====
____________________________________________________________
Let everyone in on the conversation with a new conference phone. Click n
ow!
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrGBwSxiMeGDJTSY0
8o19VXWcM20kphzBerIRMeoDOqglQ7z9fy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Monty Barrett Sr" <MONTY(at)bpaengines.com> |
Having run some engines and engine parts thru the FAA certification
process I can wholeheartedly agree with whomever teamgrumman is. FAR 33
covers the certification steps necessary to get an engine and / or
engine parts thru the test portion of cert. PLUS, the FAA Engineer can
specify additional requirements if he so chooses and can make a valid
case for doing so. Valid, in this case, means " to the administrator ",
not the applicant. Furthermore a 300 hour minimum test on an engine
running at max power most of the time and with the CHT and Oil Temp at
redline minimum, it becomess very grueling for the operator AND the
engine with just a little bit of danger thrown in for good measure. Has
anybody ever seen a cylinder come off an engine while the engine is
making maximum power ? How about a connecting rod or a counterweight
which has ventilated a crankcase ?
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
teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:34 PM
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
And what would that prove? The carb was rebuilt using the then
current specifications.
It's not surprising to me the float failed. It's not like
floats in carbs haven't been around for 100 years. It doesn't surprise
to me that the floats used in planes are inferior to those used in cars.
The hoops the FAA requires a manufacture to jump through
completely eliminates the possibility for improving a product. Some of
the testing they require and the standards that they work to are totally
out-of-sink with reality. Companies are so gun shy when it comes to
making improvements because it's like saying, "Hey, we knew the previous
version sucked, now we're making a better one." An improvement means
they are liable for all the junk they sold before. Airworthiness
Directive or not.
Putting it another way: The avionics, engines, materials,
autopilots, practically everything available to the experimental
aircraft builder is the better than that available to the certified
aircraft owner. Even when the products are exactly the same, those for
the certified plane are 3 or 4 times the price. Not because they are
better; because of the ridiculous FAA testing required on a product on
top of the testing done just to get the product to market.
What amazes me most is, the FAA has no liability for a product
failure. None. It cost me 9 years and $150,000 to get a fiberglass
cowling STCd as a replacement for a metal cowling. Fiberglass is an
insulator. I had to pay $5,000 for a burn test (Plus $1,000 to make 4
test panels to spec) so they could be burned and show they wouldn't
disintegrate if there was an engine fire. I had to redo all of the carb
heat rise testing even though none of my changes involved anything to do
with carb heat. WHY? Because I "MIGHT" have changed the amount of
pressure in the cowling enough to affect the carb heat rise. And, I
couldn't say the cowling reduced drag or made the plane more efficient
because then I'd have to include a completely new set of performance
testing for changes to the POH.
Now that the STC is signed off I can say, the cowling adds about
6 to 10 knots. But, don't tell the FAA. [smile]
-----Original Message-----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Easy... Find the yellow tag that was sent with the rebult
carb/engine and take a pic of the floats. send it in to the local
FSDO/FSFO etc... If they are going to charge a premium price for
aircraft quality work then by gosh they need to deliver.. MHO.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:01:59 -0400
I had a customer call several weeks ago saying his engine felt
'weird' on a landing, kind of like it wanted to stall. As he rolled out
onto the taxiway, the engine felt normal. We made an appointment to
check it out, and left it at that. The next few flights were about the
same. He didn't worry much about the engine.
A couple of weeks ago (oh, he never did come down to have it
checked out) he called saying it was worse.
Note: He has a Cheetah, O320-E2G. Several years ago I had a
customer with the same symptoms with his Cheetah and it was the mixture
needle working it's way out.
I had him check the mixture screw and turn it in a 1/4 turn and
said to bring it in. He planned to bring it in but never did. The
engine 'felt' better.
Last week, he called saying it was getting a lot worse. He said
it barely ran at idle. He finally brought it in last Friday.
I looked for all of the basic stuff, leaks at the intake tubes,
mixture screw, looked for leaks on the carb . . . . nothing. We removed
the cowling and airbox. Several years ago, the accelerator nozzle in
the carb on my Cheetah had fallen out and was lying in the bottom of the
airbox. I expected to find something like that. Nothing. Venturi was
tight, accelerator nozzle was tight . . . nothing. I removed the carb.
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. Nothing.
Then I noticed one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full,
of fuel. These are the white floats. They should have been changed.
Except that, the carb had been overhauled in 2005. All new parts.
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
tronics.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
____________________________________________________________
Let everyone in on the conversation with a new conference phone.
Click now!
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2242/fc/BLSrjpYWJeKJcg1FpC1NG5uW
Bo4KMoPRUSqsTqvxPydbIScty6bSzGVj8gY/>
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2242/fc/BLSrjpYWJeKJcg1FpC1NG5uW
Bo4KMoPRUSqsTqvxPydbIScty6bSzGVj8gY/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Float doesn't |
> Has anybody ever seen a cylinder come off an engine while the engine
> is making maximum power ?
Not seen it, but felt it from the pilot's seat. And I concur that
it's exciting. It sounded like a sling-load of steel pipe hitting the
deck of a ship -- or, at least, what I imagine that would sound like.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Float doesn't |
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
The carb was overhauled in March 2005. ?I thought the SB came out after that.
-----Original Message-----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 24, 2009 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
My mistake.?I thought the??Semi- transparent floats were not legal to use back
in 2005
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. ?Nothing. ?Then I noticed
one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel. ?These are
the white floats. ?They should have been changed. ?Except that, the carb had been
overhauled in 2005. ?All new parts. ?
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
?
"""""""""""""""
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:33:30 -0400
And what would that prove? ?The carb was rebuilt using the then current specifications.
?
It's not surprising to me the float failed. ?It's not like floats in carbs haven't
been around for 100 years. ?It doesn't surprise to me that the floats used
in planes are inferior to those used in cars. ?
The hoops the FAA requires a manufacture to jump through completely eliminates
the possibility for improving a product. ?Some of the testing they require and
the standards that they work to are totally out-of-sink with reality. ?Companies
are so gun shy when it comes to making improvements because it's like saying,
"Hey, we knew the previous version sucked, now we're making a better one."
?An improvement means they are liable for all the junk they sold before. ?Airworthiness
Directive or not. ?
Putting it another way: ?The avionics, engines, materials, autopilots, practically
everything available to the experimental aircraft builder is the better than
that available to the certified aircraft owner. ?Even when the products are
exactly the same, those for the certified plane are 3 or 4 times the price. ?Not
because they are better; because of the ridiculous?FAA testing required on
a product on top of the testing done just to get the product to market. ?
What amazes me most is, the FAA has no liability for a product failure. ?None.
?It cost me 9 years and $150,000 to get a fiberglass cowling STCd as a replacement
for a metal cowling. ?Fiberglass is an insulator. ? I had to pay $5,000 for
a burn test (Plus $1,000 to make 4 test panels to spec) so they could be burned
and show they wouldn't disintegrate if there was an engine fire. ?I had to
redo all of the carb heat rise testing even though none of my changes involved
anything to do with carb heat. ?WHY? ?Because I "MIGHT" have changed the amount
of pressure in the cowling enough to affect the carb heat rise. ?And, I couldn't
say the cowling reduced drag or made the plane more efficient because
then I'd have to include a completely new set of?performance?testing for changes
to the POH.
Now that the STC is signed off I can say, the cowling adds about 6 to 10 knots.
?But, don't tell the FAA. ?[smile]
-----Original Message-----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com <n801bh(at)netzero.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Easy... Find the yellow tag that was sent with the rebult carb/engine and take
a pic of the floats. send it in to the local FSDO/FSFO etc... If they are going
to charge a?premium price for aircraft quality work then by gosh they need to
deliver.. MHO.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Subject: Engines-List: Float doesn't
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:01:59 -0400
I had a customer call several weeks ago saying his engine felt 'weird' on a landing,
kind of like it wanted to stall. ?As he rolled out onto the taxiway, the
engine felt normal. ?We made an appointment to check it out, and left it at that.
?The next few flights were about the same. ?He didn't worry much about the
engine. ?
A couple of weeks ago (oh, he never did come down to have it checked out) he called
saying it was worse. ?
Note: ?He has a Cheetah, O320-E2G. ?Several years ago I had a customer with the
same symptoms with his Cheetah and it was the mixture needle working it's way
out. ?
I had him check the mixture screw and turn it in a 1/4 turn and said to bring it
in. ?He planned to bring it in but never did. ?The engine 'felt' better. ?
Last week, he called saying it was getting a lot worse. ?He said it barely ran
at idle. ?He finally brought it in last Friday. ?
I looked for all of the basic stuff, leaks at the intake tubes, mixture screw,
looked for leaks on the carb . . . . nothing. ?We removed the cowling and airbox.
?Several years ago, the accelerator nozzle in the carb on my Cheetah had fallen
out and was lying in the bottom of the airbox. ?I expected to find something
like that. ?Nothing. ?Venturi was tight,?accelerator nozzle was tight . .
. ?nothing. ?I removed the carb.
I expected to find debris in the bottom of the carb. ?Nothing. ?Then I noticed
one of the semi-transparent floats was full, I mean full, of fuel. ?These are
the white floats. ?They should have been changed. ?Except that, the carb had been
overhauled in 2005. ?All new parts. ?
Carb goes to Ken, at Lycon, in the morning.
===================================
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
===================================
tronics.com
===================================
www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
____________________________________________________________
Let everyone in on the conversation with a new conference phone. Click now!
===================================
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
===================================
tronics.com
===================================
www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition Commander - E&Pmag controller / moni |
| From: | "N941WR" <one4fun(at)mindspring.com> |
For those of you who are running E & P model ignitions from E-mag or are thinking
about running them, there is now a instrument that will monitor ignition timing
and provide a timing divergence warning should one of your E/P-mags lose
a timing mark.
In addition, the EICommander can store multiple timing shift configurations and
change them in flight allowing you to optimize your ignition for 100LL, auto
fuel, high altitude flight, etc.
The EICommander has a number of other features such as a tachometer, hobbs meter,
and optional OAT and Carb temperatures.
Check out our website for details: www.eicommander.com
--------
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=265950#265950
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Calling all Airflow Performance FI users. |
If you have an AFP Fuel Injection System on your 0-320, 0-360 engine with
wood or metal prop I'd like to talk to you. Other than adjusting the idle
mixture and throttle stop on the fuel controller, if you have had any
problems whatsoever, ANY PROBLEMS, then I would like to hear about them (and
the solution if any). If it is ok, could you please email me your phone
number so I can chat with you? I don't really want to go into the why here.
Suffice to say that my airplane just went through its first annual condition
inspection, has very few hours on it and I'm very unhappy about the reason
for that. Thanks for your time and help.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Tarpon Sprgs, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 912 for sale |
| From: | "Keithc" <keith(at)intev.ca> |
I have a Rotax 912 (80hp) for sale. It was purchased for my series 4 project but
the project has been sold and the engine is now available. It has 1490 hrs SMOH.
It came out of a certified A/C(Katana).Very well looked after. I don't recall
receiving logs with it. I was not concerned at the time of purchase as the
logs were not needed for a home built. The compressions were 76/80,76/80,74/80,76/80
at time of removal. $5700.00 cdn. I am located in Cambridge Ontario.
Keith 519-240-3064 keith(at)intev.ca[b][/b]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267039#267039
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Gipson <gipsowh(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine for Sale |
New Subaru FWF package for Sale. This is an 2007 E-6T Eggenfellner package
with Gen III psru=2C beautiful 4-blade composite prop=2C and E-cowling for
the RV-10. Rated at 220 HP and is intercooled/turbo-charged for sea level
performance at altitude. Package can be adapted to other experimental app
lications needing this HP range. This package was partially installed and
never flown. Asking price: $22=2C000.
Bill Gipson
281-814-6006
=0A
_________________________________________________________________=0A
Hotmail: Free=2C trusted and rich email service.=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for carburetor for 0-360 |
Anyone know where I can locate a Marvel MA4-5 Carburetor for Lycoming 0-360
parallel valve motor with updraft sump (carb bolts to bottom of sump). A
rebuildable core will do if the price is right. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for carburetor for 0-360 |
Try
_http://shop.ebay.com/?from=R40&trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&nkw=Marvel+MA4-5+Carb
uretor&sacat=See-All-Categories#item23037ce81b_
(http://shop.ebay.com/?from=R40&trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&nkw=Marvel+MA4-5+Carburetor&sacat=See-All-Categor
ies#item23037ce81b)
(http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=Mar)
In a message dated 10/25/2009 6:54:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
Anyone know where I can locate a Marvel MA4-5 Carburetor for Lycoming 0-360
parallel valve motor with updraft sump (carb bolts to bottom of sump). A
rebuildable core will do if the price is right. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Colgin & Associates" <acolgin(at)paintbiz.net> |
| Subject: | Engines-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 10/25/09 |
Colgin& Assoc. Internet connection is currently unavailable.
Please call 205-870-8012 for immediate assistance. We anticipate our service to
be back up by Monday afternoon.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGent1224(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for carburetor for 0-360 |
That link doesn't work - look up item number 150382372891
In a message dated 10/25/2009 7:05:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
RGent1224(at)aol.com writes:
Try
_http://shop.ebay.com/?from=R40&trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&nkw=Marvel+MA4-5+Carb
uretor&sacat=See-All-Categories#item23037ce81b_
(http://shop.ebay.com/?from=R40&trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&nkw=Marvel+MA4-5+Carburetor&sacat=See-All-Categor
ies#item23037ce81b)
(http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=Mar)
In a message dated 10/25/2009 6:54:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
Anyone know where I can locate a Marvel MA4-5 Carburetor for Lycoming 0-360
parallel valve motor with updraft sump (carb bolts to bottom of sump). A
rebuildable core will do if the price is right. Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A ========================; e the ties Day
================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
================================================ - List Contribution Web
Site sp;
==================================================
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - Matronics Email List Fund Raiser During November! |
Dear Listers,
Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's solely through the Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible. There is NO advertising to support the Lists. You might have noticed the conspicuous lack of flashing banners and annoying pop-ups on the Matronics Email List email messages and web site pages such as the Matronics List Forums ( http://forums.matronics.com ), the List Wiki ( http://wiki.matronics.com), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matronics.com/search ), the List Browser ( http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisements.
During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every couple of
days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience
and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages.
The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all
of the bills associated with running these lists. Your personal Contribution
counts!
Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with
the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided
by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and
have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates.
This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/).
These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective
web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product
line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Andy, and Jon for their generous support
of the Lists again this year!!
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. All three methods
afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with
a qualifying Contribution amount!!
To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral
support over the years!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | November List Fund Raiser |
A couple of years ago I implemented an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for
the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes
a Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, he or she will
instantly cease to receive these Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month!
Its just that simple. Don't you wish PBS worked that way! :-)
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 such as this one. It also goes
to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric
bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered
on. 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 commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet
these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites.
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
[Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution
related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages,
when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous
public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Just a quick reminder that November is the annual List Fund Raiser. The Matronics
Lists are 100% member supported and all of the operational costs are provided
for my your Contributions during this time of the year.
Your personal Contribution makes a difference and keeps all of the Matronics Email
Lists and Forums completely ad-free.
Please make your Contribution today to keep these services up and running!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Air in fuel lines. |
Hi all:
Been having a lot of trouble with a rough idle problem on my Fuel Injected
0-360 parallel valve engine. I've been going through several tests trying
to locate the source of the problem but so far no joy. One suggestion that
I have received concerns air getting into the fuel lines. It seems a little
far fetched that air could get in through a fitting that is not leaking fuel
but I'm running out of ideas so I'll go through and tighten all my fittings
to see if that helps.
But, that leaves one other possibility and that's air getting in through the
fuel selector valve. I'm using the Van's fuel selector that came with my
RV-6 kit. It sat in its little brown bag on the shelf in my shop for several
years before it got used but seems to working fine. It's not hard to move
the selector and its not leaking, at least externally.
Anyone experience leaking of this valve or any issue with that might let air
into the fuel lines through it? Any ideas on how I might test the valve to
see if it's leaking air into the system?
I'm using the Van's high pressure pump setup that puts the pump ahead of the
selector valve so there will be some suction at the valve. I'm running out
of ideas and thinking about switching to a carb. Hate to do that but can't
find anything wrong after working on it for the last year, maddening.
Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists |
Dear Listers,
There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums.
The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November
Fund
Raiser.
Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade
of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution
too!
You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or, you can send a personal check to the following address:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551-0347
Thank you in advance for your generous support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jakent(at)unison.ie" <jakent(at)unison.ie> |
| Subject: | RE: Air in fuel lines? |
Subject: Engines-List: Air in fuel lines.
Hi all:
Been having a lot of trouble with a rough idle problem on my Fuel Injected
0-360 parallel valve engine. I've been going through several tests trying
to locate the source of the problem but so far no joy. One suggestion that
I have received concerns air getting into the fuel lines. It seems a little
far fetched that air could get in through a fitting that is not leaking fuel
but I'm running out of ideas so I'll go through and tighten all my fittings
to see if that helps.
But, that leaves one other possibility and that's air getting in through the
fuel selector valve. I'm using the Van's fuel selector that came with my
RV-6 kit. It sat in its little brown bag on the shelf in my shop for several
years before it got used but seems to working fine. It's not hard to move
the selector and its not leaking, at least externally.
Anyone experience leaking of this valve or any issue with that might let air
into the fuel lines through it? Any ideas on how I might test the valve to
see if it's leaking air into the system?
I'm using the Van's high pressure pump setup that puts the pump ahead of the
selector valve so there will be some suction at the valve. I'm running out
of ideas and thinking about switching to a carb. Hate to do that but can't
find anything wrong after working on it for the last year, maddening.
Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Hi Dean,
Have you checked the air induction system thoroughly for air leaking in at
low power settings. A slight tightening of all the hose clips improved
things for me. Also you could re-check the idle mixture setting when you
are sure the induction leak is not happening?
John Kent (EI-DIY RV-4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Holbrook" <dholbrook7(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air in fuel lines. |
Dean:
Rough idle covers a fairly broad range. My variety of roughness was usually
associated with heat and probably best described as a series of 'pauses' in
an otherwise smooth idle. I worked with Don Rivera at Airflow Performance
who set me up with smaller injectors and a stiffer flow divider spring to
increase fuel pressure downstream of the fuel control. Don's theory was
simple: heat causes partial vaporization of the fuel... increased pressure
decreases vaporization. Worked for me.
Dennis
RV6/IO360/N54X
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Air in fuel lines. |
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
Interesting thing about that air in the fuel line.
In the early 90s there were a few Slingsby T-3 Firefly crashes. These pla
nes were used by the U.S. Air Force Academy for flight training. The beli
ef, at that time, was air in the fuel lines.
The Division in which I worked at that time was tasked with determining if
there was air in the fuel lines. We built a mock-up of the fuel system
and, sure enough, there was air in the fuel lines. Problem solved . . .
or so we thought. As it turned out, the air we followed from the pump
to the divider disappeared as the air/fuel mixture was sprayed through th
e injector nozzle. No big gaps of air sprayed out.
Any time a fuel pump pumps, air is separated from the fuel. The only way
to keep the air out, is to raise the fuel line pressure above the pressur
e at which air separates out. This happens, partly, in the fuel divider.
If your engine is carbureted, the float does that; it lets the air vent
into the top of the carb.
Just for grins, hook up 20 feet or so of clear hose to the outlet of the
fuel pump and pump fuel from one wing to the other. LOTs of air.
As for the crashes, we speculated the crashes were due to instructors tell
ing the new pilots NOT to lean. Why? Jets don't have to be leaned so why
teach leaning? Even at the academy's 7200 foot elevation one observer to
ld us the planes would cough black smoke while taxiing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Holbrook <dholbrook7(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 6:48 am
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Air in fuel lines.
Dean:
Rough idle covers a fairly broad range. My variety of roughness was usual
ly
associated with heat and probably best described as a series of 'pauses'
in
an otherwise smooth idle. I worked with Don Rivera at Airflow Performance
who set me up with smaller injectors and a stiffer flow divider spring to
increase fuel pressure downstream of the fuel control. Don's theory was
simple: heat causes partial vaporization of the fuel... increased pressur
e
decreases vaporization. Worked for me.
Dennis
RV6/IO360/N54X
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Aitken" <matrix02(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Air in fuel lines. |
Then reason that you get air in a fuel line is that the shaft of the fuel
selector valve is usually sealed with a single O ring. If the selector shaft
is on the suction side of the pump air will be drawn in past the O ring. An
O ring is designed to seal with pressure pushing it into a small crevass in
a U shaped groove, and it works quite well. The shaft seal will not leak
under pressure, which is the normal way to test for leaks, but the O ring
will be sucked out of position in a U groove under suction and allow air
draw in. The groove for an O ring for negative pressure service is
trapezoidal in shape. The Parker O ring catalogue shows this style. The
trapezoidal groove is difficult to machine in a narrow hole and probably not
considered. An old fashioned packing shaft seal with a compression nut is
better for negative pressure.
Jim Aitken, P.Eng.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN
PSIROPOULOS
Sent: November 6, 2009 9:46 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Air in fuel lines.
Hi all:
Been having a lot of trouble with a rough idle problem on my Fuel Injected
0-360 parallel valve engine. I've been going through several tests trying
to locate the source of the problem but so far no joy. One suggestion that
I have received concerns air getting into the fuel lines. It seems a little
far fetched that air could get in through a fitting that is not leaking fuel
but I'm running out of ideas so I'll go through and tighten all my fittings
to see if that helps.
But, that leaves one other possibility and that's air getting in through the
fuel selector valve. I'm using the Van's fuel selector that came with my
RV-6 kit. It sat in its little brown bag on the shelf in my shop for several
years before it got used but seems to working fine. It's not hard to move
the selector and its not leaking, at least externally.
Anyone experience leaking of this valve or any issue with that might let air
into the fuel lines through it? Any ideas on how I might test the valve to
see if it's leaking air into the system?
I'm using the Van's high pressure pump setup that puts the pump ahead of the
selector valve so there will be some suction at the valve. I'm running out
of ideas and thinking about switching to a carb. Hate to do that but can't
find anything wrong after working on it for the last year, maddening.
Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Air in fuel lines? |
jakent(at)unison.ie wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Engines-List: Air in fuel lines.
>
>
> Hi all:
>
> Been having a lot of trouble with a rough idle problem on my Fuel Injected
> 0-360 parallel valve engine. I've been going through several tests trying
> to locate the source of the problem but so far no joy. One suggestion that
> I have received concerns air getting into the fuel lines. It seems a little
> far fetched that air could get in through a fitting that is not leaking fuel
> but I'm running out of ideas so I'll go through and tighten all my fittings
> to see if that helps.
>
> But, that leaves one other possibility and that's air getting in through the
> fuel selector valve. I'm using the Van's fuel selector that came with my
> RV-6 kit. It sat in its little brown bag on the shelf in my shop for several
> years before it got used but seems to working fine. It's not hard to move
> the selector and its not leaking, at least externally.
>
> Anyone experience leaking of this valve or any issue with that might let air
> into the fuel lines through it? Any ideas on how I might test the valve to
> see if it's leaking air into the system?
>
> I'm using the Van's high pressure pump setup that puts the pump ahead of the
> selector valve so there will be some suction at the valve. I'm running out
> of ideas and thinking about switching to a carb. Hate to do that but can't
> find anything wrong after working on it for the last year, maddening.
> Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
>
> Hi Dean,
> Have you checked the air induction system thoroughly for air leaking in at
> low power settings. A slight tightening of all the hose clips improved
> things for me. Also you could re-check the idle mixture setting when you
> are sure the induction leak is not happening?
> John Kent (EI-DIY RV-4)
I'd 2nd that thought. I've had the pressed-in intake stubs in the sump
get loose, causing bad idle (carb engine, but would cause the same thing
with injection).
Here's another, somewhat remote possibility. One of my neighbors flies a
Cont IO360 Swift. It has a lot of AN hose between the tanks & the fuel
pump. It developed the problem of quitting when he would bank at certain
angles. 2 or 3 deadstick landings while trying various things to find
the problem. He tried a lot of different things & ultimately discovered
that if he air-pressurized the suction side AN hose, it would 'blow
bubbles' all over the fabric coating if it was wet down with water. (No
noticeable gas leaks) He replaced the hoses, & hasn't had it quit since.
The best guess is that it was sucking air through the hose sidewalls.
(Hose was quite a few years old.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution |
Today!
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 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 dropping 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: | 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. There
are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well!
Please make your Contribution today:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Some Very Nice Comments... |
Dear Listers,
I've been getting some really nice comments from Listers along with their List
Support Contributions. I've shared some of them below. Please read them over
and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums.
Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation
of these services.
There are lots of sweet 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 -----------
Few things in life bring more usefulness than the List. This
is worth every penny!
Stephen T.
I have enjoyed the list for way too many years, but continue
to get closer to flying my project with the help of listers.
C.L.
Thanks for this List. It's been a great source of encouragement
and information.
Arden A.
Great service!
Gerald T.
It's always interesting reading the lists and I've gotten some
good help from the issues and answers there.
Steve T.
Been a member of the List for 12 years. Keep up the good work.
John H.
Great Site!
Harry M.
Great source of information...
Martin H.
Thanks for providing this great service!
Jeff P.
I continue to get and give information through these lists.
Ralph C.
This is a wonderful resource!
Warren H.
This is what inernet was meant for, sharing information and
experience. Michael W.
Thanks for making such a good list!
Fred D.
Thanks for running a great service!
Michael F.
I really appreciate it.
Dan H.
Thanks for the great service.
Michael L.
Thanks for maintaining this great resource.
John C.
Your sites have been a great resourses and an introduction
to many competent aircraft designers and fabricators.
Jon M.
Thanks for all that you do to maintain the Matronics forums
and for the personal help that you have been to me in
answering my questions regarding the use of the forums.
William B.
[The List] helped me get flying, fly off my test hours and
make my systems better. Ralph C.
The Universe is a better place because of you.
Eric J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Contributions Down By 21%... |
Dear Listers,
As of today, contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind
last year at this time by 21%. I have a fund raiser each year simply to cover
my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income
to support the Lists and rely solely on the contributions of members to keep the
expenses paid.
I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet
connection is a commercial-grade, T1 connection with public address space. I
also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related
data so that in the event of a server crash or worse, all of the Lists and
the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter
of hours.
All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of
my personal time as well. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs
and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments,
make a modest contribution each year to support the continued operation and
upgrade of these services.
If you enjoy the Lists, please make a contribution today. I also offer some incentive
gifts for larger contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Wite, you
can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the
continuation of these services:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What's My Contribution Used For? |
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question.
Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides
for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on
the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List
services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling
the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search
Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for narly 20 years (yeah, I really
said *20* years) worth of online archive data available for instant random search
and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and
maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List
Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your
peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation,
censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places
on the Internet can you make all those statements these days?
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable
List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one
of the best investments you can make in your Sport...
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Neilson" <grantneilson(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Six pack of oil filters on eBay |
I have a six pack of Kelly Aerospace ES48103-1 Oil filters for sale on eBay.
Could be yours for a good price.
http://cgi.ebay.ca/Six-Aviation-Oil-Filters_W0QQitemZ140359532731QQcmdZViewI
temQQptZMotors_Aviation_Parts_Gear?hash=item20ae1480bb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left; Still Trailing Last Year... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response
has been very good, but still well behind last year. If you've been waiting until
the last minute to make your contribution and maybe even pick up a great
gift, now might be good time to show your support!
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Published |
in December!
Dear Listers,
The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! In December 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.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few More Days To Make Your List Contribution... |
There is less than a week left in this year's List Fund Raiser and only a few short
days to grab one of the great Contribution Gifts available this year. Support
is still significantly lagging behind last year at this point but hopefully
it will pick up here towards the end. Please remember that it is solely the
Contributions of List members that keeps the Lists up and running as there
is no commercialism or advertising on the Matronics Lists and Forums.
The List Contribution web site is secure, fast, and easy and you can use a credit
card, Paypal, or a personal check:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I want to thank everyone that has already made a generous contribution to support
the Lists!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics EMail List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 comments is when someone writes 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | No "Black Friday" For List Fund Raiser... |
Even though the number of List subscriptions and List posts are up significantly
this year compared to last year, support during this year's List Fund Raiser
has been woefully lagging from last year. There are only a couple more days
left in November and the end of the Fund Raiser is quickly approaching.
I have always preferred a non-commercial List experience as many, many members
have also expressed that they do as well. However, if the yearly fund raiser
cannot generate sufficient funds to keep the bills paid on the List service expenses,
I will have to look into some sort of advertising. Please don't let that
happen!
Your personal contribution of $20 or $30 goes a long ways to keeping the operation
a float. The lunch combo at Carl's Jr costs nearly $10 these days. Isn't
the List worth at least as much as a couple of burgers?
Please make sure your name is on this year's List of Contributors published in
December. The Contribution site is secure, quick, and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just Two More Days Left; Fund Raiser Behind By 12%... |
Dear Listers,
This year's List Fund Raiser is still trailing last year by a 12% margin. If you
like the ad-free environment that is the Matronics Email List and Forum experience,
please make a quick Contribution to keep it that way!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I've been getting a ton of really nice comments from Contributors regarding the
Lists. Please read over some of them below and see if they don't resonate with
you as well.
Thank you in advance for your generous contribution to support these Lists!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
--------------------------- Member Feedback ----------------------------
ur web site is a real institution of the whole Experimental
Aircraft subculture.
John G
Thanks Matt for the lists. A lot of good info. Great bunch
of list members. Great videos and no SPAM.
Paul C
It has been a valuable tool.
Troy M
..appreciate the site as much as ever.
Larry M
By using various forums I've learned a ton, received great
advice, made friends, and saved money!
Craig W
Since I've finished [my project], I've not had much to do as
far as fabrication of electrical systems. However,
selectively reading various topics is still very valuable
and Bob's insights and new how to's make me a continuous
subscriber.
Larry F
Matronics user groups are the best tool I have for learning
to build my RV-10!
Philip W
There is always useful knowledge to be found on this list,
and I suspect that it has kept quite a few people out of
trouble over the years it has been in operation. Good
entertainment, too.
Graham H
Great web site. I wish I'd known about it while building.
Bob S
I'm happy to provide some support to this list. It is very
helpful.
Vaughn T
Good service to sport aviation!!
Roger B
Awesome Service you provide for us!
Bill R
My [project] is almost finished! However, it wouldn't be
close without the [this] group.
Douwe B
Great list.
Robert S
I'm not a builder yet but learning lots from the list.
Peter M
Some nonsense, some humor, but mostly good information.
Tony C
Thanks for creating and keeping the Lists. They are
entertaining and always informative!
John M
Thanks for this valuable resource to our community.
Barry H
The list is IMHO the greatest resource on the net.
John B
Thanks again for providing another year of your useful
List service.
Jerry B
Great site indeed, every time I get a message I usually
learn something.
Peter B
You are making a huge contribution to the builder fraternity
and in no small way enhancing sport aviation safety.
Richard G
The List is the SINGLE, MOST IMPORTANT resource I have in
building my RV10. I would be lost without out it. And I
have made a bunch of new friends as well!
Les K
The lists are one of the things I really enjoy, so keep
up the good work.
Freddie H
Every year -- the best value for my time and money!
Owen B
This list is a major contribution to safe building!
Donald K
Really enjoy the daily boost it gives me.
Walter S
In the last 18 months I have been privileged to listen &
ask. I have learnt at the feet of the masters...
Stewart G
You set the standard on how Internet forums should be run
and managed.
Larry W
The Universe is a better place because of you.
Eric J
[The List] helped me get flying, fly off my test hours and
make my systems better. I continue to get and give
information through these lists.
Ralph C
..another GREAT year of advice, answers, and inspiration
courtesy of the Lists and your hard work!!!!
Rob B
..the best forum on the Internet!
Robert B
I can't tell you how grateful I am for your list and your
subscribers to keep me up to date and holding the dream.
Ashley M
This page makes it easy to contribute.
Jeffrey P
Thank you for your expertise in creating & running the
much useful lists!
Anthony P
Thanks for providing our advertising free on line community.
George R
Thanks for maintaining the equipment and software to
provide this valuable source of information to us
individuals. Your effort is appreciated by many more people
than you realize.
Ross H
Thanks for a great site. Although the project is complete
and flying I still get a wealth of information from all
the messages.
Marcus C
Only learned about you six months ago...my RV-7A is just
finished, but the list has been helpful. Wish I had
discovered you sooner.
Jack B
This is an invaluable communications media for us
common minded folks to exchange technical and other
information.
George H
..great service that you provide.
David W
..still appreciate your list.
Alain L
[The] Lists are an invaluable resource. I know that it has
helped me enormously in my project.
William B
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 at least two things. For better or worse, its
my 46th birthday! But it also means that its that last official day of the
Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been jones'n over one of the really
nice 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 this month but have been putting
it off for some reason, 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!
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 feels the same.
The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you to all in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | UREM38E Spark Plugs For Sale |
| From: | "Barry" <blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com> |
I have 4 new in the sleeve and 12 used but in good condition (130 hrs I have pictures
of the plugs). The used plugs have been cleaned, gapped and tested. All
16 plugs for $165.00 and shipping is included. Contact me direct. Thanks Barry.
239-567-2271
blalmarz(at)embarqmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275765#275765
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Washington CORVAIR Community College at Magnificent Machine! |
| From: | "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com> |
For all those who might be interested:
William Wynne is coming to the Great North West!
Magnificent Machine will be hosting a Ccrvair "Community College"
The Dates will be Dec. 26th & 27th.
If you are interested in attending please contact Magnificent Machine:
By email= info(at)magnificentmachine.com
By phone= 360-635-6042
toll free for those of you out of state= 1-866-606-4152
Things you will see at the event are:
A running CH-750 WW Corvair installation!
A MagVair with a Dan Weseman 5th bearing!
Several other Corvair engine conversions in various stages including running!
CH-601's & CH-701's in various stages.
Magnificent Machine's New Facility!
Corvair Cars!
The adjacent space that maybe used for our builder assist program!
And most importantly other aviation & Corvair nuts that you have more in common
with than you realize.
DON'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY!
The Coffee is always on and is always free so if you can't make these dates please
feel free to stop by at your leisure.
Thank you,
Brady McCormick
CH-701/Corvair, CH-601/Corvair
5686 Minder RD NE
Suite #101
Poulsbo, WA 98370
1-866-606-4152 toll free!
info(at)magnificentmachine.com
www.magnificentmachine.com
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=275988#275988
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Lycoming IO-360 engine mounts |
I have an engine mount that was designed for a Lycoming IO-360 C1D6 200
hp with the angle valves. I'd like to mount an IO-360 B1E 180 hp
straight valve engine on it in an experimental aircraft. I know both
engines take Type I 30 degree dynafocal mounts, but what I'm not sure of
is if the bolt pattern is the same. I think it should be the same, but
does anyone know for sure? Is there anything else I should be concerned
about?
John Grosse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2009 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
The 2009 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of
weeks ago and its time that I publish this year's List of Contributors. Its
the people on this list that directly make the Email Lists and Forums possible.
Their generous
contributions keep the servers and Internet connection up and running.
You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same
time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I also want to thank Bob, Jon, Andy, and John for their generous support through
the supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some great products and
I encourage you to visit their respective web sites:
Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - www.aeroelectric.com
Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - www.homebuilthelp.com
Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - www.buildersbooks.com
John Caldwell - HowToCrimp - www.howtocrimp.com
And finally, I'm proud to present The 2009 Fund Raiser List of Contributors:
http://www.matronics.com/loc/2009.html
Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Reason for use of Silk Thread |
What is the purpose of placing a piece of silk thread along with
sealant when joining the two cast halves of an aircraft engine. Is
this done on all engines or just Continental and Lycoming, what about
4-stroke Rotax.
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Blackmore" <blackmore(at)platinum.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Reason for use of Silk Thread |
During the war Rolls Royce used to machine to close enough tolerances tha
t
they could use a piece of silk alone as the seal between parts
-------Original Message-------
From: jerb
Date: 03/02/2010 11:58:05 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Reason for use of Silk Thread
What is the purpose of placing a piece of silk thread along with
sealant when joining the two cast halves of an aircraft engine. Is
this done on all engines or just Continental and Lycoming, what about
4-stroke Rotax.
jerb
==========
==========
==========
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reason for use of Silk Thread |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> |
The silk thread IS the seal even today. The so-called sealant is there just
to hold the silk thread in place. Otherwise oil could work its way past the
ordinary sealant.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Chris Blackmore wrote:
> During the war Rolls Royce used to machine to close enough tolerances
> that they could use a piece of silk alone as the seal between parts
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* jerb
> *Date:* 03/02/2010 11:58:05 AM
> *To:* engines-list(at)matronics.com; Kolb List
> *Subject:* Engines-List: Reason for use of Silk Thread
>
>
> What is the purpose of placing a piece of silk thread along with
> sealant when joining the two cast halves of an aircraft engine. Is
> this done on all engines or just Continental and Lycoming, what about
> 4-stroke Rotax.
> jerb
>
>
> ============
> he Engines-List Email Forum - or?Engines-List">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List ============= sp; -
> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - p://forums.matronics.com ============= sp; - List
> Contribution Web Site - sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution ============
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reason for use of Silk Thread |
| From: | teamgrumman(at)aol.com |
Ken Tunnell at LyCon has an STC to "O" ring the case.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Reason for use of Silk Thread
The silk thread IS the seal even today. The so-called sealant is there jus
t to hold the silk thread in place. Otherwise oil could work its way past
the ordinary sealant.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Chris Blackmore wr
May 02, 2008 - - - - , 20-
Engines-Archive.digest.vol-ar