RV-Archive.digest.vol-sb
July 02, 2006 - July 13, 2006
> Always a major thrill on first flight.
> Sounds like a governor setting needs work.
> Good luck on the flight testing.
> You only need 39.9 hours to get to Oshkosh :)
>
> Kelly Patterson
> N716K RV-6A PHX, AZ
> 68 hrs & going to OSH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF). It's
got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs. I want
to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where. First idea, to
simply mount it to the belly skin was rejected. The skin's not braced
enough.
Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin
seems like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the elevator
bell crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to keep it as
far forward as possible.
I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side of
the skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower
corner. Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the thing
everytime you removed the skin. It's an easy installation, though,
since you can work on the bench instead of int he plane.
Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the
fuse, up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the other
to the skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle 7" long
rivetted vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty solid and I
think the skin is strong enough there.
The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some possibilities.
If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
appreciative.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Obviously not a direct answer to your question, but why not mount it between
the battery box and the fuel selector? Make a little shelf between two of
the floor stringers and put it on the shelf. This is also a good location
for your ELT, oxygen bottle, or fire extinguisher.
KB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:25 AM
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF). It's got
> a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs. I want to
> mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where. First idea, to
> simply mount it to the belly skin was rejected. The skin's not braced
> enough.
>
> Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin seems
> like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the elevator bell
> crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to keep it as far
> forward as possible.
>
> I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side of the
> skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower corner.
> Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the thing everytime you
> removed the skin. It's an easy installation, though, since you can work
> on the bench instead of int he plane.
>
> Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the fuse,
> up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the other to the
> skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle 7" long rivetted
> vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty solid and I think the
> skin is strong enough there.
>
> The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some possibilities.
> If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
> appreciative.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Here's what I did, I had it on my web site at one time but have since
removed some of the older stuff:
Strobe mount
I ran conduits under my baggage floors to run wires.
My new email address: bobbyhester(at)charter.net
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A N857BH SB wings-QB Fuse-XPO360 engine :-)
sarg314 wrote:
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF). It's
> got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs. I want
> to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where. First idea,
> to simply mount it to the belly skin was rejected. The skin's not
> braced enough.
>
> Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin
> seems like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the
> elevator bell crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to
> keep it as far forward as possible.
>
> I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side of
> the skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower
> corner. Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the thing
> everytime you removed the skin. It's an easy installation, though,
> since you can work on the bench instead of int he plane.
>
> Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the
> fuse, up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the
> other to the skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle 7"
> long rivetted vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty solid
> and I think the skin is strong enough there.
>
> The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some possibilities.
> If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
> appreciative.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hilger" <rvsixer(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Tom,
I used screws instead of rivets to fasten down my right side baggage
floor. I added two stiffeners to the floor panel between the ribs and
mounted the power supply upside below the baggage floor. Whelen said it can
be mounted any direction and cooling was not a factor. Also, I have no
strobe noise in the headsets, even with the comm antenna on the belly under
the seats.
Mike Hilger
RV-6 N207AM 760 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Kyle:
Yes, that's a good location, functionally, but likely to get
kicked. I'd want to make some sort of cover for it (there's 5000v in
one of those wires). Besides, I plan on putting the fire extinguisher
there. Also, the wires from the strobe supply have to end up on the aft
side of the wing spar, so it's convenient if they start out on the aft
side of the wing spar to begin with. That ay only the power & ground
wires cross the spar.
Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> Obviously not a direct answer to your question, but why not mount it
> between the battery box and the fuel selector? Make a little shelf
> between two of the floor stringers and put it on the shelf. This is
> also a good location for your ELT, oxygen bottle, or fire extinguisher.
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:25 AM
>
>
>>
>> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF).
>> It's got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs.
>> I want to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
I would caution you on putting your strobe power supply in a location near
to anything that may leak fuel... Strobe power supplies send very high
voltage to the strobe heads and it would make for a very bad day if for some
reason your fuel selector should happen to leak on the connections to the
strobe heads...
Just an FYI...
-Bill VonDane
RV-8A ~ N8WV
Colorado Springs, CO
www.rv8a.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 8:54 AM
Obviously not a direct answer to your question, but why not mount it between
the battery box and the fuel selector? Make a little shelf between two of
the floor stringers and put it on the shelf. This is also a good location
for your ELT, oxygen bottle, or fire extinguisher.
KB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:25 AM
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF). It's got
> a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs. I want to
> mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where. First idea, to
> simply mount it to the belly skin was rejected. The skin's not braced
> enough.
>
> Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin seems
> like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the elevator bell
> crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to keep it as far
> forward as possible.
>
> I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side of the
> skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower corner.
> Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the thing everytime you
> removed the skin. It's an easy installation, though, since you can work
> on the bench instead of int he plane.
>
> Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the fuse,
> up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the other to the
> skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle 7" long rivetted
> vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty solid and I think the
> skin is strong enough there.
>
> The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some possibilities.
> If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
> appreciative.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Tom,
My RV sports two Whelen power supplies, and I mounted a unit to each outboard wing
rib. In your case, perhaps it is advantageous to mount your single unit
to the right wing given that side is usually built a bit lighter than the left
wing if your landing light and pitot installation is located on the left wing.
The photo illustrates my installation technique on the right wing. As shown,
the wing tip rests atop the wing showing the internally mounted VOR antenna
bolted inside the tip.
http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/2518/img0004457xa.jpg
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 145 hours
sarg314(at)comcast.net wrote:
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF). It's
> got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs. I want
> to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where. First idea, to
> simply mount it to the belly skin was rejected. The skin's not braced
> enough.
>
> Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin
> seems like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the elevator
> bell crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to keep it as
> far forward as possible.
>
> I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side of
> the skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower
> corner. Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the thing
> everytime you removed the skin. It's an easy installation, though,
> since you can work on the bench instead of int he plane.
>
> Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the
> fuse, up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the other
> to the skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle 7" long
> rivetted vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty solid and I
> think the skin is strong enough there.
>
> The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some possibilities.
>
> If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
> appreciative.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=44386#44386
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | CHT mounting sockets |
I'm getting around to wiring up the CHT's and there is a male socket that
screws into the head to hold the probe. Does this fitting require
Teflon on the threads that screw into the head?
Jim Nelson
RV9-A FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | CHT mounting sockets |
No, but some spark plug anti-seize compound might be a good idea.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:19 PM
I'm getting around to wiring up the CHT's and there is a male socket that
screws into the head to hold the probe. Does this fitting require
Teflon on the threads that screw into the head?
Jim Nelson
RV9-A FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | danbergeronham(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
-----Original Message-----
There was some discussion several weeks back re use of MOGAS with fuel injected
engines. I expect to be finished with the fuselage by the end of the year and
am considering various engine options. I called Superior on Monday and was
told that their XP360 fuel injected engines with 7.2/1 or 8.5/1 pistons will run
very happily on MOGAS, 87 octane (non-ethanol) and 91 octane(non-ethanol)
respectively. However, the 200 HP version (FI of course) of that engine does
require 100LL avgas. The 7.2/1 version is not terribly popular and it does
cost an extra $100.
I'm leaning toward the 8.5/1 version with the fuel injection.
Dan Bergeron
Chicopee, MA
RV-7A N307TB (reserved)
(Turned the canoe over on 6/25 and am moving out smartly.)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Tom,
I mounted mine to the bottom rear of the baggage bulkhead and it's never
been a problem. Removing it is as simple as disconnecting a few plugs.
It was the simplest and lightest way to mount it and I'd do it the same
way again.
Dave
sarg314 wrote:
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF). It's
> got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2 Lbs. I want
> to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some where. First idea,
> to simply mount it to the belly skin was rejected. The skin's not
> braced enough.
>
> Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin
> seems like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the
> elevator bell crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to
> keep it as far forward as possible.
>
> I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side of
> the skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower
> corner. Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the thing
> everytime you removed the skin. It's an easy installation, though,
> since you can work on the bench instead of int he plane.
>
> Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the
> fuse, up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the
> other to the skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle 7"
> long rivetted vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty solid
> and I think the skin is strong enough there.
>
> The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some possibilities.
> If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
> appreciative.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Mine went on the aft side of the baggage bulkhead, slightly left of
center and just below the seam between the two halves of the
bulkhead . It has worked well. Now that I have done many
inspections, mods and maintenance I would recommend putting it on the
top half bulkhead. Reason being that I have not had the need to
remove that one in the last several years. There fore I would not
have to unplug the power wires each time I take off the bulkhead for
inspections etc.
I also like Bobby Hester picture, since that belly skin is an oil
canner and those rails should stiffen them up a bit!
Denis Walsh
On Jul 2, 2006, at 07:25 303180007, sarg314 wrote:
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF).
> It's got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2
> Lbs. I want to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some
> where. First idea, to simply mount it to the belly skin was
> rejected. The skin's not braced enough.
>
> Putting a shelf of some sort from the central rib to the side skin
> seems like too large a run and gets in the way of accessing the
> elevator bell crank unless youplace it rather far aft. I'd like to
> keep it as far forward as possible.
>
> I could make a mounting "shelf" attached vertically to the aft side
> of the skin that screws to the baggage bulkhead, down low the lower
> corner. Problem there is you'd have to remove or diconnect the
> thing everytime you removed the skin. It's an easy installation,
> though, since you can work on the bench instead of int he plane.
>
> Another idea is to mount it oriented vertically on the side of the
> fuse, up high. One bracket attached to the bulkhead itself, the
> other to the skin. The skin's flat there. A piece of 1/16 angle
> 7" long rivetted vertically between the 2 J strips would be plenty
> solid and I think the skin is strong enough there.
>
> The baggage floor is rivetted down so that closes off some
> possibilities.
> If any one has some ideas or photos on a web site, I would be very
> appreciative.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
>There was some discussion several weeks back re use of MOGAS with fuel
>injected engines. I expect to be finished with the fuselage by the end of
>the year and am considering various engine options. I called Superior on
>Monday and was told that their XP360 fuel injected engines with 7.2/1 or
>8.5/1 pistons will run very happily on MOGAS, 87 octane (non-ethanol)
>and 91 octane(non-ethanol) respectively. However, the 200 HP version (FI
>of course) of that engine does require 100LL avgas. The 7.2/1 version is
>not terribly popular and it does cost an extra $100.
>I'm leaning toward the 8.5/1 version with the fuel injection.
Note the important "non-ethanol" caveat. What will you do if most auto fuels
are ethanol enhanced? In the great Tim Allen tradition, I would give
consideration
to 200 HP and not worry about auto fuel. Tis your ultimate choice.
For those who fly a lot, how many people bother with auto fuel? I for one
do not and have no desire to.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Hmmm, I don't think that will help with oil canning. It looks as if the
rails are suspended on each end at the bulkheads and not in contact with
the skin. I bought another rib from Van's - the one that the elevator
bellcrank is mounted to (sorry I don't have the part # at my fingertips)
and fit it parallel to the existing one and made a sort of avionics
deck.
Things wound up crowded and I mounted on the side of it. That black
thing at the aft end is a remote compass sensor which I'll probably end
up not using.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
>I also like Bobby Hester picture, since that belly skin is an oil
canner and those rails should stiffen them up a bit!
Denis Walsh
On Jul 2, 2006, at 07:25 303180007, sarg314 wrote:
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF).
> It's got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2
> Lbs. I want to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some
> where. First idea, to simply mount it to the belly skin was
> rejected. The skin's not braced enough.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "shirleyh" <shirleyh(at)oceanbroadband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N161RL Flies |
Congratulations, Mannan - what a magnificant achievement! I sympathise about the
minor setback - it feels like a big thing at the time, but I've learned that
each snag is just another step in the process. You can fix it and fly on. Remember
a few weeks back you thought the project was finished? :)
Shirley Harding
RV6 - failed alternator, damaged ring gear (twice), heavy left wing, radio probs
- all in the first 10 hours! The ammeter seems to be working backwards too -
but the aircraft is thrilling to fly!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=44464#44464
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
At 17:00 2006-07-02, you wrote:
>
>
>>There was some discussion several weeks back re use of MOGAS with
>>fuel injected engines. I expect to be finished with the fuselage
>>by the end of the year and am considering various engine
>>options. I called Superior on Monday and was told that their XP360
>>fuel injected engines with 7.2/1 or 8.5/1 pistons will run very
>>happily on MOGAS, 87 octane (non-ethanol) and 91
>>octane(non-ethanol) respectively. However, the 200 HP version (FI
>>of course) of that engine does require 100LL avgas. The 7.2/1
>>version is not terribly popular and it does cost an extra $100.
>>I'm leaning toward the 8.5/1 version with the fuel injection.
>
>
>Note the important "non-ethanol" caveat. What will you do if most auto fuels
>are ethanol enhanced? In the great Tim Allen tradition, I would
>give consideration
>to 200 HP and not worry about auto fuel. Tis your ultimate choice.
>
>For those who fly a lot, how many people bother with auto fuel? I for one
>do not and have no desire to.
>
>Ron Lee
MOGAS is all I use unless I fill up somewhere away from home and it's
not available. I have no reason to pay $4 /gal when I can fly on $3 / gal.
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sheldon barrett" <sheldonb(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A |
Ed, Just some information for you... I have the AK-450 ELT as you do...
The mount for the mounting strap broke (at around 300 hours)... Not sure
why, but might be from unhooking it and re hooking at battery change
times or from viberation... you might think of beefing this up... for if
it came loose back there... not good...!
Sheldon RV6A 400 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Holyoke
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: mounting strobe power supply in RV-6/6A
Hmmm, I don't think that will help with oil canning. It looks as if
the rails are suspended on each end at the bulkheads and not in contact
with the skin. I bought another rib from Van's - the one that the
elevator bellcrank is mounted to (sorry I don't have the part # at my
fingertips) and fit it parallel to the existing one and made a sort of
avionics deck.
Things wound up crowded and I mounted on the side of it. That black
thing at the aft end is a remote compass sensor which I'll probably end
up not using.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
>I also like Bobby Hester picture, since that belly skin is an oil
canner and those rails should stiffen them up a bit!
Denis Walsh
On Jul 2, 2006, at 07:25 303180007, sarg314 wrote:
>
> I have the Whelen strobe power supply to run 3 strobes ( HDACF).
> It's got a mounting plate that is about 6" square. It weighs 2
> Lbs. I want to mount it just behind the baggage bulkhead some
> where. First idea, to simply mount it to the belly skin was
> rejected. The skin's not braced enough.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Bell" <dbell(at)manisteenational.com> |
Mannan,
Congratulations on getting in the air. Good Luck with the phase 1!
Doug Bell
N266WB RV8
Manistee, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGray67968(at)aol.com |
Unless it says 'Spruce' the prices were compared with Avery. All tools are
'used' but in excellent condition.
Tools for Sale
1-Avery =98C=99 Frame =93$165
2=93US Rivet gun #TP82 Spruce price $252
3=93US Rivet gun #TP83 Spruce price $205
4=93Back rivet set $22
5=937 misc rivet sets for pneumatic gun $6 to $9 ea (approx $40)
6=93Mushroom Swivel Set - $39
7=93Flush Set with Guard $18
8=936 misc Mushroom Flush Sets $7 to $14 ea (approx $40)
9=93Rivet length gauge $7
10=93Shop Head Gauge set of 4 $7
11=93Edge Rolling tool (I have 2) Spruce price $15ea = $30 total
12-3 size Tubing Bender Spruce price $31
13=932 pair of Fluting Pliers Spruce price $16.50ea = $33 total
14=93Die Grinder =93 Spruce Price $42
15=93Snips =93 Left hand Spruce Price $17.50
16-Snips =93 Right hand Spruce Price $17.50
17-Snips =93 Straight Cut Spruce Price $17.50 (2ea) = $35 total
18=93Cleco Pliers - $4.95
19=933 Drill Stops various sizes $.95 ea = $2.85 total
20=93Clecos =93 3/32 Silver (300ea) $.38ea = $114 total
21=93Clecos =93 1/8 Copper (100ea) $.38ea = $38 total
22=93Clecos =93 5/32 Black (14ea) $.38ea = $5.32 total
23=93Clecos =93 3/16 Brass (55ea) $.38ea = $20.90 total
24=9324 Wing Nut Clecos 1/4" $3ea = $72 total
25=9318 Side Grip Cleco type clamps (long style) $2.50ea =$45 total
26=93Rivet Cutter Spruce price $12.95
27-Instrument Cutout Template Spruce price =93 $9.95
28-Bolt Gauge - Free
29-Drill Gauge =93 Free
30-High Speed Debur Tool w/extension =93 Spruce price $22.95
31-2 Plate Nut jigs 3/32 & 1/18 =93 $5ea (not sure of price) = $10
total
32-Safety Wire Twister Pliers - Spruce price $22.95
33-NEW in box 2ea ISSPRO R8790 2=9D Fuel Gauges (unknown price so $50
for the
pair)
34-NEW in box Mitchell Volt Meter 2=9D Spruce price $43.95
35- Micromesh plexi kit (box opened and may have been used???) Spruce price
$17.95 make offer
Total comes to about $1,488.87 for =98new=99 stuff. I=99m
not 100% positive on
all the above prices and I=99d like to sell everything together if po
ssible. That
said..I'll take $850 for EVERYTHING on the list..I
=99ll box it up and you
pay the shipping. Obviously you may not need/want everything but I figure y
ou
can always pass on to someone else what you don't want/need and make out OK
with the price I'm offering.
If you're interested give me a buzz and we'll work it out....these tools ar
e
just taking up space in my garage :^). If you aren=99t happy when you
get the
stuff then send EVERYTHING back at your cost and I=99ll refund you in
full.
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - _rgray67968(at)aol.com_
(mailto:rgray67968(at)aol.com) or H740.678.8031
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re strobe PS mounting |
Probably already got info, but I mounted mine on the lowere inside back
of the psgr seat, Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mogas and corn liquir |
Well, yes, lots more of us use Mogas than one would think. I knew
several cherokee drivers using it for years, and i saw a guy fill up his
152 with it at Drake the other dqay. Drake FYV is the only place I have
run across selling on the firld. I plan to fill my pickup there today as
it has been $2.85 for some time and local gas at cheapest place has gone
up to $2.93 in last fe days. The big argument re mogs has been that it
ruins gaskets and such, but I have seen no evidence of this and the
argument that 100ll is a lubricant is just plane false. One thing for
sure, it fouwls the plugs. The engine I just installed in my 6a had one
plug full of LL to the point that I dont see how it could have been
firing. Charlei Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Drilling exhaust for EGT |
Fellow listers,
I'm getting ready to drill into my Vetterman exhaust to install the EGT transducers
for my VM1000 engine monitor.
I've already got some of the CHT transducers wired and working so I think I have
my transducer wiring technique working.
Other than drilling them the same distance down from the head mounting flange and
staying away from the spark plugs, I haven't been able to find any info on
the best place to drill the holes. Even though straight outboard looks like a
great place to put them - I'm wondering about the cowl (I have a Sam James Cowl).
Anyone out there have any photos of what worked well for them?
Kinda scary - drilling holes in an exhaust system...don't they leak?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR @ N06 Wiring firewall foreward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Drilling exhaust for EGT |
Fellow listers,
I'm getting ready to drill into my Vetterman exhaust to install the EGT transducers
for my VM1000 engine monitor.
I've already got some of the CHT transducers wired and working so I think I have
my transducer wiring technique working.
Other than drilling them the same distance down from the head mounting flange and
staying away from the spark plugs, I haven't been able to find any info on the
best
place to drill the holes. Even though straight outboard looks like a great place
to put them - I'm wondering about the cowl (I have a Sam James Cowl).
Anyone out there have any photos of what worked well for them?
Kinda scary - drilling holes in an exhaust system...don't they leak?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR @ N06 Wiring firewall foreward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JACK LOCKAMY" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Inspirational First Flight Video |
For those still 'pounding those rivets' or for those who are getting
close and need an 'inspirational boost', my first flight video,
professional videographed and edited by Jay Hagwell, Van Nuys, CA at
www.yudavision.com on 3/17/2005 (St. Patrick's Day) has surpassed the
100,000 mark as times being viewed.) Pretty spectacular number of
viewings considering this is an experimental, homebuilt, RV, First
Flight Video. The 'infamous' Dan Checkoway (Kitplanes
writer/contributor and friend) was the chase pilot and flew the
videographer during the event. (Thanks again Dan!.....). It really is
a wonderful, inspiring video with incredible editing that has been
viewed from people from all over the world (India, New Zealand,
Australia, Figi, South America, the great USA and others).
If you need a 'boost' or would like to view a first flight video done
professionally, check it out:
(Click on the link below)
http://www.jacklockamy.com/N174JL_First_Flight_Video.wmv
Contact Jay Hagwell at www.yudavision.com if you would like to document
your first flight....
Of all the comments I receive, it is the upholstery from Abby at
Flightline Interiors that most stands out. She did a MARVELOUS job and
I sincerely thank her! She is an 'angel' to work with and produces the
nicest interior for RV's out there (my humble opinion of course...).
You can check out her upholstery package for an RV-7/7A here:
(Click on the link below to view some of her work:
http://www.jacklockamy.com/RV-7A.html
Thank you to the RV community for all your help and support during the
construction and subsequent flight testing/flights. Who knows, there
may just be an RV-10 in my future... :-). I LOVE Building these kits
from Van's Aircraft. This is my third homebuilt and I think a fourth
may be in order.
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
www,jacklockamy.com
N174JL RV-7A 190 HRS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JACK LOCKAMY" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Inspirational First Flight Video |
ooops... link to professional videographer should have been:
www.Yudavision.net ( not www.yudavision.com).
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: JACK LOCKAMY
To: RV List
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:08 PM
Subject: Inspirational First Flight Video
For those still 'pounding those rivets' or for those who are getting
close and need an 'inspirational boost', my first flight video,
professional videographed and edited by Jay Hagwell, Van Nuys, CA at
www.yudavision.com on 3/17/2005 (St. Patrick's Day) has surpassed the
100,000 mark as times being viewed.) Pretty spectacular number of
viewings considering this is an experimental, homebuilt, RV, First
Flight Video. The 'infamous' Dan Checkoway (Kitplanes
writer/contributor and friend) was the chase pilot and flew the
videographer during the event. (Thanks again Dan!.....). It really is
a wonderful, inspiring video with incredible editing that has been
viewed from people from all over the world (India, New Zealand,
Australia, Figi, South America, the great USA and others).
If you need a 'boost' or would like to view a first flight video done
professionally, check it out:
(Click on the link below)
http://www.jacklockamy.com/N174JL_First_Flight_Video.wmv
Contact Jay Hagwell at www.yudavision.com if you would like to
document your first flight....
Of all the comments I receive, it is the upholstery from Abby at
Flightline Interiors that most stands out. She did a MARVELOUS job and
I sincerely thank her! She is an 'angel' to work with and produces the
nicest interior for RV's out there (my humble opinion of course...).
You can check out her upholstery package for an RV-7/7A here:
(Click on the link below to view some of her work:
http://www.jacklockamy.com/RV-7A.html
Thank you to the RV community for all your help and support during the
construction and subsequent flight testing/flights. Who knows, there
may just be an RV-10 in my future... :-). I LOVE Building these kits
from Van's Aircraft. This is my third homebuilt and I think a fourth
may be in order.
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
www,jacklockamy.com
N174JL RV-7A 190 HRS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Drilling exhaust for EGT |
Ralph,
I think straight out would interfere with your cowl. Remember too that the
wires won't want to make a sharp 90 degree bend at the end of the
transducer. I feel like I lucked out with mine, not realizing how the lower
plugs were going to protrude. Mine sweep back on the outside, maybe 45
degrees instead of 90 degrees. I think I have seen some turned in somewhat
towards the engine which kept the wires from the transducers more out of the
way.
Hopefully someone else will give you a better answer.
Terry
RV-8A finishing?
Seattle
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 1:50 PM
Fellow listers,
I'm getting ready to drill into my Vetterman exhaust to install the EGT
transducers
for my VM1000 engine monitor.
I've already got some of the CHT transducers wired and working so I think I
have
my transducer wiring technique working.
Other than drilling them the same distance down from the head mounting
flange and
staying away from the spark plugs, I haven't been able to find any info on
the best
place to drill the holes. Even though straight outboard looks like a great
place
to put them - I'm wondering about the cowl (I have a Sam James Cowl).
Anyone out there have any photos of what worked well for them?
Kinda scary - drilling holes in an exhaust system...don't they leak?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
RV6A N822AR @ N06 Wiring firewall foreward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling exhaust for EGT |
You will not want to drill them at a 90 degree bearing to your longitudinal
plane. Rather, you want to drill them more on a 45 degree angling back
toward the rear of the engine. You can angle them toward the
outside/cowling or the inside. I did mine toward the outside because I
could drill it with the exhaust system installed on the engine. It works
fine. It would however probably be a cleaner install to drill the angle
toward the center of the rear of the engine on about a 45 degree angle but
that would require careful marking and exhaust removal and reinstall unless
you have a nice tight fit angle drill. That inside route would remove any
chance of interference with the cowling. The exhaust system will be tight
with a properly installed sensor and will not leak. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> I'm getting ready to drill into my Vetterman exhaust to install the EGT
> transducers
> for my VM1000 engine monitor.
>
> I've already got some of the CHT transducers wired and working so I think
> I have
> my transducer wiring technique working.
>
> Other than drilling them the same distance down from the head mounting
> flange and
> staying away from the spark plugs, I haven't been able to find any info on
> the best
> place to drill the holes. Even though straight outboard looks like a
> great place
> to put them - I'm wondering about the cowl (I have a Sam James Cowl).
>
> Anyone out there have any photos of what worked well for them?
>
> Kinda scary - drilling holes in an exhaust system...don't they leak?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
> RV6A N822AR @ N06 Wiring firewall foreward
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
I am at the point of having the lower half of the 9A fuse riveted and/or
clecoed together. It is currently upside down and I need to turn it 90
degrees so I can rivet the floor stiffeners on. It now weighs enough
that it takes two men and a boy to lift and turn it. And I will be
needing to install all kinds of plumbing, wiring etc. and I would like
to be able to turn it by myself.
I am thinking that there must be a better way than to simply man handle
it with three men.
Does anybody out there have an solution?
Thanks in advance,
David (Doc) Custer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
Doc
Check out www.jeffsrv-7a.com
Jeff has a great stand tro rotate the fuse
Frank @ SGU and SLC
>From: "Doc Custer" <ddcuster@wmv-co.us>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over?
>Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:51:59 -0600
>
>I am at the point of having the lower half of the 9A fuse riveted and/or
>clecoed together. It is currently upside down and I need to turn it 90
>degrees so I can rivet the floor stiffeners on. It now weighs enough that
>it takes two men and a boy to lift and turn it. And I will be needing to
>install all kinds of plumbing, wiring etc. and I would like to be able to
>turn it by myself.
>
>I am thinking that there must be a better way than to simply man handle it
>with three men.
>
>Does anybody out there have an solution?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>David (Doc) Custer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
FWIW, when I was at that point, I just left the fuselage the way it was.
I had my wife stand up on a step stool and shoot the floor stiffener
rivets pointing the gun down. I was underneath in the fuse bucking the
rivets. The clecos held the stiffeners up onto the floor just fine.
I'd say don't move the thing if you don't have to!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (966 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Doc Custer
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: RV-List: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over?
I am at the point of having the lower half of the 9A fuse riveted
and/or clecoed together. It is currently upside down and I need to turn
it 90 degrees so I can rivet the floor stiffeners on. It now weighs
enough that it takes two men and a boy to lift and turn it. And I will
be needing to install all kinds of plumbing, wiring etc. and I would
like to be able to turn it by myself.
I am thinking that there must be a better way than to simply man
handle it with three men.
Does anybody out there have an solution?
Thanks in advance,
David (Doc) Custer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
In a message dated 7/3/2006 4:47:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lhelming(at)sigecom.net writes:
Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that authenticates it
requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol energy than we get
back? How can that make sense if oil is in short supply? Why waste .3
gallons of it?
===============================
Here's a good factual article not written by ADM.
_http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm_
(http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm)
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 799hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
Hi David,
If your workplace ceiling is low enough and you don't mind screwing some
fairly robust hooks into it;
I turned my 6-A over alone. I used two hooks in the ceiling and four
nylon ratchet type cargo straps. link two straps together making a big
loop repeat with the remaining straps.
loop both sets of straps around the fuse then up to the hooks in the
ceiling. tighten the straps till the fuse clears the jig, table or
stand. It will rotate quite easily suspended this way. I used the same
straps when putting the gear on etc.
Later on in the build I used an engine stand adapted to the firewall and
an hight adjustable rear pivot stand to support the fuse while
installing the floors etc. I made the stands tall enough to allow full
rotation with the slider windshield roll over bar temporarily place.
This allowed me to work sitting on a low stool while finishing the
floors etc. For me this was much better than bending over and reaching
down to get the various jobs done.
Keep on building,
Jim in Kelowna - Weight and balance and brake bleeding.
----- Original Message -----
From: Doc Custer
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: RV-List: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over?
I am at the point of having the lower half of the 9A fuse riveted
and/or clecoed together. It is currently upside down and I need to turn
it 90 degrees so I can rivet the floor stiffeners on. It now weighs
enough that it takes two men and a boy to lift and turn it. And I will
be needing to install all kinds of plumbing, wiring etc. and I would
like to be able to turn it by myself.
I am thinking that there must be a better way than to simply man
handle it with three men.
Does anybody out there have an solution?
Thanks in advance,
David (Doc) Custer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling exhaust for EGT |
In a message dated 7/3/06 4:44:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
recapen(at)earthlink.net writes:
> I haven't been able to find any info on the best place to drill the holes.
> Even though straight outboard looks like a great place to put them - I'm
> wondering about the cowl (I have a Sam James Cowl).
>
> Anyone out there have any photos of what worked well for them?
>
> Kinda scary - drilling holes in an exhaust system...don't they leak?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
> RV6A N822AR @ N06 Wiring firewall foreward
===============================
Ralph:
You have to look at EVERYTHING!
What will be blocked - Manifold Nuts & Bolts
Cowling - Well you know that
Where the strap will be when it is fully tightened.
Service loop on the probe wires
NO strain on any of the wires
Distance down from the face of the exhaust flange.
[Remember EGT & CHT are only reference values. Of course CHT is a bit more
accurate as long as you don use Ring or Bayonet Thermocouples. EGT is way too
variable. The numbers you get are YOUR numbers and no one else's. As the
disclaimer goes YMMV.]
I believe all mine are on a 45 Deg angle.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines was Fuel Injected |
>Subject: MOGAS Use With FI Engines
>
>There was some discussion several weeks back re use of MOGAS with
>fuel injected engines. I expect to be finished with the fuselage by
>the end of the year and am considering various engine options. I
>called Superior on Monday and was told that their XP360 fuel
>injected engines with 7.2/1 or 8.5/1 pistons will run very happily
>on MOGAS, 87 octane (non-ethanol) and 91 octane(non-ethanol)
>respectively. However, the 200 HP version (FI of course) of that
>engine does require 100LL avgas. The 7.2/1 version is not terribly
>popular and it does cost an extra $100.
>I'm leaning toward the 8.5/1 version with the fuel injection.
>
>
>Dan Bergeron
>Chicopee, MA
>RV-7A N307TB (reserved)
>(Turned the canoe over on 6/25 and am moving out smartly.)
Dan,
I was one of the listers in on that discussion. I called the EAA
and spoke to a woman regarding their STCs. They only attempted to
obtain STCs for low compression (7.2 to 1) engines. They made no
effort to obtain auto fuel STCs for 8.5 to 1 or higher compression
engines. I reported this to the list on June 13th. I called Peterson
Aviation that same day, but their technical expert was out of town.
I called back and spoke to him on June 29th at length. He was quite
helpful. He stated that Peterson had attempted to obtain STCs for 91
octane (minimum) auto fuel for various fuel injected engines. They
had success with a number of aircraft with Continental engines/fuel
injection. Every Lycoming based aircraft failed. These tests were
done over 20 years ago, and they have never revisited this issue since.
He told me that the testing was done to "worst case scenario". At
that time, the Reid Vapor Pressure of aircraft fuel was no higher
than 6.5 (lower is better). Common auto fuel could range from 7 to
15. The highest Reid Vapor Pressure numbers were "winter blend"
fuels designed to aid in vaporization of fuel in the northern US and
Canada, where temperatures can drop to -20 F and below. The
engine/airframe combination had to pass all the tests using "worst
case" fuel (ie 14-15 Reid Vapor pressure)
Due to various "clean air" enactments, auto fuel Reid Vapor
Pressures have dropped considerably in the intervening 20 years. This
requirement is related to keeping the fuel in the tank of your car
from evaporating out into the atmosphere. That is why you have sealed
gas tank caps and a charcoal recovery cannister on cars since about 1981.
He stated that in California, any premium auto fuel without ethanol
in it, is practically aviation grade, as California specifies a Reid
Vapor Pressure of 7. Please note that once ethanol gets introduced
into auto fuel, all bets are off. He stated that the biggest problem
would be incurred by aircraft owners in States which see cold winter
temperatures. During these months, they may be restricted to 100LL,
as the local auto fuel's Reid Vapor Pressure may be to high to allow
safe operation with a winter fuel blend.
All the hype about problems with fuel system gaskets and seals
relates to parts produced over 20 years ago. Most fuel injection
servos now in use have been overhauled with materials which are
compatible with auto fuel. A simple way to tell is to look at the
color of the diaphragms on your Bendix (now Precision Airmotive)
servo. If the diaphragms are orange, you've got the late model,
compatible materials. If you see black, stick with 100LL or get the
servo and fuel distributor overhauled. He stated that in my home
state of Florida, I could expect the Reid Vapor Pressure of local
fuels to be 8.5 or below.
His opinion was that for "optimum" operation & safety of Lycoming
fuel injected engines, a vapor return system should be installed.
This should not be confused with the vapor system marketed by Airflow
Performance. API's system consists of a manually controlled valve,
which the pilot opens prior to a hot restart of his engine. Once this
valve is opened, the electric boost pump in engaged. This clears out
the overheated fuel sitting in the system, firewall forward. This
fuel is returned to a single tank and replaced with cool fuel from
that tank. API's system was only intended to aid in hot restarts.
What he suggests, is to use a pair of vapor/fuel return lines with
a duplex fuel valve. See Andair's model FS20-20 here
http://www.andair.co.uk/system/index.html
This system is very similar to the system used in modern American
pick up trucks with dual fuel tanks or the above mentioned
Continental system. The system has a feed line running from each tank
to the duplex fuel selector. Each tank also has a fuel return line
running to the duplex fuel selector. A single feed line and a single
return line run from the duplex selector up to the engine's fuel
injection system. Each fuel tank also has a vent line, as is now
normally installed. This means that a 3rd line must be run to each fuel tank.
This type of system keeps fuel constantly moving from the wing fuel
tanks, through the duplex selector, up to the engine. A portion of
this fuel is constantly being returned via the fuel selector, to the
tank it is being drawn from. In essence, the fuel tank is being used
as a fuel cooler, much the oil cooler for your engine. It is this
feature which keeps the fuel cool enough to operate with auto fuels
with high Reid Vapor Pressure numbers.
You can learn more about this type of system by looking at the way
fuel is managed on any fuel injected Mazda or Subaru engined RV.
These engines must use this type of fuel system because that is how
the system was designed in the original vehicles the engines came out of.
There are a fair number of folks flying fuel injected Lycomings
with auto fuel who are using stock or API modified fuel systems with
success. This may be due to their geographic location, or because
they use a Reid Vapor Pressure tester, available from Peterson
Aviation for $65. See
http://www.webworksltd.com/autofuelstc/pa/HodgesTester.html
I asked him to give me an airframe / engine combination utilizing a
Continental engine which had passed the STC tests. He suggested
looking at Beech Debonairs up to 1970 or 1972 (he was unsure of the
cut off year). The engines suggested were the IO-470-J and IO-470-K
models. He stated that these airframe/engine combinations are a good
example of the vapor return line system he recommends. There were
others which passed, but I simply wanted one good example.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling exhaust for EGT |
Consider orienting the hole so that the wire coming from sensor is pointed
in a friendly direction -- like parrallel to the wire bundle.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> I'm getting ready to drill into my Vetterman exhaust to install the EGT
> transducers
> for my VM1000 engine monitor.
>
> I've already got some of the CHT transducers wired and working so I think
> I have
> my transducer wiring technique working.
>
> Other than drilling them the same distance down from the head mounting
> flange and
> staying away from the spark plugs, I haven't been able to find any info on
> the best
> place to drill the holes. Even though straight outboard looks like a
> great place
> to put them - I'm wondering about the cowl (I have a Sam James Cowl).
>
> Anyone out there have any photos of what worked well for them?
>
> Kinda scary - drilling holes in an exhaust system...don't they leak?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
> RV6A N822AR @ N06 Wiring firewall foreward
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Fwd: MOGAS Use With FI Engines was Fuel Injected |
For your consideration:
http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/FIS11x17.pdf
ECI has a new fuel injection system which incorporates constant fuel
circulation back to the tanks as described below. It is more similar to
the Continental type than to the Bendix.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Dan,
I was one of the listers in on that discussion. I called the EAA and
spoke to a woman regarding their STCs. They only attempted to obtain
STCs for low compression (7.2 to 1) engines. They made no effort to
obtain auto fuel STCs for 8.5 to 1 or higher compression engines. I
reported this to the list on June 13th. I called Peterson Aviation that
same day, but their technical expert was out of town.
I called back and spoke to him on June 29th at length. He was quite
helpful. He stated that Peterson had attempted to obtain STCs for 91
octane (minimum) auto fuel for various fuel injected engines. They had
success with a number of aircraft with Continental engines/fuel
injection. Every Lycoming based aircraft failed. These tests were done
over 20 years ago, and they have never revisited this issue since.
He told me that the testing was done to "worst case scenario". At that
time, the Reid Vapor Pressure of aircraft fuel was no higher than 6.5
(lower is better). Common auto fuel could range from 7 to 15. The
highest Reid Vapor Pressure numbers were "winter blend" fuels designed
to aid in vaporization of fuel in the northern US and Canada, where
temperatures can drop to -20 F and below. The engine/airframe
combination had to pass all the tests using "worst case" fuel (ie 14-15
Reid Vapor pressure)
Due to various "clean air" enactments, auto fuel Reid Vapor Pressures
have dropped considerably in the intervening 20 years. This requirement
is related to keeping the fuel in the tank of your car from evaporating
out into the atmosphere. That is why you have sealed gas tank caps and a
charcoal recovery cannister on cars since about 1981.
He stated that in California, any premium auto fuel without ethanol in
it, is practically aviation grade, as California specifies a Reid Vapor
Pressure of 7. Please note that once ethanol gets introduced into auto
fuel, all bets are off. He stated that the biggest problem would be
incurred by aircraft owners in States which see cold winter
temperatures. During these months, they may be restricted to 100LL, as
the local auto fuel's Reid Vapor Pressure may be to high to allow safe
operation with a winter fuel blend.
All the hype about problems with fuel system gaskets and seals relates
to parts produced over 20 years ago. Most fuel injection servos now in
use have been overhauled with materials which are compatible with auto
fuel. A simple way to tell is to look at the color of the diaphragms on
your Bendix (now Precision Airmotive) servo. If the diaphragms are
orange, you've got the late model, compatible materials. If you see
black, stick with 100LL or get the servo and fuel distributor
overhauled. He stated that in my home state of Florida, I could expect
the Reid Vapor Pressure of local fuels to be 8.5 or below.
His opinion was that for "optimum" operation & safety of Lycoming fuel
injected engines, a vapor return system should be installed. This should
not be confused with the vapor system marketed by Airflow Performance.
API's system consists of a manually controlled valve, which the pilot
opens prior to a hot restart of his engine. Once this valve is opened,
the electric boost pump in engaged. This clears out the overheated fuel
sitting in the system, firewall forward. This fuel is returned to a
single tank and replaced with cool fuel from that tank. API's system
was only intended to aid in hot restarts.
What he suggests, is to use a pair of vapor/fuel return lines with a
duplex fuel valve. See Andair's model FS20-20 here
http://www.andair.co.uk/system/index.html
This system is very similar to the system used in modern American pick
up trucks with dual fuel tanks or the above mentioned Continental
system. The system has a feed line running from each tank to the duplex
fuel selector. Each tank also has a fuel return line running to the
duplex fuel selector. A single feed line and a single return line run
from the duplex selector up to the engine's fuel injection system. Each
fuel tank also has a vent line, as is now normally installed. This
means that a 3rd line must be run to each fuel tank.
This type of system keeps fuel constantly moving from the wing fuel
tanks, through the duplex selector, up to the engine. A portion of this
fuel is constantly being returned via the fuel selector, to the tank it
is being drawn from. In essence, the fuel tank is being used as a fuel
cooler, much the oil cooler for your engine. It is this feature which
keeps the fuel cool enough to operate with auto fuels with high Reid
Vapor Pressure numbers.
You can learn more about this type of system by looking at the way fuel
is managed on any fuel injected Mazda or Subaru engined RV. These
engines must use this type of fuel system because that is how the system
was designed in the original vehicles the engines came out of.
There are a fair number of folks flying fuel injected Lycomings with
auto fuel who are using stock or API modified fuel systems with success.
This may be due to their geographic location, or because they use a Reid
Vapor Pressure tester, available from Peterson Aviation for $65. See
http://www.webworksltd.com/autofuelstc/pa/HodgesTester.html
I asked him to give me an airframe / engine combination utilizing a
Continental engine which had passed the STC tests. He suggested looking
at Beech Debonairs up to 1970 or 1972 (he was unsure of the cut off
year). The engines suggested were the IO-470-J and IO-470-K models. He
stated that these airframe/engine combinations are a good example of the
vapor return line system he recommends. There were others which passed,
but I simply wanted one good example.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling exhaust for EGT |
Not too sure if it matters or not, but I angled mine 45 deg. aft on the right
and 45 deg. fwd on the left. My theory is this places the probes in the same
relative position on each cylinder (#1 being the exception since the probe is
just below the bend on my Vetterman x-over).
FWIW From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
...or just put it on a rotisserie- MUCH easier to do all kinds of stuff! 8-)
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5373
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.
JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane.
If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)
So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the
hassle of hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge
hassle, dangerous and illegal. At most airports and with
state highway laws (hazardous material transport) a NO
NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5 Gal jerry
cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. I can see
all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for
91 octane engines. If you have a low compression engine
that can run on MO gas than sure there is some advantage.
HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.
Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.
Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression
engines that where made for like 80 octane.
There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.
A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's
with the O360 can't get a STC for premium auto fuel
because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge
cowl and a RV with a very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.
The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol
and ethanol. I remember in Washington state, in the
winter they went to an alcohol blend fuel. My gas
milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CONSISTANT. It varies widely by
region, session and testing is a hassle.
If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER
part of the fuel system and add a vapor return line
even for Carb engines.
>From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
>
>My RX-8 rotary (10 : 1 CR) powered RV-4 runs best and
>gets best fuel economy on 87 octane. I burn 100LL in a
>pinch but plug life is greatly reduced.
Automotive and aircraft engines are two differnt things. RX8
cars strictly call for premium and use 2 qts of oil between
oil changes, and also get terriable gas millage. I know you
are a rotary expert Tracy but a water cooled car engine
piston or rotary is not an aircooled aircraft engine.
My Lyc plug life is 1000 hour plus on 100LL.
I am not picking on you Tracy but you have to take
the good with the bad. Good, you can use auto fuel;
Bad, your engine is noisier, heavier and burns way
more fuel than a Lycoming for equivalent performance.
>Best experts I've read say that almost all aircraft engines
>would work fine on 91 octane mogas.
Most aircraft engines where certified for 91, like 320 (160HP)
and 360 (180 hp) Lycoming. So that is a no brainer, The
problem is the MO gas you can buy at the airport is way
less than 91 octane, like 80/86.
If you want premium AUTO fuel you have to haul. And the
idea of having your own tank, even on your own property
is likely to be illegal in most states.
We may get a 91UL or 95UL in the near future. Basically I
believe 100LL without the lead.
>equipped with knock sensors to adjust timing appropriately.
>This would be a simple and inexpensive thing to do if the
>FAA were not involved.
The FAA has nothing to do with it.
Aircraft engines can not use automotive knock sensor, which
are basically little microphones. An air cooled engine with out
water jackets can not use them due to mechanical noise.
When I say noise I DON'T mean what you hear, like thru the
exhaust pipe but mechanical valve noise.
Now combustion chamber pressure probes would work in
maximizing timing and improving economy of a Lyc, but
that is very expensive and not needed. Lyc's work at such
a narrow RPM/Power band you don't need fancy electronics
to make it work. You do need a trained pilot who knows
what the red knob is for.
Most (not all) aircraft engines will work with premium AUTO
FUEL or the new 91UL that MAY BE coming down the road.
I say may be because it might not happen. There are some
high end piston aircraft engines that will not work with less
than 100LL.
BTW Rotaries are of course the loudest engine you can
put on a plane. Of course there are no valves.
We are again talking water cooled verse aircooled. You
would think that would give a fuel edge to the rotary but
in fact the rotary burn more fuel than a Lyc.
You can talk all the ECU tweaking the basic design of
the rotary will never allow the same spacific fuel
consumption. The RX8 gets 5 mpg less than equivalent
220hp sport cars, BOTH City and Highway. Even the
Nissan Z car with almost 100 hp more gets the same
milage as the RX8 Mazda. (about 20% less fuel econ)
Do you think Mazda tuned their ECU for best EPA milage
for the gas milage sticker test? Sure.
So when talking about the advantage of burning auto
fuel, talk about the higher fuel burn and oil usage.
Also mixing oil into the fuel tank is a pain, or if you
use an oil injector instead, it's more weight.
>We will still be saddled with the expensive idiocy of a
>separate distribution system for our fuel due to the growing
>mandates to use ethanol which requires 1.3 gallons of fossil
>fuel to produce 1 gallon of the moonshine.
>Are we stupid or what?
Well we are not to be political, but where is the presidential
primaries held? (Iowa?) Where do they grow the most corn
and what is ethanol made of? (corn?)
That is the problem alternative fuel availability Auto GAs and
Mo gas, with out alcohol or ethanol is getting hard to get.
We can expect that 91UL aviation gas will come down the
road. IT already has in Europe. For now all we have 100LL.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Marhyde reformulation? |
Howdy folks-
Have any of you other Marhyde #5111 (spray) or #5112 (quart) users out there
seen a change in this stuff's quality over the last year or so? A buddy
building a Mustang II has been using it and it does not seem to stick to
properly-prepped aluminum anywhere near as well as when I used it to build my plane.
You can scratch it off the surface with a thumbnail pretty easily. It was tough
stuff on my project and about the only way I could get it off was to sand it
off! See:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=4863
I sent an inquiry to Bondo Corp's Tech assistance several weeks ago and the
respondent asked for batch #s which were forwarded. I haven't heard back yet.
He claimed there has been no change in formulation. If so, their QC has some
serious problems, but I really think they've changed it (even smells a little
different). Although my own experience with it was excellent, I need a
substitue immediately. Discussion over the years on the RV-list points to other
self-etch primers, namely SW GPB988, SEM 39683 and Dupont A-4115S, which I
believe is also the same as NAPA 7020. If you are presently using one of these
and
are satisfied they bond well to aluminum, please let me know!
I most respectfully ask that you PLEASE do not respond to this message with
your concerns & opinions about using self-etch primers (unless you have
specific FACTS about new EPA regulations or some other factor that has castrated
ALL
of these products!) If you want to do that, contact me OFF LIST and spare
thousands of listers the annoyance of wearing out their DEL key. I have been on
this list for many years and have heard it ALL about etch/alodine/epoxy/wash
primer/whatever and am looking for hard information regarding the current crop
of self-etch primers specifically. The last thing we have time for is an
argument over primers- it's already archived, again&again&again&again..........
Thanks!
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drilling exhaust for EGT |
Having drilled my O360 A1A's vetterman exhaust both ways, I consider a hole
that helps the wire line up with the lower spark plug leads the best
orientation. The ones I drilled to join the wire bundle that runs along the
crankcase/sump joint are more difficult to work with plus they run through
the hot area just under the cooling fins. Both methods are working OK but I
think bundling with the spark plug leads is a cleaner installation. In my
case, it also let me get all sensors closer to the same distance from the
exhaust port. At the same distance as all the other leads, the number 1
cylinder lead would have angled up to hit the cooling fins.
Also, if you make a mistake, grinding a stainless screw down and securing it
in the hole with a hose clamp is a decent alternative to junking that part
of the exhaust.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Hi All-
It's been a bunch of years since I followed this aspect of the industry, so
please pardon my ignorance. I'd like some clarification from those of you
(Charlie?) who've done the research on this issue. The Lyc manual for my
8.7:1 IO-360-A1B6D specifies 100/130 fuel. It also refers to S.I. 1070,
which says the engine was certificated for 100/130 but that 100LL or 100
are the commercial designations to be used. The SI further states "The
chart showing specified and alternate fuels that can be safely used in no
instance permits use of fuels of lower grade than that which is specified.
Also, it is not permissible in any instance to use automotive fuel in
aircraft engines, regardless of octane or advertised features because of
the corrosive effect of its chlorine content and because of vapor lock that
could result due to its high vapor pressure. Any fuel used in Lycoming
engines must conform with Specifications ASTM-D910 or MIL-G-5572F."
Last things first- if one were to test / verify the vapor pressure of the
locally available mogas, and only use fuel with a Ried vapor pressure less
than 7, wouldn't that essentially preclude vapor lock problems?
Does the chlorine mentioned only corrode / swell fuel system seals, or are
there other effects?
If one tank held avgas for non-cruise ops, and the other held mogas for sub
75% cruise ops, wouldn't knock be a non-issue? Or would some sort of knock
sensor still be appropriate?
Is there any news on the status of the efforts to keep 91 octane alcohol
free?
Thanks in advance, guys!
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | MOGAS (Detonation) |
This MOGAS thread is has some great information. It looks like the greatest
threat is vapor lock which can be dealt with but what about Detonation? With
a 160hp O-320 my biggest concern was Detonation. But as long as I use 91-93
octane MOGAS, that does not seem to be the case. Is that a fair conclusion?
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
At 10:52 AM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>
>Hi All-
>
>It's been a bunch of years since I followed this aspect of the industry, so
>please pardon my ignorance. I'd like some clarification from those of you
>(Charlie?) who've done the research on this issue. The Lyc manual for my
>8.7:1 IO-360-A1B6D specifies 100/130 fuel. It also refers to S.I. 1070,
>which says the engine was certificated for 100/130 but that 100LL or 100
>are the commercial designations to be used. The SI further states "The
>chart showing specified and alternate fuels that can be safely used in no
>instance permits use of fuels of lower grade than that which is specified.
>Also, it is not permissible in any instance to use automotive fuel in
>aircraft engines, regardless of octane or advertised features because of
>the corrosive effect of its chlorine content and because of vapor lock that
>could result due to its high vapor pressure. Any fuel used in Lycoming
>engines must conform with Specifications ASTM-D910 or MIL-G-5572F."
>
>Last things first- if one were to test / verify the vapor pressure of the
>locally available mogas, and only use fuel with a Ried vapor pressure less
>than 7, wouldn't that essentially preclude vapor lock problems?
>
>Does the chlorine mentioned only corrode / swell fuel system seals, or are
>there other effects?
>
>If one tank held avgas for non-cruise ops, and the other held mogas for sub
>75% cruise ops, wouldn't knock be a non-issue? Or would some sort of knock
>sensor still be appropriate?
>
>Is there any news on the status of the efforts to keep 91 octane alcohol
>free?
>
>Thanks in advance, guys!
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
Glen,
No one related to obtaining STCs for use of auto fuel in aircraft
recommends it's use in engines with greater than 8.5 to 1 compression
ratios. Even though the Lycoming angle valve engines are only 0.2
points higher, they have a totally different combustion chamber
design. That said, I do know of RV owners using auto fuel in these
engines with no modification. I would expect that their detonation
margins are reduced to less than what Lycoming would like. Another
option would be to operate on a mixture of 100LL and premium auto
fuel. On refueling away from home base, this will occur anyway.
Testing the Reid Vapor Pressure of all auto fuel you use, (as well
as testing for alcohol) would be extremely wise. Modification of your
fuel system to include a Continental style vapor return system would
also be wise with this engine. As mentioned by another lister, knock
sensors are not practical for air cooled engines.
The addition of ethanol to auto fuel is a regional issue at
present. The issue of chemicals used in auto fuels that are not used
in aviation fuels has been dealt with in recent years. Re-read my
last post regarding this.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Inspirational First Flight Video |
Jack,
Man what a fantastic first flight and video. Yes, it was Yani
for the background but well let that go. I'm still doing FWF but I can
see the end even if its down the road a bit. This video just makes it
all worth while an keeps me pounding rivets.
Jim Nelson
RV9-A
http://websites.expercraft.com/jimn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS (Detonation) |
In a message dated 7/4/06 3:36:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tn3639(at)hotmail.com writes:
> This MOGAS thread is has some great information. It looks like the greatest
> threat is vapor lock which can be dealt with but what about Detonation?
With
>
> a 160hp O-320 my biggest concern was Detonation. But as long as I use
91-93
> octane MOGAS, that does not seem to be the case. Is that a fair conclusion?
>
> Scott
=============================
Scott:
Under the right conditions I can create Vapor Lock even with AvGas. The right
conditions seem to exist more in Texas than anywhere else. The only reason
why I say that is I have had more opponents of MoGas from their than anywhere
else. I have even had ALL the symptoms of vapor lock in a Piper Arrow with fuel
injection. I support MoGas and have seen better engine runs with MoGas than
AvGas. BUT! There will always be those in favor and those apposed.
With the addition of ethanol to our MoGas that should stop vapor lock, since
the vapor point and flash point are higher.
As for the O-320 with high compression pistons, YES stick with the 93 or
better octane. Ya know ... I have never seen 91 octane offered anywhere.
As for detonation, you can feel free to mix 100 LL AvGas with 93 MoGas ...
BUT! Never mix 93 MoGas with anything less than 93 or better.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob" <panamared3(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Wow!!!
Are you some sort of lobbist for the 100LL fuel industry. You have
convinced me, I won't even use mogas in my tractor after this warning.
100LL for everything!!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:32 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines
ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.
JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane.
If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)
So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the
hassle of hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge
hassle, dangerous and illegal. At most airports and with
state highway laws (hazardous material transport) a NO
NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5 Gal jerry
cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. I can see
all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for
91 octane engines. If you have a low compression engine
that can run on MO gas than sure there is some advantage.
HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.
Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.
Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression
engines that where made for like 80 octane.
There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.
A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's
with the O360 can't get a STC for premium auto fuel
because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge
cowl and a RV with a very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.
The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol
and ethanol. I remember in Washington state, in the
winter they went to an alcohol blend fuel. My gas
milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CONSISTANT. It varies widely by
region, session and testing is a hassle.
If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER
part of the fuel system and add a vapor return line
even for Carb engines.
>From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
>
>My RX-8 rotary (10 : 1 CR) powered RV-4 runs best and
>gets best fuel economy on 87 octane. I burn 100LL in a
>pinch but plug life is greatly reduced.
Automotive and aircraft engines are two differnt things. RX8
cars strictly call for premium and use 2 qts of oil between
oil changes, and also get terriable gas millage. I know you
are a rotary expert Tracy but a water cooled car engine
piston or rotary is not an aircooled aircraft engine.
My Lyc plug life is 1000 hour plus on 100LL.
I am not picking on you Tracy but you have to take
the good with the bad. Good, you can use auto fuel;
Bad, your engine is noisier, heavier and burns way
more fuel than a Lycoming for equivalent performance.
>Best experts I've read say that almost all aircraft engines
>would work fine on 91 octane mogas.
Most aircraft engines where certified for 91, like 320 (160HP)
and 360 (180 hp) Lycoming. So that is a no brainer, The
problem is the MO gas you can buy at the airport is way
less than 91 octane, like 80/86.
If you want premium AUTO fuel you have to haul. And the
idea of having your own tank, even on your own property
is likely to be illegal in most states.
We may get a 91UL or 95UL in the near future. Basically I
believe 100LL without the lead.
>equipped with knock sensors to adjust timing appropriately.
>This would be a simple and inexpensive thing to do if the
>FAA were not involved.
The FAA has nothing to do with it.
Aircraft engines can not use automotive knock sensor, which
are basically little microphones. An air cooled engine with out
water jackets can not use them due to mechanical noise.
When I say noise I DON'T mean what you hear, like thru the
exhaust pipe but mechanical valve noise.
Now combustion chamber pressure probes would work in
maximizing timing and improving economy of a Lyc, but
that is very expensive and not needed. Lyc's work at such
a narrow RPM/Power band you don't need fancy electronics
to make it work. You do need a trained pilot who knows
what the red knob is for.
Most (not all) aircraft engines will work with premium AUTO
FUEL or the new 91UL that MAY BE coming down the road.
I say may be because it might not happen. There are some
high end piston aircraft engines that will not work with less
than 100LL.
BTW Rotaries are of course the loudest engine you can
put on a plane. Of course there are no valves.
We are again talking water cooled verse aircooled. You
would think that would give a fuel edge to the rotary but
in fact the rotary burn more fuel than a Lyc.
You can talk all the ECU tweaking the basic design of
the rotary will never allow the same spacific fuel
consumption. The RX8 gets 5 mpg less than equivalent
220hp sport cars, BOTH City and Highway. Even the
Nissan Z car with almost 100 hp more gets the same
milage as the RX8 Mazda. (about 20% less fuel econ)
Do you think Mazda tuned their ECU for best EPA milage
for the gas milage sticker test? Sure.
So when talking about the advantage of burning auto
fuel, talk about the higher fuel burn and oil usage.
Also mixing oil into the fuel tank is a pain, or if you
use an oil injector instead, it's more weight.
>We will still be saddled with the expensive idiocy of a
>separate distribution system for our fuel due to the growing
>mandates to use ethanol which requires 1.3 gallons of fossil
>fuel to produce 1 gallon of the moonshine.
>Are we stupid or what?
Well we are not to be political, but where is the presidential
primaries held? (Iowa?) Where do they grow the most corn
and what is ethanol made of? (corn?)
That is the problem alternative fuel availability Auto GAs and
Mo gas, with out alcohol or ethanol is getting hard to get.
We can expect that 91UL aviation gas will come down the
road. IT already has in Europe. For now all we have 100LL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Guys I have been running over four years and 500+ hours on a mix of 25%
100LL, 75% 87 octane no-alcohol unleaded which I purchase from the local
farm bureau. Never had any trouble, other than the stains it makes on the
paint. No signs of detonation or elevated temperatures. Typically as a
flatlander I rarely go above 7500ft and have flown many times where the OAT
was 95 deg. F. At the moment my fuel costs are $31.98/hr, and if I go 100%
100LL its $40.00/hr, for a savings of $8.02/hour. (based on 10gph, 87 octane
at $2.93/gal and 100LL at $4.00/gal.). I typically fly 10 hours a month,
for a net savings of $80.20 a month, $962.40/year. It's worth the hassle!
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 O-360 C/S flying 700+ hours, F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine alignment |
Dana, you want to space it evenly at the front. You do whatever you need to
do to the back to achieve the perfect front. You probably sand/cut stuff
off back there and if you take too much off, you get to add it back later.
You want about 3/8" to 1/4" gap that pic 3 shows to be uniform all around.
Put a spacer in there and clamp it down or it will move when you go to
drilling the cowling to the firewall. You want the cowling to be a bit low
from being perfect to the spinner position so when the engine drops/sags a
bit after a few hours of use, you will be closer to perfect. Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Started working on the cowling this morning and ran into a little question
> mark.
>
> On my case, there is a little ridge where the bottom two engine mounts
> contact the case. I put a large washer between the Barry mount and the
> case on the bottom, otherwise the engine mounts would not be flush on the
> case.
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment1.jpg
>
> I did not put any washers on the top. My thinking was Lyc had taken this
> into consideration with the ridge in the bottom two.
>
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment2.jpg
>
> So, when I placed the upper cowling in place, there is an increasing gap
> from top to bottom. Me thinks this does not look right!!
>
> http://rvflying.tripod.com/alignment3.jpg
>
>
> Anyone run into this? What are my options, put a large washer between the
> top to mounts and the case?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
At 03:44 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>Guys I have been running over four years and 500+ hours on a mix of 25%
>100LL, 75% 87 octane no-alcohol unleaded which I purchase from the local
>farm bureau. Never had any trouble, other than the stains it makes on the
>paint. No signs of detonation or elevated temperatures. Typically as a
>flatlander I rarely go above 7500ft and have flown many times where the
>OAT was 95 deg. F. At the moment my fuel costs are $31.98/hr, and if I go
>100% 100LL its $40.00/hr, for a savings of $8.02/hour. (based on 10gph, 87
>octane at $2.93/gal and 100LL at $4.00/gal.). I typically fly 10 hours a
>month, for a net savings of $80.20 a month, $962.40/year. It's worth the
>hassle!
So what happens at up to 17,500' ?
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine alignment |
Dana, you want the engine alignment to be perfect before fitting the
cowling. If it is up or down or anything but straight away, (it is offset
however a bit to the left on mine to alleviate the P-factor I was told) you
will have loss of TAS. Make sure you have the proper engine mount for your
particular engine. Recheck the correct washers were used (top was different
than bottom on mine) on the engine mount. I suspect you will find the
problem is somewhere with the engine mount or attachment. Hope this
helps.
Larry with little SunSeeker -- the Indiana RV7
----- Original Message -----
>
> Larry and any other listers, what my problem appears to be is a
> misalignment of the engine, ie., tilted up with the introduction of the
> washer between the engine mount and case on the bottom to clear the lip on
> the case bottom attach points. If you notice on the third picture, the
> gap gets progressively larger on the bottom of the upper cowl. My
> thinking is the washers have canted the engine up, thereby giving me this
> non standard gap. Any thoughts?
>
> Dana Overall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Ron,
What's 17,500?? Isn't that a nose bleed altitude? :-))) I
intend to use MOGAS in a 50/50 blend in at least one tank until I am
satisfied that with my FI I'll have no problems. Then I may go to 25/75
MOGAS / 100LL in the other tank. If nothing else, it will keep the lead
accumulations down to a low level.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Engine alignment |
Larry,
I also had a problem with the lower engine mounts flanges where
the rubber engine mounts meet the case. The steel washer of the engine
mount did not meet up flush with the relief cut on the engine case. It
was about 1/8 protrusion at the bottom. I examined the juncture of the
lower oil / intake case with the upper engine case and found out that if
I ground a small amount of the case at the seam between the two parts I
could get the engine mount to lie flush with the upper case mount. The
cut away portion of the flange was between two bolts that held the lower
part of the engine case to the upper part. My die grinder with an
aluminum burr made short work of both sides. My Tech counselor had not
seen this before so it was a new on him. The cut away portion would not
have any effect on the integrity of the case or sealing surface. I could
take a pix if it would be of any help to you.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How NOT to turn a fuselage over |
Just a quick warning for you guys. My neighbors at the airport have been
building a T-18 and the other day they came in the morning to do some
riveting to find that the sawhorses had collapsed under the fuselage. It
caused substantial damage and will set the project back many hours. Scary
thing for me is that I have a much heavier/larger RV-10 fuselage on the same
crappy Home Depot plastic sawhorses......I have even been getting in it to
do hours of work! They think that the heat in our area for the last few
weeks made them fail. It has been over 100F consistently, even up to 117 F.
My focus now is to get the landing gear trunions in so I can mount my
temporary landing gear (more on those in a sec.) I just got the sound
proofing in under the forward floors, sealed the firewall with proseal and
popped down the floors. Now all that is left is to bolt in those trunions.
The temporary landing gear is some pipe I had cut with a couple of bolts
welded on to act as axels...throw in a couple of wheelbarrow tires and you
got the idea. It will set the fuselage about 2 feet off the floor and I will
be able to set the whole works down on the wheels and the side steps. Also
by simply lifting up the tailcone I will be able to move it about the
hanger, wheel barrow style. These guys cost about $100 dollars and when I am
done I will send them on to some other deserving RV 10 builder for their
use. Now I need to get over to the hanger and stick my small refrigerator
under the fuse to act as a back-up to those saw horses.
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 5:13 PM
>
> Doc
>
> Check out www.jeffsrv-7a.com
>
> Jeff has a great stand tro rotate the fuse
>
> Frank @ SGU and SLC
>
>
> >From: "Doc Custer" <ddcuster@wmv-co.us>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: RV-List: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over?
> >Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:51:59 -0600
> >
> >I am at the point of having the lower half of the 9A fuse riveted and/or
> >clecoed together. It is currently upside down and I need to turn it 90
> >degrees so I can rivet the floor stiffeners on. It now weighs enough that
> >it takes two men and a boy to lift and turn it. And I will be needing to
> >install all kinds of plumbing, wiring etc. and I would like to be able to
> >turn it by myself.
> >
> >I am thinking that there must be a better way than to simply man handle
it
> >with three men.
> >
> >Does anybody out there have an solution?
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >David (Doc) Custer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
17,500 FEET MSL, Or pick 16,500 Feet, or 14,423 feet. That is
where I fly.
Ron Lee
>Ron,
> What's 17,500?? Isn't that a nose bleed altitude? :-))) I
>intend to use MOGAS in a 50/50 blend in at least one tank until I am
>satisfied that with my FI I'll have no problems. Then I may go to 25/75
>MOGAS / 100LL in the other tank. If nothing else, it will keep the lead
>accumulations down to a low level.
>
>Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Heat muff overheat? |
Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during the
summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff, it
may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you think?
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
I ordered my D10A with the external magnetic (compass) sensor. I was
thinking of installing it in a wingtip or behind the baggage bulkhead,
perhaps.
I just read the installation manual which says the magnetic sensor
should be installed oriented to match the orientation of the D10A (in
the panel) in pitch, roll, and yaw to an accuracy of better than 1
degree. This sounds impractical. Positioning it relative to a longeron
or rib or any component of the airplane could easily have 1 deg. of
error in it.You'd have to be able to measure the orientation of both
units in an absolute sense somehow to get this kind of accuracy.
Perhaps with a surveyors transit and an electronic level I could work it
out, but I have neither.
What have other people done? Does it really need this kind of
accuracy? Or am I the only one foolish enough to order it this way?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
At 17:07 2006-07-04, you wrote:
>
>At 03:44 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>>Guys I have been running over four years and 500+ hours on a mix of
>>25% 100LL, 75% 87 octane no-alcohol unleaded which I purchase from
>>the local farm bureau. Never had any trouble, other than the
>>stains it makes on the paint. No signs of detonation or elevated
>>temperatures. Typically as a flatlander I rarely go above 7500ft
>>and have flown many times where the OAT was 95 deg. F. At the
>>moment my fuel costs are $31.98/hr, and if I go 100% 100LL its
>>$40.00/hr, for a savings of $8.02/hour. (based on 10gph, 87 octane
>>at $2.93/gal and 100LL at $4.00/gal.). I typically fly 10 hours a
>>month, for a net savings of $80.20 a month, $962.40/year. It's
>>worth the hassle!
>
>
>So what happens at up to 17,500' ?
>
>Ron Lee
The highest I've been is 15,500 and that was on a horse.
I don't have an O2 bottle for the RV-4 so it's only been to 12k (for
a very short period of time).
We ran tens of thousands of gallons of auto gas through the C-182's
we used for jumping years ago and they regularly went to 12,500 and
sometimes to 14,500. Never a fuel problem and saved thousands of
$. Engines went to TBO and beyond as well.
If I were running at 17,500 I'd have to treat it like a special case
and use a special mix. Sorta like scuba divers going deep with a
special air mix. P-)
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Granby CO Fly-in breakfast |
Saturday, 1 July 2006 was the annual fly in breakfast at Granby CO (KGNB).
Whereas last year about six RVs from MeadowLake flew up I apparently was
the only one this year. Weather was great. Air was calm and cool at 14,500'
The following picture was taken a few years ago
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Granby2003/GrandLakeSmall.jpg
As soon as I got out of the plane I noticed a really nice smell to the
air. It was
probably a combination of crisp air, trees and some moisture. There was a good
variety of planes including the normal multiple RVs
I hung around for about an hour (perhaps a record for me) then departed.
As I crossed the mountains to the plains I listened to the MeadowLake
unicom and a pilot was complaining about the runway in use. The norm
here is to land/take-off on Rwy 15 when the winds are about 5 knots and
less. Some people want to use Rwy 33 with the slightest amount of breeze
out of the north. So instead of listening to the whining I called Denver
approach to make sure that I was not in their preferred arrival/departure
path. By the time that they cut me loose (got rid of me) there were no
pattern problems at MeadowLake.
The MeadowLake runway was recently slurried and looks really great
compared to recent years:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/00V.jpg
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat muff overheat? |
Hello Larry,
If you have used a correctly designed cabin heat door or valve on the
firewall there should not be any need to cut off the flow at the supply end.
A correctly designed heat door will spill the muff heated air out to the hot
side of the firewall area in the closed position.
If you wish to cut of the flow of heated air to the lower reaches of the hot
side for cooling and or drag reasons then I would suggest that the heat muff
and hoses for same should be removed for the reasons that you have already
suggested. This of course will disable the cabin heat feature but would most
likely reduce drag by some very hard to measure amount.
Jim in Kelowna - The 6-A slider weighed in at 1134 LB.today O360-A1A with
CS. Have not done W&B as yet
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 8:15 PM
>
> Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during
> the
> summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
> cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff,
> it
> may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
> think?
>
> -
> Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
You CAN measure the orientation pretty easily. Get out the digital
protractor...or it's time to beg/borrow/steal one if you don't have one
already. They're nifty little tools, worth blowing the bucks on imho.
See the photos on the bottom of this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20030806.html and one at the top of this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20030809.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 8:20 PM
>
> I ordered my D10A with the external magnetic (compass) sensor. I was
> thinking of installing it in a wingtip or behind the baggage bulkhead,
> perhaps.
>
> I just read the installation manual which says the magnetic sensor should
> be installed oriented to match the orientation of the D10A (in the panel)
> in pitch, roll, and yaw to an accuracy of better than 1 degree. This
> sounds impractical. Positioning it relative to a longeron or rib or any
> component of the airplane could easily have 1 deg. of error in it.You'd
> have to be able to measure the orientation of both units in an absolute
> sense somehow to get this kind of accuracy. Perhaps with a surveyors
> transit and an electronic level I could work it out, but I have neither.
>
> What have other people done? Does it really need this kind of accuracy?
> Or am I the only one foolish enough to order it this way?
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is, you can not
get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some
water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes some
OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to
distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised, it does
not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of
fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,
like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have ignored
that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL
fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider CO2
a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil" about
it!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
_________________________Original Message_________________________________
Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
Dan:
Thanks for the pictures (and whole website, for that matter), but
measure it relative to what? I think I can position it within a degree
relative to some bulkhead, but can't the bulkhead be slighly misaligned
with the whole plane or at least the instrument panel? A degree isn't
much.
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
> You CAN measure the orientation pretty easily.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
Relative to the instrument head itself. Basically measure the angle of the
panel, and add 90 degrees. That gives you your longitudinal offset. Since
the panel itself should be level laterally, level the EDC-D10 laterally.
"Yaw" is removed from the equation by using a bulkhead as the reference
perpendicular to the aircraft's centerline.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:37 PM
>
> Dan:
> Thanks for the pictures (and whole website, for that matter), but
> measure it relative to what? I think I can position it within a degree
> relative to some bulkhead, but can't the bulkhead be slighly misaligned
> with the whole plane or at least the instrument panel? A degree isn't
> much.
> Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>>
>> You CAN measure the orientation pretty easily.
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
Ditto what Dan said. Getting the thing level and plumb is not as hard
is they make it sound.
Get yourself a digital level. Lay it across the top of the Dynon face
and compare it to a level laid across the longerons, and you've got the
roll axis figured out. Make a board about 6 inches long and 4 inches
tall, so that you can lay the board on the top of the Dynon body
(lengthwise) and lay the level on that. Obviously make sure the wood
shim has exactly parallel sides. Bingo, you've got the pitch axis
figured. As for the yaw axis, you can get it close by measuring against
other bulkheads, including the instrument panel, but I think this is the
least critical of the three, since changes to the yaw axis are what you
are measureing with the unit, and a degree or 2 of install error will be
cancelled out in the calibration process.
As for mounting, I think my solution is about the easiest. Make an
aluminum mount to get it close, then use the brass screws and washers as
shims to get it dead nuts on.
http://home.mindspring.com/~rv6/RV6site/Dynon.htm
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
13 days and counting till Osh......
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat muff overheat? |
>
> Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during
the
> summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
> cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff,
it
> may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
think?
> > Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
>
Larry,
I have a hot/cold air mixer valve that dumps a small portion of the heated
air when set for full cold air to the cabin. It does this thru a hole in the
valve that is about 5/8" diameter as I remember. I also have two heat muffs
in series so the heated air passing thru the valve is quite warm. Have 120
hours on the system and no indication of deterioration of the system.
This would seems to indicate that you could perhaps substantially block the
2" opening but allow some air to continually pass to moderate the muff
temperature.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Thanks, Charlie-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
>posted by: "Jim Sears"
> Oh? I'm sure glad you told me. I've been flying on
> auto gas for 20 years and don't have every part of
> my fuel system insulated. I do insulate the lines with
> firesleeve and do put blast tubes to the pump.That's
> it. My Cheetah didn't even have the blast tubes.Jim
> Sears in KY
Jim:
Thanks for the very detailed response, I learned a
lot. You clearly have way more experience with Auto
Gas in planes than I. However you miss quote or
miss read a few things. No need to repeat
everything, but let me address a few things.
I think you gloss over and paint a very rosy picture
that may be less than typical. I think your fuel
savings is at the extreme MAX of what is possible.
In the real world it's much less, but first.......
First let be say the most important thing is Auto gas
in planes CAN cause loss of power, engine failure.
That is the main reason for NOT using it.
The important thing to remember 160, 180 and 200
HP Lycomings need premium Auto gas and that is
NOT available for purchase right out of an airport pump.
One better consider the facts of hauling fuel around
to fill your plane from the corner gas station: Hassle,
legality, safety and lack of availability away from
home.
The price savings if you HAUL YOUR own gas can
be good, especially IF you can use 80/87 octane.
However if you buy from the airport if avail, the price
diff between AVgas and MOgas is often measured in
dimes not dollars. Any one can do a search for gas
prices nation wide.
Avgas avg $4.28 min $2.90 max $7.05
Mogas (auto) avg $3.17 min $1.75 max $5.10
Premium (auto) avg $3.35 min $x.xx max $x.xx
As you can see price varies; 100LL can
be CHEAPER than AUTO GAS!
Yes you can play games and that the Low of
one and the high of another and go WOW, look
at that. The real world and Murphy's law says
the savings will be much smaller. IF you just
look at average you can see you will may be
save $1.00 on average. That is about $8.00/hr on
my plane.
OK, that is great, about 100 hrs a year that is $800.
However 1/2 of my flying is X-C and I likely could not
get premium auto gas, so that savings is $400, but
than again I might find some $3.00 AVgas.
That $400 will cost me the hassle of hauling and
storing fuel. Add the worry of Vapor Lock.... no thanks.
If you need premium, again check the price of
premium auto gas (from the corner station) & AVgas.
Premium Autogas can be over $3.00/gal. AVgas
in the low-mid $3-$4 range. Not the $1.50 you say. I
believe you but not everyone lives in Kentucky, which
has the lowest car gas price nation wide. Good
for you Mr. Smug. You have a very provincial and
narrow focus, other (most) states, savings not so great.
If you are going to go around the patch in KY than
haul your own gas might work. Travel cross country
and buy MOgas at the airport, the price difference is
not that great. ANY ONE can verify that for themselves.
If your engine was certified for 91/96 octane you need to
get Premium and you will not fine that in a X-C flight. If
you price premium Vs. AVgas the price is again in
dimes not dollars.
Again this is easy to look up on the web. Assume 50
cent savings per gal and 8 gal an hr burn, $ 4.00.
Say it is double that, $8.00. Is it worth it to flame out
your engine on a hot day takeoff? Will that gas
savings rebuild your airplane you just Ball'ed up in
the corn field (if you are lucky).
Good for you that you live in a state that does not
require Alcohol or Ethanol. It is widely known that
your days are numbered. The good old Fed Gov will
force that down our / your throat sooner than later.
I am glad your RV-6A is working well. However a
Grumman Cheetah is a BIG cowl compared, and the
exhaust pipes do not snake and wrap around the
Carb like they do on a RV. I do know that.
To quote Lycoming why not to use Auto fuel:
ENGINE FAILURE.
Yea I know Lycoming does not know anything.
Yea I know you have done it and live a charmed life
and nothing ever will go bad because of your
experience in Kentucky. Vapor Lock is a REAL
issue. Please don't gloss that over, that is
disingenuous and not forthright.
Pouring your OWN gas into your plane is NOT
allowed at most Muni Airports. Even large gas
tanks on personal property are regulated and
restricted by law.
Also there is a big difference in one 5 gal gas can
and a 55 gal barrel or ten (5) gal jugs. Check out Haz
material laws for your state, I know. Just because you
can get away with it, may not be a good reason to do it.
I am sure gas station attendants will question you filling
your 10 jugs that are more than a car fill-up by a factor
of 3 or 4. Handling Gas is not without danger.
No thanks, and your reward for all the effort is worry if
you will lose power on takeoff or climb on a hot day.
Yes there are hotter places than Kentucky.
Thanks for the info but I think you have been somewhat
lucky. I know experimentals don't need STC btw and
said that. However you gloss over the fact some planes
can not get a STC. Than you correctly state we can
learn from STC's. Well Take the HINT. RV's are very
tight cowls and have little in common with a Grumman.
I am not saying don't do Auto gas but at least know what
you are getting into and the real RISK! That is all.
Cheers George M
---------------------------------
at 1/min.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat muff overheat? |
Thanks Dale and others for the input. Yes, I have the standard heat
muff/heat box/etc setup. The objective is to patch the 2" "hole" in the
baffling to maximize cyl head cooling during the hottest summer months.
Taking the whole system out is an option, but patching the baffling hole
is a simpler option.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Dale Ensing wrote:
>
>>
>> Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during
> the
>> summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
>> cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff,
> it
>> may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
> think?
>> > Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
>>
>
> Larry,
> I have a hot/cold air mixer valve that dumps a small portion of the heated
> air when set for full cold air to the cabin. It does this thru a hole in
> the
> valve that is about 5/8" diameter as I remember. I also have two heat
> muffs
> in series so the heated air passing thru the valve is quite warm. Have 120
> hours on the system and no indication of deterioration of the system.
> This would seems to indicate that you could perhaps substantially block
> the
> 2" opening but allow some air to continually pass to moderate the muff
> temperature.
> Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
I've tried to stay out of this food fight, but want to make a few
comments. I've been using Auto fuel in my Pitts (modified O-360-A4A
with high lift cam) and PS-5 (modified too for increased fuel flow)
pressure carburetor for 26 years now. In Florida. With no electrical
system. It really likes hi-test (92 or 93) but will run on 87 if the
engine doesn't get hot like when doing heavy akro.
George appears to be in the anti auto fuel camp and I'm on the other
side. I'm not going to convince George (or anyone else) that they
should switch to auto fuel. If they want to, great, and if they want to
use a strictly 100LL diet, that's great too. My only complaint is that
George makes statements without any FACTS to back them up. Like Jim,
I've used auto fuel in my Grumman too. For years. The only gripe I
have with Auto fuel is that it coats the inside of the sight gauges with
a red film over time, and I have to disassemble them to clean them.
Like Jim, I find that the benefits outweigh the hassle of carting fuel
to the airport. The benefits have all been discussed here already so I
won't repeat them. For me, the purchase cost is lower, and then I can
remove the federal excise tax when I file for my federal taxes. Legally.
Just my two pennies worth. YMMV and the best you can do with this
disagreement is to agree to disagree and move on. If you're interested
in using auto fuel, do your own research. I know, it'll take some time,
but best to get the facts separated from urban legend. Learn what
typically creates vapor lock and how to ameliorate the contributing
factors. All I ask is that you approach the fuel dilemma with an open
mind and do your fueling safely. And do your own research. There are
experts out there, and they may, or may not, be listening on these lists.
Linn
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> >posted by: "Jim Sears" >
> > Oh? I'm sure glad you told me. I've been flying on
> > auto gas for 20 years and don't have every part of
> > my fuel system insulated. I do insulate the lines with
> > firesleeve and do put blast tubes to the pump.That's
> > it. My Cheetah didn't even have the blast tubes.Jim
> > Sears in KY
>
> Jim:
>
> Thanks for the very detailed response, I learned a
> lot. You clearly have way more experience with Auto
> Gas in planes than I. However you miss quote or
> miss read a few things. No need to repeat
> everything, but let me address a few things.
>
>
> I think you gloss over and paint a very rosy picture
> that may be less than typical. I think your fuel
> savings is at the extreme MAX of what is possible.
> In the real world it's much less, but first.......
>
>
> First let be say the most important thing is Auto gas
> in planes CAN cause loss of power, engine failure.
> That is the main reason for NOT using it.
>
>
> The important thing to remember 160, 180 and 200
> HP Lycomings need premium Auto gas and that is
> NOT available for purchase right out of an airport pump.
>
>
> One better consider the facts of hauling fuel around
> to fill your plane from the corner gas station: Hassle,
> legality, safety and lack of availability away from
> home.
>
>
> The price savings if you HAUL YOUR own gas can
> be good, especially IF you can use 80/87 octane.
> However if you buy from the airport if avail, the price
> diff between AVgas and MOgas is often measured in
> dimes not dollars. Any one can do a search for gas
> prices nation wide.
>
>
> Avgas avg $4.28 min $2.90 max $7.05
>
> Mogas (auto) avg $3.17 min $1.75 max $5.10
>
> Premium (auto) avg $3.35 min $x.xx max $x.xx
>
>
> As you can see price varies; 100LL can
> be CHEAPER than AUTO GAS!
>
> Yes you can play games and that the Low of
> one and the high of another and go WOW, look
> at that. The real world and Murphy's law says
> the savings will be much smaller. IF you just
> look at average you can see you will may be
> save $1.00 on average. That is about $8.00/hr on
> my plane.
>
> OK, that is great, about 100 hrs a year that is $800.
>
> However 1/2 of my flying is X-C and I likely could not
> get premium auto gas, so that savings is $400, but
> than again I might find some $3.00 AVgas.
>
> That $400 will cost me the hassle of hauling and
> storing fuel. Add the worry of Vapor Lock.... no thanks.
> If you need premium, again check the price of
> premium auto gas (from the corner station) & AVgas.
> Premium Autogas can be over $3.00/gal. AVgas
> in the low-mid $3-$4 range. Not the $1.50 you say. I
> believe you but not everyone lives in Kentucky, which
> has the lowest car gas price nation wide. Good
> for you Mr. Smug. You have a very provincial and
> narrow focus, other (most) states, savings not so great.
>
> If you are going to go around the patch in KY than
> haul your own gas might work. Travel cross country
> and buy MOgas at the airport, the price difference is
> not that great. ANY ONE can verify that for themselves.
>
> If your engine was certified for 91/96 octane you need to
> get Premium and you will not fine that in a X-C flight. If
> you price premium Vs. AVgas the price is again in
> dimes not dollars.
>
> Again this is easy to look up on the web. Assume 50
> cent savings per gal and 8 gal an hr burn, $ 4.00.
> Say it is double that, $8.00. Is it worth it to flame out
> your engine on a hot day takeoff? Will that gas
> savings rebuild your airplane you just Ball'ed up in
> the corn field (if you are lucky).
>
> Good for you that you live in a state that does not
> require Alcohol or Ethanol. It is widely known that
> your days are numbered. The good old Fed Gov will
> force that down our / your throat sooner than later.
>
> I am glad your RV-6A is working well. However a
> Grumman Cheetah is a BIG cowl compared, and the
> exhaust pipes do not snake and wrap around the
> Carb like they do on a RV. I do know that.
>
> To quote Lycoming why not to use Auto fuel:
> ENGINE FAILURE.
>
> Yea I know Lycoming does not know anything.
>
> Yea I know you have done it and live a charmed life
> and nothing ever will go bad because of your
> experience in Kentucky. Vapor Lock is a REAL
> issue. Please don't gloss that over, that is
> disingenuous and not forthright.
>
> Pouring your OWN gas into your plane is NOT
> allowed at most Muni Airports. Even large gas
> tanks on personal property are regulated and
> restricted by law.
>
> Also there is a big difference in one 5 gal gas can
> and a 55 gal barrel or ten (5) gal jugs. Check out Haz
> material laws for your state, I know. Just because you
> can get away with it, may not be a good reason to do it.
>
> I am sure gas station attendants will question you filling
> your 10 jugs that are more than a car fill-up by a factor
> of 3 or 4. Handling Gas is not without danger.
>
> No thanks, and your reward for all the effort is worry if
> you will lose power on takeoff or climb on a hot day.
>
> Yes there are hotter places than Kentucky.
>
> Thanks for the info but I think you have been somewhat
> lucky. I know experimentals don't need STC btw and
> said that. However you gloss over the fact some planes
> can not get a STC. Than you correctly state we can
> learn from STC's. Well Take the HINT. RV's are very
> tight cowls and have little in common with a Grumman.
>
> I am not saying don't do Auto gas but at least know what
> you are getting into and the real RISK! That is all.
>
> Cheers George M
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> rates starting at 1/min.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine alignment |
In a message dated 07/04/2006 7:07:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
bo124rs(at)hotmail.com writes:
So, when I placed the upper cowling in place, there is an increasing gap
from top to bottom. Me thinks this does not look right!!
>>>>>
Hi Dana- Can't really say about the mounts, but looking at the picture of the
cowl/spinner fit, from what I've seen (my own and quite a few others) this is
a standard fit from Vans. Not hard to fix- if interested holler at me...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
I'm one of those enviro-wackos mentioned in Dean's letter. Yep, I
believe we should get off the oil-based economy so that we can stop
caring how much the people in the mideast hate each other, so we can
stop shelling out billions to foreign countries to fuel our cars, and
so that we can reduce the harmful effects petroleum has on our
environment. Oh, and it's running out, anyway.
That makes me a wacko, I guess.
Dean, this is a public list with people from all walks of life.
Check your facts before you go about intentionally insulting a bunch
of people whom you clearly haven't bothered to try to understand.
Don't continue to post like an ignorant bigot. Environmentalists are
generally smart people who care about the world around them. They
usually have pretty good reasons for the positions they take.
Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you should actually try to
understand their reasoning. You may continue to feel the other side
is more important, but at least you'll have made an informed decision.
They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people who spike trees,
for instance, but I understand their position), but the bulk of
environmentalists have solid science at their backs. Some of them
even have financial data in mind, too (as I do).
In any case, as another poster has said, it's not the
environmentalists who are pushing for ethanol. It's the farm
industry. Ethanol is a big political button in all the corn states.
Despite the scientific evidence.
Environmentalists, however, tend to listen to the scientists. When
there's scientific evidence against something, we tend to say, "Let's
not go that way." So us enviro-wackos aren't telling you to use
ethanol.
However, you don't need to use petroleum to produce ethanol. You can
use the energy in ethanol to produce more ethanol. Okay, you have a
chicken and egg thing, but once you have a barrel of ethanol, you can
use that barrel to make more ethanol. If you want to sell a barrel
of ethanol, first you have to make 5 barrels. Sell one barrel. Use
the remaining 4 to make 5 more. Sell 1. That's the ratio. (Or I
might be off by one, it might be 6 to sell 1, I'm going from memory).
Oh, and the poster who linked to the Sierra Club (yes, I'm a member)
-- the poster child for us enviro-wackos is Greenpeace. I'm not a
member, but I periodically give them money. They state an anti-
ethanol policy the same as the Sierra Club.
-Joe
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:09 AM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>
> No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is,
> you can not
> get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along
> with some
> water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes
> some
> OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to
> distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised,
> it does
> not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get
> rid of
> fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
> something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a
> hydrocarbon,
> like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have
> ignored
> that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of
> those EVIL
> fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source
> that's fully
> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't
> consider CO2
> a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something
> "evil" about
> it!
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Linn-
I'm a bigtime mogas user and one of the guys who hauls premium mogas home to the
hangar by the hundred-gallon tankload. I have been filing for a rebate on the
~15 cents/gallon state road tax for years, but was unaware you could get back
the federal tax as well, which should be quite substantial. How do I go about
doing that?
Thanks.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
I've tried to stay out of this food fight, but want to make a few comments. I've
been using Auto fuel in my Pitts (modified O-360-A4A with high lift cam) and
PS-5 (modified too for increased fuel flow) pressure carburetor for 26 years
now. In Florida. With no electrical system. It really likes hi-test (92 or
93) but will run on 87 if the engine doesn't get hot like when doing heavy akro.
George appears to be in the anti auto fuel camp and I'm on the other side. I'm
not going to convince George (or anyone else) that they should switch to auto
fuel. If they want to, great, and if they want to use a strictly 100LL diet,
that's great too. My only complaint is that George makes statements without
any FACTS to back them up. Like Jim, I've used auto fuel in my Grumman too.
For years. The only gripe I have with Auto fuel is that it coats the inside of
the sight gauges with a red film over time, and I have to disassemble them to
clean them. Like Jim, I find that the benefits outweigh the hassle of carting
fuel to the airport. The benefits have all been discussed here already so I
won't repeat them. For me, the purchase cost is lower, and then I can remove
the federal excise tax when I file for my federal taxes. Legally.
<< snipped
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Glen,
You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the
only one who has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my RV8A.
I'm currently trying to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1 exhaust
system for the A model RVs. With the capability to reduce your fuel
consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour, a 4 into 1 tuned exhaust is
one of the best investments you can make in your RV. Check out the
CAFE Foundation's web site for more info.
Charlie
>
>Thanks, Charlie-
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Keep me posted on that exhaust, Charlie. Interest level would be very high for
me...
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
Glen,
You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the only one who
has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my RV8A. I'm currently trying
to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1 exhaust system for the A model RVs.
With the capability to reduce your fuel consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour,
a 4 into 1 tuned exhaust is one of the best investments you can make in your
RV. Check out the CAFE Foundation's web site for more info.
Charlie
Thanks, Charlie-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Lightspeed with Keyswitch and 1 Mag Wiring |
This is a repost of previous info. I had a builder ask me about it
and I couldn't find it in the archives well, so I thought I'd
resend it with a good subject line.
-----
Wiring a Keyswitch Ignition - Lightspeed Plasma III/II+ ignition and a Mag
Another non-RV10 builder, Dave Sundberg passed this on to me previously,
and I wired mine this way and it indeed works fine. It does seem a bit
like black magic, but seeing as it works fine I won't be complaining.
Test it out before and after you run the engine, but it should work fine.
The configuration is a Mag on the Left side, feeding the lower plugs,
and a Lightspeed Plasma III (or II+) feeding the top plugs as the Right
system. Note that allthough Lightspeed calls it a keyswitch "Option",
it's always on the system, just optional to connect.
* The P-Lead from the Mag goes to the L-Terminal on the Switch with
the shield connected to the GRN terminal on the mag and not connected to
anything on the switch end.
* The P-Lead from the LS (Pin 1) goes to the R-Terminal on the
switch and the shield (Pin 9) goes to the GRN-Terminal in the center of
the switch.
* Do not connect the jumper from the R-Term to the GRN-Terminal
next to it.
* Do not connect the center GRN-Terminal on the switch to aircraft
ground. Both ignitions are grounded out with the switch in the OFF position.
Dave had been flying and it was working for him. I am flying too and
it's working great for me. I had previously spent time hooking mine up
and ohming things out and was confused as heck. I also was confused in
that the P-Lead on the mag is seemingly shorted to ground even with the
wire disconnected, so I couldn't easily tell that it would be grounded
by the switch. (Turns out this is normal) If you hook it all up, except
for the mag P-Lead, you can indeed see that they ground the way their
supposed to by using your ohmmeter.
I also have this posted on my Electrical Tips section on my site.
Tim
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | 4 into 1 exhaust |
Charlie,
Have you talked to these people?
http://www.aircraftexhaust.net/
I see that the have one that doesn't list the A models, but maybe
they'll make one up for you.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:47 AM
Glen,
You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the only
one who has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my RV8A. I'm
currently trying to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1 exhaust system
for the A model RVs. With the capability to reduce your fuel
consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour, a 4 into 1 tuned exhaust is one
of the best investments you can make in your RV. Check out the CAFE
Foundation's web site for more info.
Charlie
Thanks, Charlie-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
> Linn-
>
> I'm a bigtime mogas user and one of the guys who hauls premium mogas
> home to the hangar by the hundred-gallon tankload. I have been filing
> for a rebate on the ~15 cents/gallon state road tax for years, but was
> unaware you could get back the federal tax as well, which should be
> quite substantial. How do I go about doing that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Stormy
>
There's a federal form you file with your taxes. Try 4136 .... go to
http://www.irs.gov/ and search for 4136
Linn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote:
> Linn-
>
> I'm a bigtime mogas user and one of the guys who hauls premium mogas
> home to the hangar by the hundred-gallon tankload. I have been filing
> for a rebate on the ~15 cents/gallon state road tax for years, but was
> unaware you could get back the federal tax as well, which should be
> quite substantial. How do I go about doing that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Stormy
>
There's a federal form you file with your taxes. Try 4136 .... go to
http://www.irs.gov/ and search for 4136
Linn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
On 9:32:12 2006-07-05 linn Walters wrote:
> There's a federal form you file with your taxes. Try 4136 .... go to
> http://www.irs.gov/ and search for 4136
Direct link:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4136.pdf
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
George (aka gmcjetpilot),
Cheapskates? Puhleeze!!!
With due respect, not all of us are highly paid Boeing drivers such as
yourself :-) ... As soon as my XP-IO360 flies (soon, very soon...), I fully intend
to save myself 4.05-2.93=1.12/gal x 8.5=9.52x150hrs/yr= $1428. That is
enough to entirely offset the cost of insurance each year. I think that is
significant.
Hauling it to the airport? No problem for anyone with a pickup. Aux transfer
tanks of any config like the farmers use to fuel their tractors, combines,
etc. are available all over the country complete with hoses/pumps. Totally
legal, BTW... Or, in my case the 1994 F-150 with dual tanks, and 50 gal
capacity, a bit of creative plumbing will get the job done nicely.
According to my engine manual, Superior not only allows the use of 91 oct,
but encourages it, FWIW...
Methanol? Easy as pie to test for. Alcohol-free mogas has been available
year round outside our metro area. (KPDX). However, if the politicians have
their way, may not continue...
Illegal to have a tank on your own property? Tell it to my local fire
marshall who issues the permits to anyone with an acre of ground for "farm use"
of
course... Obviously George, you are not a country boy... hoho...
Cheers,
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.
JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane.
If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)
So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the
hassle of hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge
hassle, dangerous and illegal. At most airports and with
state highway laws (hazardous material transport) a NO
NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5 Gal jerry
cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. I can see
all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for
91 octane engines. If you have a low compression engine
that can run on MO gas than sure there is some advantage.
HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.
Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.
Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression
engines that where made for like 80 octane.
There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.
A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's
with the O360 can't get a STC for premium auto fuel
because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge
cowl and a RV with a very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.
The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol
and ethanol. I remember in Washington state, in the
winter they went to an alcohol blend fuel. My gas
milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CONSISTANT. It varies widely by
region, session and testing is a hassle.
If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER
part of the fuel system and add a vapor return line
even for Carb engines.
>From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
>
>My RX-8 rotary (10 : 1 CR) powered RV-4 runs best and
>gets best fuel economy on 87 octane. I burn 100LL in a
>pinch but plug life is greatly reduced.
Automotive and aircraft engines are two differnt things. RX8
cars strictly call for premium and use 2 qts of oil between
oil changes, and also get terriable gas millage. I know you
are a rotary expert Tracy but a water cooled car engine
piston or rotary is not an aircooled aircraft engine.
My Lyc plug life is 1000 hour plus on 100LL.
I am not picking on you Tracy but you have to take
the good with the bad. Good, you can use auto fuel;
Bad, your engine is noisier, heavier and burns way
more fuel than a Lycoming for equivalent performance.
>Best experts I've read say that almost all aircraft engines
>would work fine on 91 octane mogas.
Most aircraft engines where certified for 91, like 320 (160HP)
and 360 (180 hp) Lycoming. So that is a no brainer, The
problem is the MO gas you can buy at the airport is way
less than 91 octane, like 80/86.
If you want premium AUTO fuel you have to haul. And the
idea of having your own tank, even on your own property
is likely to be illegal in most states.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
If I were to say "I don't agree with suicide bombers, but I understand their
position," I would expect most of you to be offended and question my
intelligence or sincerity or ethics, or all three. If I were to say, "I
don't agree with fire-bombing expensive new homes, but I understand the
fire-bomber's position," or "I don't agree with people who sabotage small
airplanes, (presumably because I don't like their noise flying over
wilderness areas) but I understand their position", I would expect all hell
to break loose, and it should. Giving sympathy to terrorists of any stripe
supports not only their cause but their tactics.
So when Joe Larson says "They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people
who spike trees, for instance, but I understand their position).", I would
expect someone to object to acceptance or sympathy for this form of
terrorism. Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree. It means
to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that it will
not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a chainsaw tries
to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's chain to
explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the logger is
lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill and cause
mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to prevent the
owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or timber
legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners. Unlike
tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order to prevent
something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that
anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.
So, if by "understand their position," Joe, you mean that there is any
possible justification for what they are doing; I really hope you don't know
what you are talking about.
If anyone cares, I consider myself a free-market environmentalist. I have a
university degree in forest management (now called natural resource
management) and am old enough and lucky enough to have spent time in the
timber country of the northwest when the sound of a saw cutting down a tree
was the quiet swish-swish of a long cross-cut saw being pulled back and
forth by muscle power. With parents who survived the Depression, I grew up
knowing that waste was bad - very bad - and that re-cycle and re-use were
the norm, not the exception. Maybe this is why the modern-day save-the-world
trendy authoritarian brand of environmentalism frosts me so much. Clean up
your own act before you try to tell me what I can and cannot do with what I
worked hard to have. Why do your 'solutions' to preserve an eco-system
invariably involve top-down command and control, in complete contradiction
of the natural give and take that characterizes the ecosystem itself?
My apologies to Michael and others who thought this list was about building
little airplanes.
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
These are them same Scientists who said "We are moving into an Ice Age in
the mid 1970's!" They have always claimed to be the "Only intelligent
opinion" around. "Liberal arguments always are emotion based while claiming
intellectual superiority." The Scientific Community was wrong in the 70's
and many of the same scientists are on the Global Warming Band Wagon today.
Let's get back to building RV's! DO NO ARCHIVE
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:06 AM
>
>
>. . Environmentalists are generally smart people who care about the
>world around them. They usually have pretty good reasons for the
>positions they take. Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you
>should actually try to understand their reasoning. You may continue to
>feel the other side is more important, but at least you'll have made an
>informed decision.
>
>>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper) |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Does anyone know what the Research Octane + Motor Octane divided by 2
would equal for 100LL Aviation Gasoline? (R+M / 2)
The highest the R+M / 2 current pump sticker would have ever been for
the 103 octane premium (Union 76 Super & Chevron white pump) would be
about 96.
Pete Cowper
Union Oil Company of California 1972-84
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
I did something similar, but this is great. Mark is too modest to tell you,
but he is a two time winner of EAA awards, first the Lindy and now a Best
Metal. Thanks for sharing Mark.
....or just put it on a rotisserie- MUCH easier to do all kinds of stuff!
8-)
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5373
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "low pass" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
The whole pop-culture enviro movement is based upon an mostly JUNK science. Global
warming, my eye! What caused the previous warming cycles of the last million
years? Dinosaur flatulence? So we need to reduce dependence upon foreign
oil? How about opening up coastal exploration?! It's too destructive for the
US to drill off the Florida coast, but not for Cuba and China to drill there.
I'm an engineer. A real one with a degree, a license and experience in petroleum
refining. If you enviros really want to get off petroleum, then you'll have
to wait about 10-20 years while we BUILD about 200 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!!!
But we can't do that because it's such an evil danger!! You know - like the world
ending with all the "Three Mile Islands" that were destined to end the world.
So now our existing gasoline production is further bastardized with this foolish
ethanol fantasy. You want to know why gasoline costs $3.15 a gallon? In part
due to ethanol, part due to the illogical and inane efforts of the EPA and
their 50+ formulations of gasoline mandated across the US.
I'm also a naturalist. I like trees, clean water, air, birds and fish. But there's
a big difference between a naturalist and an enviro whacko. It's called
logic and science, and a lot less Algore hype-fiction.
So why do the enviros want to prohibit use of petroleum through restricted drilling,
restricted refining, displacement with ethanol? Read plank 6 of the Communist
Manifesto.
Bryan Jones
Houston
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45095#45095
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Idle Mixture in Fuel Injected Engine |
My experience with carburated engines was that a proper idle mixture
usually results in a momentary RPM increase when using the mixture to
shut the engine down. I've noted that when I shut down my fuel
injected engine using the mixture control, I get NO increase in RPM
before the engine quits.
Is the no increase in RPM typical of FI engines, or am I running too
lean?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Reiche <charlieray(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Idle Mixture in Fuel Injected Engine |
Probably, consult the maintenace manual, you will likely need some hoses
and a guage to setup your fuel injection system to spec. its also good just
to check this out every 2 years or so just to make sure everything is
working the way its supposed to.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:47 AM
>
> My experience with carburated engines was that a proper idle mixture
> usually results in a momentary RPM increase when using the mixture to
> shut the engine down. I've noted that when I shut down my fuel injected
> engine using the mixture control, I get NO increase in RPM before the
> engine quits.
>
> Is the no increase in RPM typical of FI engines, or am I running too
> lean?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: 4 into 1 exhaust |
Hi Charlie-
There was a company somewhere in the Virginias that was making 4 into 1
systems a few years back. Sorry, I don't recall the name-
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
Bill, come see the great one and I will show you what I use.
It is a suction cup sunshade that I got at Pep Boys. It comes
in a small folded up size (with pouch).
The advantage over the Koger is that you can move it to different
locations based upon sun direction and your flight path.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
Automotive tint film (the static cling kind) as sold by Wal-Mart has worked well
for me. From one roll of the stuff you can cut out numerous small shades which
let you and your pax slap them up wherever needed and reposition as the flight
progresses. A nice under-$10 solution.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
Bill, come see the great one and I will show you what I use.
It is a suction cup sunshade that I got at Pep Boys. It comes
in a small folded up size (with pouch).
The advantage over the Koger is that you can move it to different
locations based upon sun direction and your flight path.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 4 into 1 exhaust |
Listers,
AET was recently sold by the original owner. He sold the assets to
two different companies. One of the new owners has no interest in low
volume production. The other new owner is not yet settled into this
new business and reports that they won't even consider new items for
at least 6 months, maybe longer.
We tried to arrange a group buy of 4 into 1 exhausts on the Yahoo
RV8 group, but it fell through due to this sale.
Charlie Kuss
>Charlie,
>
>Have you talked to these people?
>
><http://www.aircraftexhaust.net/>http://www.aircraftexhaust.net/
>
>I see that the have one that doesn't list the A models, but maybe
>they'll make one up for you.
>
>Pax,
>
>Ed Holyoke
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:47 AM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines
>
>Glen,
> You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the
> only one who has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my
> RV8A. I'm currently trying to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1
> exhaust system for the A model RVs. With the capability to reduce
> your fuel consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour, a 4 into 1 tuned
> exhaust is one of the best investments you can make in your RV.
> Check out the CAFE Foundation's web site for more info.
>Charlie
>
>
>Thanks, Charlie-
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>Email Forum -
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
>
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>- List Contribution Web Site -
>-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
They seem to be called Suncutters now:
http://www.auto-expressions.net/SunGlareReduction.pdf
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
http://www.autobarn.net/ac40712.html
$5.99 for 2. I have 4 in the plane. 2 stay in my rear window (tip-up RV-7)
all the time during summer.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (966 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:30 AM
>
> Bill, come see the great one and I will show you what I use.
> It is a suction cup sunshade that I got at Pep Boys. It comes
> in a small folded up size (with pouch).
>
> The advantage over the Koger is that you can move it to different
> locations based upon sun direction and your flight path.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Heater vent inlet up vs down |
Fellow listers,
I'm getting ready to install my heater vents on the firewall.
The way I read it, the instructions say 'inlet down'. This means that when you're
not using the heater, the hot air is being blown up behind the engine instead
of down towards the cowl exit area.
Did I miss something? Does it matter? I would think inlet up.......Did they instruct
it the other way for a reason?
Pictures of how folks have already done it would be appreciated. Also, If you
did it one way and didn't like it......why?
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Louvers |
Would anyone care to post a picture and the overall dimensions of the F10109 louver
Van's carries? I purchased a pair of the side louvers from Race Ace
http://www.raceace.com/productsside.html?x=33&y=7
and upon inspection, am having second thoughts about installing 'em before I become
a little more familiar with Van's version.
Thanks,
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 149 hours
alexpeterson(at)earthlink wrote:
> Van's has them. See LOUVER F-10109, I believe.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A N66AP 761 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Greetings Listers,,
> >
> > Anyone know of a good source for stamped, aluminum cowl louvers?
> > I am looking to increase the airflow though the cowl and was
> > thinking of two louvers, placed on the bottom of the cowl, on
> > either side of the inlet air scoop.
> >
> > Thanks,,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Derrick L. Aubuchon
> > RV-4: N184DA
> > Jackson/Westover -Amador County (O70)
> > n184da(at)volcano.net
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45213#45213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
Mannan,
CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!!!
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8
>From: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: N161RL Flies
>Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 10:13:29 -0400
>
>After 4 1/2 years and after being asked "when is it going to fly?" and my
>saying Thursday, about half a million times, N161RL flew Thurs.29 June.
>She's an RV-8 slow build, IO-360-A3B6D, McCauley (ugh.) Prop, Sam James
>Cowl.
>
>Mannan Thomason
>RV-8
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dannylsmith" <dsmit132(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 4 into 1 exhaust |
Aircraft Exhaust does not do RV exhausts anymore but Tom Heid at Aerospace Welding
may. I sent him my engine type and sump info for him to give me an answer.
I have a RV-7A with TMX IOF-360 with Forward facing ECI cold air sump but if
enough people express an interest in 4 into 1 exhausts he may decide to do it.
Tom Heid
Aerospace Welding
952-890-1511
Hope this helps,
Danny Smith
--------
Danny
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45219#45219
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rveighta <rveighta(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
I'm leaning towards gluing my canopy to the frame using Sikaflex as
detailed in numerous posts on this list, but I'm not quite sure how to
approach the issue of gluing the skirt on.
It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement to
have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame. Someone
in the archives mentioned using Scotch SemWeld. Any other suggestions,
and what were the results of the SemWeld?
Walt Shipley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com> |
There is a guy in Colorado that builds quality exhausts as well. Contact
info below. He has built several systems for some of our customers and
will have a couple on display at OSH in our booth. We'll be in building
C booth#3025. Come by and visit.
Exhaust system contact: Forsling Exhausts
John Forsling
(303) 841-6054
forslingaviation(at)aol.com
See you at OSH,
Allen Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
<http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
________________________________
I've stopped 50,492 spam messages. You can too!
One month FREE spam protection at www.cloudmark.com
<http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnet?v1&rc=gjw23>
<http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnet?v1&rc=gjw23>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Oil fitting position |
I'm installing the oil fittings for the oil cooler. The upper fitting is
a 45 degree fitting and I need to know where it should point when
installed. Down along side the mag (toward the center of the engine) or
up and over the mag pointing toward the #4 cylinder.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for Bob Hargraves |
Bob Hargraves:
If you monitor this list, please reply to this message.
Thanks
Dick Sipp
RV10 40065
do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
Walt
Like you I contemplated and just about went with the Sika canopy option. The
more I read, the more I realized that there isn't alot of long term
historical info on this product used in this application. Decide i didn't
want to be trail blazer. I finally went with the tried and true Van's
method. It was alot easier than I thought and came out great.
Frank @ sgu and slc.......wiring...plus..........
>From: rveighta <rveighta(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "rv-list(at)matronics.com"
>Subject: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:46:36 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>I'm leaning towards gluing my canopy to the frame using Sikaflex as
>detailed in numerous posts on this list, but I'm not quite sure how to
>approach the issue of gluing the skirt on.
>
>It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement to
>have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame. Someone
>in the archives mentioned using Scotch SemWeld. Any other suggestions,
>and what were the results of the SemWeld?
>
>Walt Shipley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Morocketman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Need Help with Cowling Ducts |
John Goodman just finished and flew his beautiful RV-9/Suburu. His oil
cooler is supplied by a 2 1/2" S.C.A.T. tube that begans in the left intake of
the
cowling. With the intake horizontal at the bottom of the intake, oil temps
were at the very upper limit near 250F. After installing a 2 inch "temporary"
90 degree elbow (thanks to the Aviation Department at Lowe's), temps are
acceptable at about 205F on 90F days here in Missouri.
Does anyone have expertise in ducts in the left side of RV cowlings? Would
a N.A.C.A. duct work installed at 45 degrees to the airstream on the forward
underside of the cowl? Would a plain round duct work just as well?
There is a guy in Dallas (?) whose RV-8 (?) has several ducts to cool his
turbo chargers. The airplane has a nickname like "Greased Lightning"? Anyone
know him or his experience with ducting? Please respond off list, or send me
his phone number.
Anyone know of a source of fiberglass ducts which would adapt well to the
inside of an RV-9 cowling into a S.C.A.T. tube?
Thanks everyone, Les Featherston 417-425-3595
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)speedyquick.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
I've always been an efficiency nut as well. I fly all cross countries at
what I consider the "sweet spot" altitudes of 11,500/12,500'. At 8000' I
get 183mphtas on 8.25gph or 22mpg. 11,500' gives 178tas on 7gph for 25+mpg,
and 13,500' rewards me with 171tas on 6gph for 28.5mpg. Above 15000' the
efficiency starts to drop off as my 160hp Lycoming can't keep the airplane
"on the step" and the reduction in TAS is greater than the reduction in fuel
burn.
Most people scoff at giving up 5mph, but saving 1.25gph has always been
worth it to me, even back when 100LL was <$2 a gallon.
Ed Bundy
I typically fly higher than 8000 feet, and since I've always been an
efficiency freak, my engine monitor has a readout directly in MPG (based on
TAS and fuel flow). I spend a lot of time tweaking & tuning to eke out that
last possible .1 mpg on those long cross countries. At 15,500 I can do a
little better than 30 MPG at 175 mph TAS. Anyone else into fuel
efficiency? I'd love to hear your numbers. I honestly don't know how the
rotary engine compares to a Lyc when flown for max efficiency. But I
suspect it isn't much different.
Tracy Crook (Wacko of many types)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Oil fittings on the case |
I am doing this again as I think I failed to get the message through
before. I am installing the oil fittings in the case for the oil cooler.
The straight fitting goes in around the center of the accessory case.
The return fitting goes in just above the right mag and just behind the
oil filter. This fitting is a 45 degree unit and I need to know where to
point the fitting. Does it point downward toward the center of the
engine between the oil filter and right mag or out over the mag toward
the #4 cylinder ? Inquiring minds want to know!
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Oil fittings on the case |
Jim,
On my Superior XP-I0-360 B1B (180 hp) the 45 degree fitting is rotated so it
points down maybe 20 degrees from horizontal so the hose clears the oil
filter.
Terry
RV-8A
Seattle
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:54 PM
I am doing this again as I think I failed to get the message through
before. I am installing the oil fittings in the case for the oil cooler.
The straight fitting goes in around the center of the accessory case.
The return fitting goes in just above the right mag and just behind the
oil filter. This fitting is a 45 degree unit and I need to know where to
point the fitting. Does it point downward toward the center of the
engine between the oil filter and right mag or out over the mag toward
the #4 cylinder ? Inquiring minds want to know!
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil fittings on the case |
Mine points toward the #4 cylinder but it kind of depends on just where
your oil cooler is going to be hung. I think I'd wait until you install
the cooler and hoses before picking a final orientation for the fitting.
Dave
James H Nelson wrote:
>
>I am doing this again as I think I failed to get the message through
>before. I am installing the oil fittings in the case for the oil cooler.
> The straight fitting goes in around the center of the accessory case.
>The return fitting goes in just above the right mag and just behind the
>oil filter. This fitting is a 45 degree unit and I need to know where to
>point the fitting. Does it point downward toward the center of the
>engine between the oil filter and right mag or out over the mag toward
>the #4 cylinder ? Inquiring minds want to know!
>
>Jim Nelson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
>
> I was wanting to get some feedback on the kroger sunshade. I just got one
> for my -8, but after looking at it, and my canopy, and reading the
> instructions I am worried about it scratching the canopy over time...
> Anyone have any experience with this?
>
Bill,
have had a Koger sun shade in my 6A for year and a half with no noticeable
scratches on the canopy. When I put it in, I suspected there may eventually
be some rub marks (not really scratches) on the canopy but not so bad that
they can't be rub out. I had some pretty bad scratches from the building
process that I was able to eliminate so I am not worried about the Koger sun
shade.
I like it and not sorry I put it in.
Dale Ensing
in sunny NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net> |
remove
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
Hi Walt-
As I understand it, the thick bead specified in the sikaflex instructions
is to account for differential thermal expansion of the plastic window and
metal window frame. The difference between the coefficient of thermal
expansion for plex and steel is huge. With fiberglass and plex the
difference is very much smaller, and should require a much thinner layer of
adhesive. I can't give you any hard numbers at the moment, as I've not
found real consistent numbers for the different coefficients yet, but I do
believe a fairly thin layer is in order. Perhaps this topis is right up
the alley of someone on this list?.
snip-It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement to
have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame.
Walt Shipley
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin(at)qc.aira.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
Hi,
Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after about
3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
Antoine Moulin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:20 AM
>
> Hi Walt-
>
> As I understand it, the thick bead specified in the sikaflex instructions
> is to account for differential thermal expansion of the plastic window and
> metal window frame. The difference between the coefficient of thermal
> expansion for plex and steel is huge. With fiberglass and plex the
> difference is very much smaller, and should require a much thinner layer
> of
> adhesive. I can't give you any hard numbers at the moment, as I've not
> found real consistent numbers for the different coefficients yet, but I do
> believe a fairly thin layer is in order. Perhaps this topis is right up
> the alley of someone on this list?.
>
>
> snip-It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement to
> have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame.
>
> Walt Shipley
>
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
| Subject: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
This is the first I have heard of any canopy glue failures using
Sikaflex.
Can you provide any info as to the installation? Were all the
manufacturers installation instructions followed? Scuffing, cleaner,
primer, bead?
Was the separation in flight or noticed on the ground?
Details would be very helpful for others.
Thanks
Mike
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Antoine Moulin
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:58 AM
Hi,
Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after
about
3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
Antoine Moulin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:20 AM
>
> Hi Walt-
>
> As I understand it, the thick bead specified in the sikaflex
instructions
> is to account for differential thermal expansion of the plastic window
and
> metal window frame. The difference between the coefficient of thermal
> expansion for plex and steel is huge. With fiberglass and plex the
> difference is very much smaller, and should require a much thinner
layer
> of
> adhesive. I can't give you any hard numbers at the moment, as I've
not
> found real consistent numbers for the different coefficients yet, but
I do
> believe a fairly thin layer is in order. Perhaps this topis is right
up
> the alley of someone on this list?.
>
>
> snip-It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement
to
> have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame.
>
> Walt Shipley
>
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
Antoine Moulin wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after
> about 3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
> Antoine Moulin
Salut Antoine,
Which sikaflex product did you use?
Why do you think it didn't work for you?
How did you end up attaching the canopy?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin(at)qc.aira.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
Bonjour Mickey,
I used Sikaflex 295, primer 209,cleaner 205, the plexiglass and the frame
was well sanded and thickness controled with popsicle wood sticks. I think
the trouble is the paint that I used on the frame.The fix was holes and pop
rivets. I am making the skirt rigth now so in few days I may have some
pictures available.
Antoine
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:58 AM
>
> Antoine Moulin wrote:
>> Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after
>> about 3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
>> Antoine Moulin
>
> Salut Antoine,
>
> Which sikaflex product did you use?
> Why do you think it didn't work for you?
> How did you end up attaching the canopy?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
| Subject: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
So it separated at the paint and not the glue?
That would make sense to me. I have no doubt the glue is tougher than
the paint its glued to.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Antoine Moulin
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:47 PM
Bonjour Mickey,
I used Sikaflex 295, primer 209,cleaner 205, the plexiglass and the
frame
was well sanded and thickness controled with popsicle wood sticks. I
think
the trouble is the paint that I used on the frame.The fix was holes and
pop
rivets. I am making the skirt rigth now so in few days I may have some
pictures available.
Antoine
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:58 AM
>
> Antoine Moulin wrote:
>> Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and
after
>> about 3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
>> Antoine Moulin
>
> Salut Antoine,
>
> Which sikaflex product did you use?
> Why do you think it didn't work for you?
> How did you end up attaching the canopy?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Mickey,
I've been reading with interest about the glued canopy on the
"8". I have a 9-A and did the Sikaflex 295/209/205 route. I used PVC
tubing that had an inner diameter that matched the canopy tubing. I don't
remember the wall thickness but it was around 1/8 to 3/16" thick. I
cleaned the powder coated frame from Van's and lightly sanded the areas
where the glue would go. Basically got rid of the shinny surface. Then
went about fitting the canopy and getting final trimming as it raised the
canopy off the frame the 3/16" all around. I had to watch out because
the canopy had been trimmed in length on the sides for the regular
installation. (not good). But I went merrily along the way. Fortunately
there was enough plexi on the sides to let the screws capture it and
still get to the support on the frame. I did have to make new side
skirts that were taller than the originals but that was a no brainer. I
glued the for and aft hoop and the backbone tubes with Sikaflex. It took
me a bit of learning to limit the glue on the plexi and the tape
(electrical) to try to keep a nice edge. I found out that I needed to
remove the tape right after I did the glue. If I let it stay until the
glue skinned over, I found out that the tape removal also took the
skinned glue with it in many places. It doesn't look as nice. I used pop
sickle sticks to form the exposed edges of the glue to smooth it out. It
was done during April and it seems to be strong and doesn't look as it
will come loose. Of course, I'm not flying yet as I'm doing FWF but the
canopy has no screws any place except along the side. I think it looks
good.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael B." <brewtoo(at)yyhmail.com> |
| Subject: | Videos for sale - From The Ground Up - RV8 |
For sale: Full set of EAA's "From the Ground Up" series covering the building of
an RV-8. 13 episodes.
http://www.buildersbooks.com/from_the_ground_up.htm
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/ftgu.html
Original tapes. Just like new.
$68 shipping included.
Please reply by email. brewtoo(at)yyhmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.yyhmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net> |
I've been flying with the Koger sunshade on my slider 9A the past 2-1/2
years here in 'sunny' Arizona and it is a lifesaver. Flew the first year
without it and I now wonder why it took me so long to put one in. Broke one
of the plastic clamps and they sent a new bow gratis. The small sunspots are
nice to cover up the direct sun in the windscreen but I think I'd be well
done with out the sunshade.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | The TRUTH about MOGAS |
I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)
I appreciate the passion and support some have
for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of
humor as well.
Now for facts.
besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled petroleum).
Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good
for aviation some not,
Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
is more susceptible to vapor lock.
Auto gas, even premium does NOT have the same
octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.
Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled
burning of fuel which can lead to severe engine
damage.
In the past Av gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98,
100-130 and 115-145. That has given way to the
ubiquitous 100/100LL
Why two numbers? The low number is the lean octane
rating and the higher number is rich octane rating.
There are four ways to measure fuel for octane:
Automotive Research, Automotive Motor,
Aviation Lean and Aviation Rich.
Auto gas has one rating and is average of lean and
rich rating and there are two methods as listed
above.
Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor
octane.100LL avgas if sold at the car pump would be
105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold as Avgas
would be about equiv to 86UL.
STC for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and
the low compression engines ran terrible on the
default gas grade 100/100LL. Despite the LL
(Low Lead) designation, there's a lot of lead in
100LL. Therefor low compression engines
designed to run on low octane fuel did not
need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost
octane. That was the beginning of STC's for
automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft as a substitute for low lead/UL 80
octane.
Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean
much in a high compression homebuilt.
Lycomings come in to flavors, which are certified
for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about
7.2:1CR or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified
for 100/100LL gas, or the old 91/96 Avgas grade.
If you buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it
said 92 octane it is only worth about 87 octane.
We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol
every time of course.
Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on it? Well that
is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane.
I guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
as a precaution?
Lycoming strongly recommends NOT using MOGAS.
Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
makes a very low compression O360 for flying in
third world countries to run on low grade fuel.
Unfortunately most 320's and 360's have 8:50:1CR
and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.
If you are willing to test, haul and store your
own auto gas and run your engine on less than the
recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have
a low compression engine than auto gas makes more
sense.
You may want to look into reducing your timing and
all the other things I mentioned about keeping the
fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the
MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to
assure no loss of power due to vapor lock.
If you have a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
octane stand point, as long as it does not have the
alcohol and ethanol. (However ethanol does increase
the octane rating, see below).
If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk
of water contamination since it absorbs water. Once
airborne it cools the water comes out of the fuel
and water contamination result in loss of power.
Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol).
That is why it is important to test your auto gas.
Also ethanol is not compatible with the rubber
and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the
past.
These are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please
ask lots of questions of those who are experts in the
topic. I think we have a few on this list (seriously :-)
I am not an expert but than I don't have to jump of a
bridge to know it might hurt when I hit the water. I
know if your engine stops while flying in a plane it
can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as
AVgas. The debate is it good enough. May be.
What I know about auto gas is enough to discourage
me.
Ethanol does help octane so if you can get some
"sub grade" fuel before the distribution puts in
the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit
on octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane
with ethanol is really 89 octane without the ethanol.
This is like 84 aviation. To get "sub grade" you need
to get it at the distribution terminal before they add
the ethanol.
84 octane is not enough for higher compression 91/96
engines. If you have a 80 octane O320 140/150HP Lyc,
than by all means go for it.
Some debate about reducing timing for the high
compression engines.
Lycoming is testing UL blends and the gas companies
are working on the 95UL as a 100/100LL replacement.
Remember there are more high compression than low
compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high
end piston engines, turbo charged and so on NEED
the high end gas, only make up 30% of the fleet but
use 70% of the gas. So all you C65 & C85 engine
Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but with
the UL it should be OK.
IF I HAD an 80 octane engine AND the gas prices
kept going up I would consider auto gas it. (THERE I
SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)
As I said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about
what you can expect to save per year. Some of the
guys who live where fuel is cheap and ethanol is not
forced down their throat, good for them. If you have a
High compression engine and ethanol free fuel is hard
to find at the pump than not so good.
For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump,
filling with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor
pressure and knowing there's no bad chemicals in it
with out having to test it, is worth it to me.
To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
I haven't researched enough to know which has the higher vapor
pressure...auto or aviation fuel...but the higher the vapor pressure,
the more likely to vapor lock, not the other way around. If indeed the
auto gas has lower vapor pressure as you say, it would be less likely to
vapor lock than avgas.
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS
I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)
I appreciate the passion and support some have
for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of
humor as well.
Now for facts.
besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled petroleum).
Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good
for aviation some not,
Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
is more susceptible to vapor lock.
Auto gas, even premium does NOT have the same
octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.
Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled
burning of fuel which can lead to severe engine
damage.
In the past Av gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98,
100-130 and 115-145. That has given way to the
ubiquitous 100/100LL
Why two numbers? The low number is the lean octane
rating and the higher number is rich octane rating.
There are four ways to measure fuel for octane:
Automotive Research, Automotive Motor,
Aviation Lean and Aviation Rich.
Auto gas has one rating and is average of lean and
rich rating and there are two methods as listed
above.
Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor
octane.100LL avgas if sold at the car pump would be
105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold as Avgas
would be about equiv to 86UL.
STC for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and
the low compression engines ran terrible on the
default gas grade 100/100LL. Despite the LL
(Low Lead) designation, there's a lot of lead in
100LL. Therefor low compression engines
designed to run on low octane fuel did not
need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost
octane. That was the beginning of STC's for
automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft as
a substitute for low lead/UL 80 octane.
Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean
much in a high compression homebuilt.
Lycomings come in to flavors, which are certified
for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about
7.2:1CR or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified
for 100/100LL gas, or the old 91/96 Avgas grade.
If you buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it
said 92 octane it is only worth about 87 octane.
We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol
every time of course.
Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on it? Well that
is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane.
I guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
as a precaution?
Lycoming strongly recommends NOT using MOGAS.
Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
makes a very low compression O360 for flying in
third world countries to run on low grade fuel.
Unfortunately most 320's and 360's have 8:50:1CR
and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.
If you are willing to test, haul and store your
own auto gas and run your engine on less than the
recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have
a low compression engine than auto gas makes more
sense.
You may want to look into reducing your timing and
all the other things I mentioned about keeping the
fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the
MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to
assure no loss of power due to vapor lock.
If you have a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
octane stand point, as long as it does not have the
alcohol and ethanol. (However ethanol does increase
the octane rating, see below).
If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk
of water contamination since it absorbs water. Once
airborne it cools the water comes out of the fuel
and water contamination result in loss of power.
Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol).
That is why it is important to test your auto gas.
Also ethanol is not compatible with the rubber
and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the
past.
These are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please
ask lots of questions of those who are experts in the
topic. I think we have a few on this list (seriously :-)
I am not an expert but than I don't have to jump of a
bridge to know it might hurt when I hit the water. I
know if your engine stops while flying in a plane it
can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as
AVgas. The debate is it good enough. May be.
What I know about auto gas is enough to discourage
me.
Ethanol does help octane so if you can get some
"sub grade" fuel before the distribution puts in
the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit
on octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane
with ethanol is really 89 octane without the ethanol.
This is like 84 aviation. To get "sub grade" you need
to get it at the distribution terminal before they add
the ethanol.
84 octane is not enough for higher compression 91/96
engines. If you have a 80 octane O320 140/150HP Lyc,
than by all means go for it.
Some debate about reducing timing for the high
compression engines.
Lycoming is testing UL blends and the gas companies
are working on the 95UL as a 100/100LL replacement.
Remember there are more high compression than low
compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high
end piston engines, turbo charged and so on NEED
the high end gas, only make up 30% of the fleet but
use 70% of the gas. So all you C65 & C85 engine
Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but with
the UL it should be OK.
IF I HAD an 80 octane engine AND the gas prices
kept going up I would consider auto gas it. (THERE I
SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)
As I said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about
what you can expect to save per year. Some of the
guys who live where fuel is cheap and ethanol is not
forced down their throat, good for them. If you have a
High compression engine and ethanol free fuel is hard
to find at the pump than not so good.
For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump,
filling with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor
pressure and knowing there's no bad chemicals in it
with out having to test it, is worth it to me.
To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different.
Just radically better.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
, snip
>
> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
> is more susceptible to vapor lock.
>
>>
Get it straight George. The higher the vapor pressure the more chance of vapor
lock. And BTW av gas does have lower vapor pressure for that exact reason.
Don
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
I would like present some
of the FACTS, negatives
or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)
I appreciate the passion
and support some have
for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of
humor as well.
Now for facts.
besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled
petroleum).
Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good
for
aviation some not,
Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which
means it
is more susceptible to vapor lock.
Auto gas, even
premium does NOT have the same
octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.
Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled
burning of fuel
which can lead to severe engine
damage.
In the past Av
gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98,
100-130
and 115-145. That has given way to the
ubiquitous 100/100LL
Why
two numbers? The low number is the lean octane
rating and the higher
number is rich octane rating.
There are four ways to measure
fuel for octane:
Automotive Research, Automotive Motor,
Aviation Lean
and Aviation Rich.
Auto gas has one rating and is average of
lean and
rich rating and there are two methods as listed
above.
Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor
octane.100LL
avgas if sold at the car pump would be
105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold
as Avgas
would be about equiv to 86UL.
STC
for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and
the low compression engines ran
terrible on the
default gas grade 100/100LL. Despite the LL
(Low
Lead) designation, there's a lot of lead in
100LL. Therefor low compression
engines
designed to run on low octane fuel
did not
need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost
octane. That
was the beginning of STC's for
automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft
as
a substitute for low lead/UL 80 octane.
Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean
much
in a high compression homebuilt.
Lycomings come in to flavors,
which are certified
for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about
7.2:1CR
or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified
for 100/100LL gas, or
the old 91/96 Avgas grade.
If you
buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it
said 92 octane it is only worth
about 87 octane.
We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol
every
time of course.
Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on
it? Well that
is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane.
I
guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
as a precaution?
Lycoming strongly recommends
NOT using MOGAS.
Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
makes a very low compression O360 for flying in
third world countries
to run on low grade fuel.
Unfortunately most 320's and 360's
have 8:50:1CR
and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.
If you are
willing to test, haul and store your
own auto gas and run your engine on
less than the
recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have
a low
compression engine than auto gas makes more
sense.
You
may want to look into reducing your timing and
all the other things I mentioned
about keeping the
fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the
MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to
assure
no loss of power due to vapor lock.
If you have
a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
octane stand point, as long as it does not have the
alcohol and ethanol.
(However ethanol does increase
the octane rating, see below).
If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk
of
water contamination since it absorbs water. Once
airborne it cools the water
comes out of the fuel
and water contamination result in loss of power.
Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol).
That is why it is important to test your auto gas.
Also ethanol is not
compatible with the rubber
and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the
past.
These
are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please
ask lots of questions
of those who are experts in the
topic. I think we have a few on this
list (seriously :-)
I am not an expert but than I don't have
to jump of a
bridge to know it might hurt
when I hit the water. I
know if your engine stops while flying in a plane
it
can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as
AVgas. The debate is
it good enough. May be.
What I know about auto
gas is enough to discourage
me.
Ethanol
does help octane so if you can get some
"sub grade" fuel before the distribution
puts in
the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit
on
octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane
with ethanol is really
89 octane without the ethanol.
This is like 84 aviation. To
get "sub grade" you need
to get it at the distribution terminal before they
add
the ethanol.
84 octane is
not enough for higher compression 91/96
engines. If you have a 80 octane O320
140/150HP Lyc,
than by all means go for it.
Some debate about reducing timing for
the high
compression engines.
Lycoming
is testing UL blends and the gas companies
are working on the 95UL as
a 100/100LL replacement.
Remember there are more high compression
than low
compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high
end piston
engines, turbo charged and so on NEED
the high end gas, only
make up 30% of the fleet but
use 70% of the gas. So all you C65
& C85 engine
Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but
with
the UL it should be OK.
IF I HAD an 80 octane
engine AND the gas prices
kept going up I would consider auto gas
it. (THERE I
SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)
As I
said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about
what you can expect
to save per year. Some of the
guys who live where fuel is cheap
and ethanol is not
forced down their
throat, good for them. If you have a
High compression engine and
ethanol free fuel is hard
to find at the pump than not so good.
For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump,
filling
with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor
pressure and knowing
there's no bad chemicals in it
with out having to test it, is worth
it to me.
To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly.
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke and I
need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) and they had no idea
what I was talking about. I have tried 2 different email addresses (via the
archives) for Mr. Koger and each has bounced back.
Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a replacement slider
piece?
Thanks!
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Auburn, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)speedyquick.net> |
| Subject: | The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
As someone who long ago made up my mind not to use Mogas (for a variety of
reasons) I still found this discussion interesting.
I personally don't think the *potential* risks outweigh the monetary
savings. I don't know if I fit into the "nice sum of cash" camp, but I know
that I DO give up other things that I would like (such as an automobile
built after 1988) in order to fly an RV.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I confess I have skipped a lot
of this topic) is that a few years ago Avgas was twice as expensive as Mogas
($2 vs. $1). Now the same $1 differential exists, but at $4 vs. $3 Mogas is
"only" 25% cheaper.
Sorry, but with all the expenses of airplane ownership, a 25% savings on
fuel is not worth ANY possibility of Mogas problems. Not to mention the
hassle factor of lugging your own airplane fuel around. Yuck.
Ed Bundy
>> I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
> I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
> or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
> cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)<<
> George is like many on this list who have a nice sum of
> cash to work with. With that, he doesn't have the
> need, or desire, to try alternative things to help keep
> his aviation expenses down. George also has an
> engineering background; so, he's not dumber than a
> box of rocks, like some of us out here. :-)
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
I remember someone stating a problem with Garmin
service a while back, and thought I would add to the
discussion. I have a Garmin 396 that I had mounted in
an Airgizmos panel dock. When working on my new
panel, the antenna wire touched a breaker and somehow
damaged the ground portion of the 396. It wouldn't
recognize any external power anymore!
So I sent it back, to see if it would be fixed under
warranty. It was shipped out from them 3 days later
via second day air, no charge. It had a couple of
scratches on it, and one small scratch on the screen I
wasn't happy about before hand. They replaced the
entire front and back covers of the unit as well, all
no charge.
That's pretty darn good service I'd say for a large
corporation like Garmin.
Paul Besing
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bayne JUST <bjust(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
The paper work that came with my Koger Sun Shade shows:
Ralph Koger
1947 W. 1st ext.
Boone, IA 50036
515 432 5714
Bayne Just
RV9A
SEE Gillespie field
San Diego, CA
On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Knicholas2(at)aol.com wrote:
> One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke
> and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it)
> and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2
> different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each
> has bounced back.
>
> Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a
> replacement slider piece?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Auburn, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
I don't think anyone can claim to be an expert on whether or not mogas is
suitable for their airplanes unless they try it and see if it works in their
airplane. Forget the numbers (compression ratio, octane, vapor pressure,
etc.) For me 25% 100LL and 75% 87 octane sans alcohol mix works for me and
I can't tell a bit of difference when I'm fueled up with 100% 100LL. My
lines are firesleeved, no problem in the summer temperatures. It works for
me and as far as I care those are the facts, everything else is conjecture.
I've borescoped the cylinders to look for any signs of detonation, and there
are none. My oil analysis reports always come back good.
I have 9:1 pistons in the rocket, will likely go 50/50 on the fuel mixture,
but have to see what works best thru some trial and error.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 700+hours, F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
>Actually, I think mogas is better than avgas. I have
>less problems with mogas than I do with avgas. I've
>had cylinders off my engines for problems not relating
>to mogas usage and have yet to find symptoms of detonation,etc. On the
>contrary, I've found the engine
>to be clean on the inside. No lead. Every time I fill
>my plane up with 100LL, I get the fouled plugs and
>lead related bad run ups.
Don't take this the wrong way but that may be operating
technique. I use 100LL and fly more than most folks and
I don't have fouled plug issues on every fillup. I think that
I have had three cases in 900 hours and most were probably
because I failed to lean the engine after startup. I would
prefer a fuel with little or no lead because it does require
periodic maintenance to clean the plugs.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Duran <mgdurand(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm also into fuel efficiency, and would like to suggest that you folks calculating
NM/gal plug travel destinations into maps.google and then compare the efficiency
of your airplane travel with that of driving a stupid utility vehicle
going the same distance. If you haven't already. The curvier the roads, the
better to fly.
If Deltahawk ever gets their stuff together I'll finish this 7A and start doing
some "extreme" efficiency/mileage experiments :-). Anyone else waiting on this
pixie-dust engine?
Mike Duran
M20C
7A - airframe finished, treading water
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FATKORAT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 4 into 1 Exhaust |
For those of you looking for a 4 into 1 exhaust may I suggest
Kevin Murray of Sky Dynamics. I just received my 4 into 1
for my RV-8 / IO-390 and it is a thing of beauty. Kevin
supplies exhausts for the likes of Patty Wagstaff, Sean Tucker,
Jim Leroy, and Dave Anders.
at www.skydynamics.com
Bob Gibbons
RV-8 Waiting 6 months for an MT prop.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | fuselage center, f-623 rib question |
Greetings, those who have gone before,
I'm clecoing the mid section bottom skin to the seat & baggage ribs,
trying to interpret the drawings on dwg22 (view C-C).
My F623L & R ribs have a joggle on the outside vertical flange where it
meets the F705 bulkhead. The joggle seems intended to allow a rivet to
tie the side skin, f705 bulkhead & the outside flange of the F623
together. However, view C-C (side view of this point) seems to show the
F623 rib being cut off just short of the F705 bulkhead flange. If I cut
nothing, I'll have a joggle in the bottom skin (obviously wrong). If I
cut as shown in view C-C, I'm cutting off a joggle in the flange that
Van's went to the trouble of adding to the rib.
My 1st thought is to cut the inside flange & horizontal surface of the
F623 & leave the joggled tab for riveting to F705. Should I do something
different?
Bonus question1: The instructions say to cut a 1 1/2" hole in one of the
baggage ribs if you intend to add a step. Is there any harm in cutting
this hole if no step is planned? (grams add up to ounces add up to
pounds....)
Bonus question2: Any harm in enlarging the back tooling holes in the
seat ribs to 5/8", like the front ones? (possible future wiring path, if
needed)
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper) |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
The seasonal blending and geographical blending by automotive gasoline
refiners does have a significant effect on the operation of the engines.
When I was Terminal Superintendent of the Union 76 tank farms at San
Diego and Imperial (El Centro) Terminals back in the early 1980's, we
used to back haul the Imperial "desert gasoline" for the coastal San
Diego's California Highway Patrol during certain seasons of the year for
fuelling the 24/7 patrolcars that ran severe duty periods of idling and
high speed pursuits.
As engines used in aircraft adopt modern automotive computers utilizing
such monitors as temperature probes and O2 sensors, the engines will be
able to finely tune themselves as they encounter differing weather and
altitudes. With the 1930's technology of many of our Lycoming &
Continental aircraft engines, this thread has been informative with its
cautions and could prevent damage from unexpected power off landings or
even save some lives.
If a plane is based on a private strip at a rural home, farm or ranch
where automotive gasoline for vehicles and equipment can be delivered by
commercial tankwagon, the savings can be measurable if the automotive
fuel is found to be adequate for the aircraft engine.
Our local fairly busy airport, with commercial airline service on its
6,559 foot runway with ILS, only pumps 150,000 gallons of Aviation
gasoline a year. If this were a corner filling station pumping only
150,000 gallons in just a month - it would be facing closure for being
uneconomical. Refiners are making aviation gasoline more as a service
than a profit center. We need to continue to educate ourselves about
alternate fuels as aviation gasoline will no doubt have to change from
the currently available 100LL to a fuel that has other shared
applications to make it at least marginally profitable to produce and
distribute.
As to the flamers and naysayers . . . "Don't confuse me with the facts,
I've already made up my mind."
Pete Cowper
RV-8 #81139 (working on fuselage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
He used to live near the Lauritsens. If all else fails, call
Cleaveland Tool and I am sure they can get you fixed up.
Denis Walsh
On Jul 8, 2006, at 07:18 299370007, Knicholas2(at)aol.com wrote:
> One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke
> and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it)
> and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2
> different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each
> has bounced back.
>
> Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a
> replacement slider piece?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Auburn, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
In a message dated 7/8/2006 9:41:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bjust(at)cox.net writes:
The paper work that came with my Koger Sun Shade shows:
Ralph Koger
1947 W. 1st ext.
Boone, IA 50036
515 432 5714
===========================================
Also this kind of stuff is always just a mouse click away in the Yeller
Pages at _http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/_
(http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/)
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 792hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Koger" <ralphkoger(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield |
RV list, I have changed to a cable server and my old e-mail address is not
correct. My web site will be updated as soon as Mike Lauritson get home from
the Washington show. www.Cleavelandtool.com/kogercompany/ Web site.
If anyone needs parts send me the model of shade and your address and I will
send them to you. Over the past 10+ years I have had very little breakage
and replacements. I want to keep your Koger SunShade in good condition.
ralphkoger(at)gmail.com or r.koger(at)mchsi.com
Phone 515-432-5714
Thank You for buying my sunshade and the RV list.
Ralph Koger
On 7/8/06, Knicholas2(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke and I
> need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) and they had no
> idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2 different email addresses
> (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each has bounced back.
>
> Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a replacement
> slider piece?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Auburn, WA
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Karen and Bob Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
FWIW, before gluing the canopy and windscreen (and skirts) on my 7A frame
and fuselage with Sikaflex, I bought some black Sikaflex295UV and did a few
Dr. Destructo pull tests using scrap pieces of plexi and pieces of both
powder coated steel and aluminum. Thickness of the adhesive beads was
controlled with rubber hose washers at 3/16ths inch per the product data
sheet manuals. On one pull test, I tore the aluminum sheet (.032) and the
Sika joint never failed. In all my other tests, the plexi failed. The
Sika joints never failed. I can only presume the product that failed was
out of date (either the primer, the wash or the adhesive or all) or there
was some other contaminant present at the point of adhesion. This product
has been sold as an adhesive for polycarbonate and plexiglass for years. It
is recognized as an industry standard for the application we are using it
for. I suppose time will tell, but there are installations in RV's out
there now with over 5 years on them. If anyone knows of any other failures,
I'd sure like to hear the details about them. I can only speak about my
installation, which shows no sign of being anything but solid. I did return
some tubes of Sikaflex which were out of date when I received them. I'd
suggest looking at those dates closely. One thing I've learned from using
Sikaflex 295 is that it will absolutely not stick to a surface that has not
been properly prepped (both surfaces sanded w/60 grit, washed, primed).
Also note there are time limits.wait 20 minutes after the wash coat before
priming. Adhesive must be applied within 2 hrs of priming. I used to freak
out if I got some Sikaflex on the canopy outside my masked bead area.later I
just left it on until it cured, because it would peel off as easy as rivet
tape if it was not applied over a properly prepped area.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Bob and Karen Brown
RV7A - flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jellis9847(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot |
Hi All,
Is there anyone out there who has tried to connect a Blue Mountain EFIS G3 Lite
to a Trutrak Pictorial Pilot?
I have the Serial Port B connected to the Pictorial Pilot but the autopilot doesn't
recognize the GPS input.
I suspect that I don't have the correct settings in the EFIS (choices include GPSS
and NMEA 0183 among others). BMA Tech Support says they haven't tested this
autopilot so that can't give me the correct settings.
Anybody out there have any ideas?
Thanks
Jim Ellis
RV9-A, Flying
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial |
Page 5 has this info. Looks like NMEA-0183 on Pin 3. Have you tried that
format?
P101 Pin Function Notes
1 Autopilot Master (+12 to +14 V DC). The autopilot itself draws less than
0.3 ampere. Most of the current required by the system is used by the servo
(up to 1Amp depending on torque setting) and a smaller amount (up to 180
mA) for the illuminated pushbuttons.
2 Control Wheel Switch. Connect as shown in wiring diagram to a SPST
momentary switch located remotely to the autopilot for convenient
engage/disengage function.
3 Primary Serial Input. Baud rate selectable 1200,2400,4800 or 9600 baud.
Automatically decodes NMEA-0183, Garmin Aviation Format, or Apollo/UPSAT
Moving-Map format. Provides directional reference to the autopilot.
4,5,6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
>> wrote:
>> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
>> is more susceptible to vapor lock.
>>
>From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net>
>
>
>George and I have had some discussion on this subject
>off line; and, I thought the topic was over with.
>
>Sorry, Goerge; but, you still have that one backwards,
>which helps to debunk the rest of what you say. Don't
>worry, I have had a hard time keeping this one straight,
>myself. :-)
>
>(para-phrase) I only know of one accident from using
>auto gas.
What did you say, you only heard of one accident?
One accident attributed to autogas? ha ha That is not
correct.
A quick NTSB search with the words *automotive fuel*
found about 250 hits. I cut it down to experimental and
*automotive fuel* and got about 50 hits.
I guess you have your facts wrong, so does that debunks
the rest of what you say. That's OK, I was wrong once
years ago.
>
>I thought the topic was over with
>
Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
Here you go Mr. Expert :-)
-More carb ice
-More water in the carb
-More unexplained power loss
Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060706X00876&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 050211X00183&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
(this was only a few of many)
I see anecdotal evidence that auto fuel may have directly
or indirectly contributed to the grief of some of the above
pilot's and their plane?
I know by using your expert advice and procedures you can
avoid ALL the above? Well may be not all. The ones that
concern me the most are unexplained power loss on
hot days. (hint hint, over, do you copy, vapor lock, Roger?)
Note: Jim's mission in life is to promote auto fuel. He is doing
a great job. When anyone talks about risk it means nothing,
because it's not their fleshy buttock in the seat.
I don't CARE. Just be informed.
IF YOU USE AUTO FUEL AND SELF FUEL, aka HANDLE
FUEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE RISK AND IT
IS NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND BUTTERFLY'S.
It may not be as bad as I make it sound, but it is not as
great and carefree ( in my not so expert opinion) as Jim
makes it sound.
To use 1/2 auto and 1/2 avgas in each tank sounds weird
to me. Don't you trust your fuel? What do you all think. If you
don't trust you fuel to fly on, for all operations, do you want
it in your plane? ME? not so much. YOU? decide for yourself.
I don't care; I just suggest you know what you're getting.
If you do use AUTO FUEL contact Jim. He knows way more
than I do. However I know enough in 12,000 hours of flying
to know how to stay out of trouble. I want to be an expert
in power off emergency landings, but I never want to have
to prove I am an expert for real. I want to always have a
choice when and where I land. Using Avgas is just that little
bit better in my humble but ever so right opinion. :-)
It is NOT all about money as Jim makes it sounds. What
does and off field landing cost? I hope only bent metal.
Safety first, economy second.
Boy I hope you have learned I have spoken and there is
nothing left to be said. ha ha ha ha. Just kidding. Good
debate, learned a lot, but lets keep it to facts and opinion
and not personal comments.
Have a NICE DAY. George M :-)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
Pete, just curious and you sound like someone who would really know so I
have a question. I understand adding the "local content" for season and
geography in the auto fuel side but I am under the impression that 100LL is
the same everywhere.
Is 100LL blended at the tank farms and then delivered locally, in which case
the transportation/distribution costs would be slightly higher or does it
come from one main refinery and then get trucked across the country in which
case the difference in price might be very recognizable?
Also wondered if 100LL and Jet goes through the normal pipeline distribution
system or is it land-hauled because of the extremely low volumes compared to
auto fuel?
We appear to have a pretty amazing system for auto fuel distribution but I
am wondering if there is a drastically different distribution cost to av
fuel?
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete Cowper
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:36 PM
The seasonal blending and geographical blending by automotive gasoline
refiners does have a significant effect on the operation of the engines.
When I was Terminal Superintendent of the Union 76 tank farms at San Diego
and Imperial (El Centro) Terminals back in the early 1980's, we used to back
haul the Imperial "desert gasoline" for the coastal San Diego's California
Highway Patrol during certain seasons of the year for fuelling the 24/7
patrolcars that ran severe duty periods of idling and high speed pursuits.
As engines used in aircraft adopt modern automotive computers utilizing such
monitors as temperature probes and O2 sensors, the engines will be able to
finely tune themselves as they encounter differing weather and altitudes.
With the 1930's technology of many of our Lycoming & Continental aircraft
engines, this thread has been informative with its cautions and could
prevent damage from unexpected power off landings or even save some lives.
If a plane is based on a private strip at a rural home, farm or ranch where
automotive gasoline for vehicles and equipment can be delivered by
commercial tankwagon, the savings can be measurable if the automotive fuel
is found to be adequate for the aircraft engine.
Our local fairly busy airport, with commercial airline service on its
6,559 foot runway with ILS, only pumps 150,000 gallons of Aviation gasoline
a year. If this were a corner filling station pumping only 150,000 gallons
in just a month - it would be facing closure for being uneconomical.
Refiners are making aviation gasoline more as a service than a profit
center. We need to continue to educate ourselves about alternate fuels as
aviation gasoline will no doubt have to change from the currently available
100LL to a fuel that has other shared applications to make it at least
marginally profitable to produce and distribute.
As to the flamers and naysayers . . . "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've
already made up my mind."
Pete Cowper
RV-8 #81139 (working on fuselage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Dean,
The United states produces about 60% of the world's Co2.
This comes from cars, trucks and furnaces and it is a big deal.
Co@ reflects the suns long wave radiations back into space
and contributes greatly to global warming. It also mixes well
with sulfur dioxide to form smog. Think Los Angelas. I agree
with everything else you wrote. It would seem the
environmentalists are quick to complain about things and want
quick answers but are not willing to do the required studies to
come up with responsible alternatives.
Larry Mac Donald
lm4(at)juno.com
Rochester N.Y.
Do not achcive
writes:
>
>
, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or
CO2 (I don't consider CO2 a hazard to our planets
health) they would still find something
"evil" about it!
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
Tracy,
With due respect, Van's tested two more or less identical rotary conversions
in the "RV-Ator, 2nd issue of 2005. These were both RV-8's built as "twins"
by two friends and retired pilots, Jim Clark and Gerry Gustafson. These were
Powersport Rotaries and turned out beautifully. I had the pleasure of
viewing them and talking to both men at Van's Homecoming 2004.
The article is quite extensive, as was the testing, but I'll just mention
that at cruise with identical speeds, the article states "But, in all cases,
even at equal speeds, they burned more fuel than the reciprocation engines."
Also... "The rotaries were definitely noiser inside and out." For instance, at
cruise Van's RV8 burned 5.05 gals and the two rotaries 7.65 and 7.1
respectively. This was a round trip of 140nm.
So it appears from their data that rotaries, at least these two, burn
substantially more fuel. What do you think? I don't have a scanner, but would be
happy to fax or mail copies.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
That was seriously Cool data Dan.
Thanks also to Ed Bundy who supplied his numbers. It is surprisingly
hard to find RV drivers who keep track of this stuff (too busy having
fun in these things which I also understand : )
be a significant advantage. If you ever get the chance Dan, I'd like
to see you do the same test but instead of dropping manifold pressure
only, try dropping the prop rpm to get the same fuel flow numbers you
used. This should reduce pumping losses and result in even better
numbers. "Do not operate" zones on the prop rpm is the only possible
problem I can think of. I don't have that problem with my fixed pitch
wood prop but I have to put up with very high pumping losses, especially
at low altitude (which is another reason I cruise high).
Bottom line is that based on this info, I don't see a nickel's worth of
difference between the Lyc (when run LOP) and my Mazda rotary when it
comes to fuel economy. Cleanliness of the airframe makes more
difference than the engine. I always burn less fuel than the guys who
run Lycs ROP.
The horror stories about the fuel consumption of the rotary are based on
automotive experience. Ironically, the rotary is at it's worst in auto
use. The lower the engine load, the worse the rotary is. Car's
typically run at 10% or less power settings. At low power settings the
flame goes out in the large quench areas of the rotary combustion
chamber resulting in more unburned mixture. The higher the power load
is, the longer the flame stays lit and more complete combustion results.
The crumby results on the rotary RV-8 comparisons they did at Van's home
drome were the results of two factors.
1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage. They
should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
engine types (it is not the same).
2. The EFI controllers used with the Powersport engines do not allow
the pilot to optimize the mixture. They were essentially running at
full rich the whole time. The designers of it did not consider the
users capable of deciding this and programmed what they thought was the
safest mixture setting (rich).
Tracy Crook
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Fossil energy or What! |
Right on Gummy, Lets get back to building!!
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
Hi Jerry,
I've read the articles (those were the planes I was referring to) and do
not dispute the results at all, as I said, the rotaries had 'crumby'
results. I only offered the reasons why I believe these two rotary
powered planes did so poorly on the tests. My RV-4 is not nearly as
clean (aerodynamically due to fit and finish) as those beautiful RV-8s
but I get significantly better fuel economy when I try to duplicate
those test conditions. I don't have a CS prop so can't do it perfectly.
The main difference is, I have full control of mixture and they do
not.
As far as the noise issue, both of the RV-8s now have an improved
muffler system since that test was done and are much quieter. Ask Jim
& Gerry about that for details.
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com<mailto:Jerry2DT(at)aol.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
Tracy,
With due respect, Van's tested two more or less identical rotary
conversions in the "RV-Ator, 2nd issue of 2005. These were both RV-8's
built as "twins" by two friends and retired pilots, Jim Clark and Gerry
Gustafson. These were Powersport Rotaries and turned out beautifully. I
had the pleasure of viewing them and talking to both men at Van's
Homecoming 2004.
The article is quite extensive, as was the testing, but I'll just
mention that at cruise with identical speeds, the article states "But,
in all cases, even at equal speeds, they burned more fuel than the
reciprocation engines." Also... "The rotaries were definitely noiser
inside and out." For instance, at cruise Van's RV8 burned 5.05 gals and
the two rotaries 7.65 and 7.1 respectively. This was a round trip of
140nm.
So it appears from their data that rotaries, at least these two, burn
substantially more fuel. What do you think? I don't have a scanner, but
would be happy to fax or mail copies.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
That was seriously Cool data Dan.
Thanks also to Ed Bundy who supplied his numbers. It is
surprisingly
hard to find RV drivers who keep track of this stuff (too busy
having
fun in these things which I also understand : )
be a significant advantage. If you ever get the chance Dan, I'd
like
to see you do the same test but instead of dropping manifold
pressure
only, try dropping the prop rpm to get the same fuel flow numbers
you
used. This should reduce pumping losses and result in even better
numbers. "Do not operate" zones on the prop rpm is the only
possible
problem I can think of. I don't have that problem with my fixed
pitch
wood prop but I have to put up with very high pumping losses,
especially
at low altitude (which is another reason I cruise high).
Bottom line is that based on this info, I don't see a nickel's worth
of
difference between the Lyc (when run LOP) and my Mazda rotary when
it
comes to fuel economy. Cleanliness of the airframe makes more
difference than the engine. I always burn less fuel than the guys
who
run Lycs ROP.
The horror stories about the fuel consumption of the rotary are
based on
automotive experience. Ironically, the rotary is at it's worst in
auto
use. The lower the engine load, the worse the rotary is. Car's
typically run at 10% or less power settings. At low power settings
the
flame goes out in the large quench areas of the rotary combustion
chamber resulting in more unburned mixture. The higher the power
load
is, the longer the flame stays lit and more complete combustion
results.
The crumby results on the rotary RV-8 comparisons they did at Van's
home
drome were the results of two factors.
1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage.
They
should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
engine types (it is not the same).
2. The EFI controllers used with the Powersport engines do not
allow
the pilot to optimize the mixture. They were essentially running at
full rich the whole time. The designers of it did not consider the
users capable of deciding this and programmed what they thought was
the
safest mixture setting (rich).
Tracy Crook
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Help with Cowling Ducts |
Les,
Is he sure his transducer is working correctly?
I run air thru my oil cooler after it has been over the cylinders and have 30%
of the oil cooler covered and can't get my oil temps above 160 on a hot day.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45993#45993
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | RV Fuel Efficiency, Page AZ and Antelope Canyon |
Here is a real-life example comparing flying and driving to the same
place. The plane is an RV-6A, O-360 carbureted, one Lightspeed ignition
some drag from old wheelpants and one crooked main gear fairing.
Car is a 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo, cruise control, 8 Cylinder
and automatic with full time 4WD.
Flight to Page took three hours (headwind) at 16,500 feet. Distance
about 400 statute miles using 19.5 gallons of 100LL. The comes to
20.5 miles/gallon (6.5 GPH). Add one hour for additional time before
and after the flight and the trip took four hours. As an aside, the trip
back took 2.5 hours and burned 14.9 gallons for 26.8 MPG (6 gallons/hr).
The trip back was at 17,500 feet and I had about a 30 knot tailwind.
The car trip took 12 hours each way. 600 miles at 21 MPG burned
about 28.6 gallons each way.
The plane trip was done in one day whereas the car trip took over two
days and required two nights in a hotel.
Pictures for perusal included.
Ron Lee
<http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_14Small.jpg>http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_14Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_79Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_91Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper16Apr06_19Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper16Apr06_28Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_006Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_042Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_108Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_112Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper2Jun06_032Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper2Jun06_072Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper2Jun06_167Small.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Bleeding the brakes |
I tried to bleed the brakes with a little pump can like others have
talked about doing. Well it made a big mess and did not work well. I
asked a fellow RV builder (thanks Larry) about how he did it and found
out from him that I could make a small pump sprayer into a pressurized
brake bleeder. Here is how I made mine and it works great. It does take
two people to do the job. I bought a 1-1/2 quart pump sprayer from Lowes
allow with three different size pieces of tubing I put the tubing
together and zip tied them to help hold them together. I used a small
plug that came out of an instrument to attach another short piece of
tubing to use as an overflow line to hold on the reservoir so the extra
brake fluid could be caught in a bottle. Now this is the to do this job!
When the job is all done the tubing can be stored in the tank to keep
from losing it.
--
My new email address: bobbyhester(at)charter.net
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A N857BH SB wings-QB Fuse-XPO360 engine :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | AKZO primer question |
Listers,
No, I don't want to start a war.
I have 2 one gallon cans (base and curing solution) of Dexter (AKZO) 2 part
epoxy primer that are now 5 years old. The label says the maximum shelf
life is 2 years -- mil spec, etc. They have been kept at room temperature the
whole time (air conditioned in summer, greater than 60 degrees in winter).
The contents look good after stirring the base for about 5 minutes.
I mixed some up and waited 1/2 hour and sprayed it on a piece of
scotch-bright scuffed aluminum. After curing it seems to be very hard and works
like
new as far as I can tell.
Here is the question: what would be the failure mode of using this old
primer? I hate to throw away $130 plus shipping if it is actually OK to use.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Bleeding the brakes |
Why not just buy a "Mity-Vac" ,which is made for this kind of job ???
Harbor freight tools has one model for about 15 bucks and it has the things
needed to do the job. More expensive models have more equipment and are
re-buildable.
Bob Olds
RV-4
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
>From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>
>C'mon, is this the best you can do? Very informative,
>informative, but wearily long and all of these reports that YOU
>CITED
I made no claim of detailed analysis, I hear you, but....
I'll give you some better examples that spell it out, but...
just because the final determination for the power loss is
unexplained, it does not make me feel good. Fact is several
planes, all using auto fuel, had loss of power along with low
or erratic fuel pressure. Just happens it was also a hot day.
Unexplained loss of power, surging and erratic fuel pressure
on hot days, while using high vapor pressure auto fuel might
mean vapor lock is the cause (I really do think).
VL certainly is a very reasonable explanation since it
matches the symptoms. Just because OJ was not found
guilty does not mean he didn't do it. All the FAA can say
is they can't prove it after the fact, but they out and out
say it below or imply vapor lock often..
I got clever, I searched on Vapor Lock and Automotive
fuel. (69 hits)
Here they say it, out right, RV-9A auto gas and vapor lock
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06LA069&rpt=fa
some factory planes (hey if it can happen to them...)
NAVION, any more questions
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001213X30993&key=1
Rockwell Ag plane, FAA says....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MKC88LA141&rpt=fi
Piper PA-20, if that does not do it for Ya
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC89LA118&rpt=fi
(auto fuel has three times the vapor pressure)
Some more experimentals
Pitts Special, auto fuel and vapor lock in narrative text
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI83LA312&rpt=fi
Thorp T-18, Mazda powered, page 1, par 2 and par 4.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA273&rpt=fa
D-51S vapor lock, no mention of auto gas, but could be.
The vapor lock symptoms are interesting and common.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA159&rpt=fi
Velocity - very interesting. engine failure due to auto fuel?
Look at 1st-par on page 1a and 1 st-par on page 1b.
Although an engine failure, the low octane auto gas contributed
to the high compression engines demise. Also before the fatal
flight the builder/pilot had vapor lock problems and installed
additional return line and solenoid. Auto fuel was used.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW98FA165&rpt=fa
C'mon! You can deny deny deny but it's common knowledge.
So when I say keep the fuel cool any way you can you
see what I mean. I guess I am not that dumb after all.
Sometime the NTSB probable cause for vapor lock is
coded as:
-Improper grade of fuel
-fuel, system line blocked
-fuel, system pump blocked
-fluid, fuel starvation
-fuel system overtemperature
Unexplained does not mean it's not a possibility. I am
just suggesting it's possible, suspect, that auto fuel
contributed to the loss of power. You have to know what
the vapor lock signals are. Heat and low atmospheric
pressure is a recipe for VL.
Here is a link that explains vapor lock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_lock
>From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch
>
>I only read a few of the accident reports, and none that I
>read said that Auto fuel CAUSED the accident.
Great point, absolutly true. However when you read so
many unexplained loss of power, high ambient temps
and auto fuel, than you have to say, hummm.
Obviously dirty rusty cans and not filtering the fuel is a
dumb pilot trick. However when you handle fuel and buy
car gas, the risk of getting bad gas increases, logically.
I did not list several NTSB reports of in-flight engine failures
due to valve damage. Now that could be due to detonation.
We know a prime cause of detonation is low octane. Auto
gas has lower octane.
What scares me the most (and I found a few more since
yesterday) are the takeoff or cruise unexplained loss
of power, typically on hot days. That's scary and suggests
vapor lock.
May be I am not as big an idiot for suggesting that if you
plan on using auto gas in your tightly cowled RV, you do
everything you can to keep the fuel cool: hose insulation,
heat shields, blast tubes and vapor return line. The
mechanical pump is the biggest offender of heat into the
fuel. They make shields and blast tubes for them. Also
ceramic coated (in and out) exhaust is helpful. It might be
a good idea even if you use AVfuel.
If you plan on AVgas than less worries, it's without dispute
AVgas is far more resistant to vapor lock and engine
detonation with higher octane.
That has been my main point. AVgas give you more
margin to detonation and vapor lock. Also quality control
of getting the fuel into the plane direct from an airfield
pump or fuel truck is more higher or more secure. Clearly
from 250 accidents, many involving poor fuel handing
getting fuel into your plane, with gas cans, can cause
contamination.
Last, I don't think you can look at 250 accidents, almost
all involving inflight loss of power, all w/ auto fuel on board,
and not draw a conclusion? hummmmm, there is some
increased risk. What can I learn from these NTSB reports,
STC's, FAA, EAA and AOPA. Just like the TV public
service Ads, You Ought-A Know.
> "Jim Sears"
> Since George has taken offense to our discussion,
>I think it best to stop this discussion, now.
I have been researching auto fuel for 20 years,
since the late 80's. I just don't favor it for high
compression engines and tightly cowled RV's.
it's just my opinion. Sue me. :-)
Besides reading a lot on the topic, as a CFI, I taught a
group of pilots who owned a C-182 with a STC for auto
fuel years ago. They stopped using it for several reasons.
This is not like I just thought of this yesterday. I have
followed this from the start.
You present one side of the story, and just think
another opinon was needed to this discourse.
Jim has been 20 years flying with auto fuel.
That is a good data point. I respect that.
I recall Jim flys a low compression 150 HP Grumman Cheetah. I am going to submit
the temps in the cowl
of the AA-5 are less than a RV. Also with the lower
temps and lower octane requirement of the 150 HP,
O320, the Grumman makes a good candidate for
auto fuel and better than a high compression RV.
I do not believe Jim is flying his RV yet, so not sure he
can claim auto gas RV experience, but I could be wrong.
Forgive me if I am wrong.
There are planes like the Mooney that suffer vapor lock
with auto fuel and thus can not get a STC. It is not a
stretch of logic to assume that the same issues might
face the RV.
I am NOT anti-Autogas. However I do think it is better
suited for low compression engines (80/86 octane)
and planes with big cowls and exhaust pipes that don't
run inches from the carburetor, fuel lines and gascolator.
THAT IS ALL FOLKS.
Captain AVgas over and out, ha ha ha Cheers, George
---------------------------------
at 1/min.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heater vent inlet up vs down |
Ralph,
I have seen it done both ways. My outlet faces down, but others in my ar
ea
face up. Heat rises is one way to do it with outlet up, but then with th
e
exit air is a reason to do it the other. Maybe someone else has a good
reason for one or the other. Have fun
Tim
-------Original Message-------
Fellow listers,
I'm getting ready to install my heater vents on the firewall.
The way I read it, the instructions say 'inlet down'. This means that wh
en
you're not using the heater, the hot air is being blown up behind the eng
ine
instead of down towards the cowl exit area.
Did I miss something? Does it matter? I would think inlet up.......Did
they instruct it the other way for a reason?
Pictures of how folks have already done it would be appreciated. Also, I
f
you did it one way and didn't like it......why?
Ralph Capen
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "low pass" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Yep, there's a lot of emotional rant happening here. And no, it's not a building
issue. But it is guaranteed to affect every one of us who enjoy burning hydrocarbons
in their internal combustion engine in order to fly our little planes.
Algore (making money) is using his misguided supporters to halt the use of CO2
emitting processes (i.e., powered flight). This will happen either through direct
legislation or by indirectly jacking up the price to a point where 95% of
us cannot afford to fly.
This thread isn't just a silly little political or emotional rant. It's about
seeing the end of recreational flying. You support Algore and his type, you have
no place flying powered GA. Well, not without contradicting yourself. Sorry
to be so harsh, but I take real offense at these misguided actions destroying
my freedom to fly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46109#46109
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Dan's Wx Site Address? |
Hi Listers ...
Can someone please post Dan Checkoway's weather site address ... I've
misplaced it.
Many thanks,
Jerry Grimmonpre'
jerry(at)mc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer question |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Barker" <Andrew(at)trutrakap.com> |
| Subject: | Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot |
The NMEA 0183 should work. Just make sure that the autopilot and EFIS are
both at the same baud rate. The standard baud rate for the NMEA 0183 is
4800, but some systems will output at 9600 as well. Either is fine with the
autopilot.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
"You build it...We fly it!"
PH:479-751-0250 Ext. 222
www.trutrakap.com
_____
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jellis9847(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 9:09 PM
Hi All,
Is there anyone out there who has tried to connect a Blue Mountain EFIS G3
Lite to a Trutrak Pictorial Pilot?
I have the Serial Port B connected to the Pictorial Pilot but the autopilot
doesn't recognize the GPS input.
I suspect that I don't have the correct settings in the EFIS (choices
include GPSS and NMEA 0183 among others). BMA Tech Support says they
haven't tested this autopilot so that can't give me the correct settings.
Anybody out there have any ideas?
Thanks
Jim Ellis
RV9-A, Flying
_____
__________ NOD32 1.1651 (20060708) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
> Let's move on. There'll be no converts and just wasted bandwidth.
Bob:
With respect, I couldn't disagree more. I haven't participated in the
discussion at all, but I've found the ideas presented helpful. Sure, sometimes
people express themselves badly. But there's still value in the discussion,
and we shouldn't forget that a lot more people are reading what is said than
are contributing themselves.
As someone pointed out, this is something that will affect all of us who fly,
so it needs to be discussed.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 07/09/06, Gobal Warming? |
We should be thankful at this time for global warming. Precisely where I
am sitting (Minnesota) was buried under two miles of solid ice only a few
thousand years ago, like 7-10 thousand years. The 10,000 lakes we enjoy are the
direct result of those glaciers. Without global warming, nobody could live
here, in northern Europe, or northern Asia. It is wise to be watchful but no
need to be an alarmist.
Paul S. Petersen,
finishing RV6A with son Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JEllis9847(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial |
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the information. It was very useful.
I spoke with Ross at Blue Mountain Avionics today and he told me that their
NMEA-0183 output "should" work with a Trutrak autopilot but he said that
neither he nor anyone else there had ever heard of anyone that had actually done
so.
My question is a simple one. Has anyone, anywhere ever been able to make a
working connection between any Blue Mountain efis and any Trutrak autopilot?
Strangely neither BMA or Trutrak technical support knows the answer to this
question.
I am truly baffled by the manufactures lack of knowledge about their very
own product's usage in the real world!
Jim Ellis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ellis" <JEllis9847(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot |
Hi Andrew,
First of all let me say how surprised and delighted that you folks at TruTrak monitor
the List and would take the time to respond. It is much appreciated!
I spoke with John in your Tech Support Group today and he said much the same thing...that
it "should" work. But he had never talked to anyone that had actually
been able to make a working serial connection to a Blue Mountain EFIS. I
don't know why but that seems so odd to me.
There must be someone out there that has actually tried, successfully or otherwise,
to connect a Blue Mountain EFIS to a TruTrak autopilot.
Thanks again for your response,
Jim Ellis
RV9-A, Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46212#46212
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neal George" <neal(at)appaero.com> |
Listers -
I'm considering using the Sam James Holy Cowl on my RV-7.
Anybody need a Van's (I)O-360 no-scoop cowl?
Neal E. George
2023 Everglades Drive
Navarre, FL 32566
Home - 850-515-0640
Cell - 850-218-4838
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer question |
Thanks everyone for the replies.
Richard, it is slightly amber colored -- kind of like the color of auto gas.
Does anyone know if it had any color to start with. I don't remember. The
primer sprays and cures OK. It is as hard as nails just like it was 4 or 5
years ago. Its amazing stuff for those of you who haven't used it.
How would I replace the hardener? Is it cheaper than the base? I bought
them both from Aircraft Spruce together.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/10/2006 1:12:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
seiders(at)bellsouth.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Seiders Dan, I spoke with a friend
who operates an auto body and paint shop (he painted my RV6A doing a beautiful
job) and he says primer should be ok but check hardener and if yellowed
replace it.
Dick
At 09:12 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:
Listers,
No, I don't want to start a war.
I have 2 one gallon cans (base and curing solution) of Dexter (AKZO) 2 part
epoxy primer that are now 5 years old. The label says the maximum shelf
life is 2 years -- mil spec, etc. They have been kept at room temperature the
whole time (air conditioned in summer, greater than 60 degrees in winter).
The contents look good after stirring the base for about 5 minutes.
I mixed some up and waited 1/2 hour and sprayed it on a piece of
scotch-bright scuffed aluminum. After curing it seems to be very hard and works
like
new as far as I can tell.
Here is the question: what would be the failure mode of using this old
primer? I hate to throw away $130 plus shipping if it is actually OK to use.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Jacking up an RV |
There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like to
know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like to
hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing tires
or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
and what they did instead.
Marty in Brentwood
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
I have the Avery RV Jack Stand and have used it exclusively on my RV-7.
I've changed tires 3 or 4 times, rotating the tires halfway through their
wear. All said and done, I've probably jacked the thing up a dozen times or
more using the jack stand. Works great from my perspective. It's stable
and quick. I'm hard-pressed to think of a down-side other than having to
hollow out the axle nut, which isn't a big deal.
Some have said that you can simply put a hose clamp around the base of the
gear leg at the bend, and then jack up against that. That would sure be the
simplest way to go. But in my case the brake tubing loop would interfere
with doing that.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (972 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:04 PM
>
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
> changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like
> to
> know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like to
> hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing tires
> or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
> and what they did instead.
>
> Marty in Brentwood
> RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
In a message dated 7/10/2006 7:10:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
emrath(at)comcast.net writes:
or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
and what they did instead.
===========================================
I just use my old hydraulic floor jack sitting on top of a plastic
step-stool/tool case. It has a cupped end that lifts against my wing tie down
rings.
I use the McMaster-Carr electro-polished stainless steel lifting eyes (P/N
8891T48) for my tie down rings, so they are hell-for-stout pulling or pushing.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 801hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
In a message dated 7/10/2006 8:10:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com writes:
You support Algore and his type, you have no place flying powered GA. Well,
not without contradicting yourself.
==============================
This must be true, since I personally have never heard or seen any
flip-flopping come at me from the right (he said facetiously).
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 801hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
I also have the Avery RV Jack stand and think it is great. I first
purchased the little angle iron gizmo with the U-bolt that bolts around t
he
gear leg. It really is terrible. First it is not a flat spot to jack up
on
and slid off my jack once. Fortunately I still had the wheel on. Second
you would have to remove the gear fairing in order to bolt this around yo
ur
gear leg. The Avery tool is a good one for my money.
Angle iron with U-bolt purchased from Van's for sale cheap.
Tim
-------Original Message-------
I have the Avery RV Jack Stand and have used it exclusively on my RV-7.
I've changed tires 3 or 4 times, rotating the tires halfway through their
wear. All said and done, I've probably jacked the thing up a dozen times
or
more using the jack stand. Works great from my perspective. It's stable
and quick. I'm hard-pressed to think of a down-side other than having to
hollow out the axle nut, which isn't a big deal.
Some have said that you can simply put a hose clamp around the base of th
e
gear leg at the bend, and then jack up against that. That would sure be
the
simplest way to go. But in my case the brake tubing loop would interfere
with doing that.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (972 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:04 PM
>
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
> changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would lik
e
> to
> know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like
to
> hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing ti
res
> or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the
RV
> and what they did instead.
>
> Marty in Brentwood
> RV-6A
>
>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | exhaust bolt torque |
I was going to torque down the nuts on the exhaust studs on my O-360
when I noticed a contradiction between my torque tables and Larry
Vetterman's instructions. Larry says to torque the nuts to 100- 140
in-lb. That's the torque value for a 5/16-24 bolt, according to my
table. But the exhaust studs in my engine are 5/16-18. The torque
table says to use 80-90 in-lb for the coarse thread 5/16 bolts.
What's the right torque value here?
Is this another situation like the engine case bolts (1/4-20) which are
torqued at 90 - 100 in-lb (about double the value listed in the table)?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: exhaust bolt torque |
In a message dated 7/10/2006 9:02:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sarg314(at)comcast.net writes:
I noticed a contradiction between my torque tables and Larry
Vetterman's instructions. Larry says to torque the nuts to 100- 140
in-lb. That's the torque value for a 5/16-24 bolt, according to my
table.
========================================
I torqued them to 100-140 in-lb just as Larry indicates. He's the exhaust
expert as far as I'm concerned!
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 801hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Jacking up an RV |
I saw another method advertised somewhere recently. It was a bent pipe with
a T on one end. The T steadied the pipe on the floor. The bent pipe went
over the wheel, and had a loop of cable that would go under the axle. You
jacked up the free end of the bent pipe, lifting the wheel with the cable.
It seemed to me that you could do the same thing with a 2x4 and a husky box
to support one end of the 2x4. Loop a cable under the axle. Jack the free
end of the 2x4.
But I have never tried it so maybe it's a bad idea.
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
_____
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:57 PM
I also have the Avery RV Jack stand and think it is great. I first
purchased the little angle iron gizmo with the U-bolt that bolts around the
gear leg. It really is terrible. First it is not a flat spot to jack up on
and slid off my jack once. Fortunately I still had the wheel on. Second
you would have to remove the gear fairing in order to bolt this around your
gear leg. The Avery tool is a good one for my money.
Angle iron with U-bolt purchased from Van's for sale cheap.
Tim
-------Original Message-------
I have the Avery RV Jack Stand and have used it exclusively on my RV-7.
I've changed tires 3 or 4 times, rotating the tires halfway through their
wear. All said and done, I've probably jacked the thing up a dozen times or
more using the jack stand. Works great from my perspective. It's stable
and quick. I'm hard-pressed to think of a down-side other than having to
hollow out the axle nut, which isn't a big deal.
Some have said that you can simply put a hose clamp around the base of the
gear leg at the bend, and then jack up against that. That would sure be the
simplest way to go. But in my case the brake tubing loop would interfere
with doing that.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (972 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:04 PM
>
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
> changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like
> to
> know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like to
> hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing tires
> or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
> and what they did instead.
>
> Marty in Brentwood
> RV-6A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====================================
he RV-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
=====================================
sp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
nics.com
=====================================
sp; - List Contribution Web Site -
sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
//www.matronics.com/contribution
=====================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tomvelvick" <tomvelvick(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New TruTrack Pictorial Pilot Autopilot for Sale |
New in box 2 1/4" Pictorial Pilot combination turn coordinator/wing leveler AP. See http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com for specs and pictures.
The Autopilot has the installation hardware for an RV-4 with it.
$1700 includes shipping.
Tom Velvick
email tomvelvick(at)cox.net
cell 623-261-2096
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46285#46285
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | How to fly Constant Speed? |
Can someone explain how to fly a constant speed prop? I can't seem to find
much info in the wealth of flying books I have here. Any recommended books?
So far I've read:
To reduce power: Set throttle to desired RPM. See prop to MP, RPM will
remain constant.
To increase power: Set prop to fine. Increase throttle/RPM.
Correct? Else?
BobR
_________________________________________________________________
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Jacking up an RV |
I used the hose clamp at the bend method and it worked, more or less,
but one time it fell off the jack and bent the brake caliper bracket for
a $90 replacement part. Ouch. The Avery set up does require the cotter
key to be removed before jacking so it's not a handy way to level the
airplane for getting gyros straight in the panel or getting a remote
compass module level. If you're changing/rotating tires or packing wheel
bearings, the cotter's got to come out anyway so that's not a big deal.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:33 PM
I have the Avery RV Jack Stand and have used it exclusively on my RV-7.
I've changed tires 3 or 4 times, rotating the tires halfway through
their
wear. All said and done, I've probably jacked the thing up a dozen
times or
more using the jack stand. Works great from my perspective. It's
stable
and quick. I'm hard-pressed to think of a down-side other than having
to
hollow out the axle nut, which isn't a big deal.
Some have said that you can simply put a hose clamp around the base of
the
gear leg at the bend, and then jack up against that. That would sure be
the
simplest way to go. But in my case the brake tubing loop would
interfere
with doing that.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (972 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:04 PM
>
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
> changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would
like
> to
> know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like
to
> hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing
tires
> or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the
RV
> and what they did instead.
>
> Marty in Brentwood
> RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
Here is one that got away:
The Navion corrected
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001213X30993&key=1
Cheers George RV-4, RV-7
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | How to fly Constant Speed? |
Here is what Lycoming has to say:
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/operation/basicPowerSequence.html
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/operation/powerSettings.html
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/operation/lowPowerLowRPM.html
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/operation/oldWivesTales.html
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,892 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
Can someone explain how to fly a constant speed prop? I can't seem to find
much info in the wealth of flying books I have here. Any recommended books?
So far I've read:
To reduce power: Set throttle to desired RPM. See prop to MP, RPM will
remain constant.
To increase power: Set prop to fine. Increase throttle/RPM.
Correct? Else?
BobR
_________________________________________________________________
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://wiki.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
emrath(at)comcast.net wrote:
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and changing
of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear..........or from anyone that
was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV and what they did instead.
Marty in Brentwood
> RV-6A
Marty,
I use the (admittedly pricey) Axle Jack offered by Van's, Spruce and probably others.
It is a very easy, almost bulletproof method to quickly jack up a wheel.
Little more than 48 hours ago I used it to rotate the tires and tubes to even
out the wear pattern and while I was at it, changed the brake pads. Using
this tool made jacking the airplane up a very quick and simple proposition. The
whole thing breaks down into smaller component pieces and is stowed in a heavy
cloth sack to carry along (if desired) on cross country trips. With this jack
no modifications are necessary and emergency field repairs can be made without
augmenting the tool with an appropriately sized bottle jack.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1750/tirejack407go.jpg
Here is the link to Van's that better describes the included accessories package.
http://tinyurl.com/o9bcy
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 151 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46313#46313
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
Marty,
I took a 3/8 inch bolt, cut it off, and rounded the end for a safe fit into
the top of my hydraulic bottle jack. This is a little more secure than
jacking on the tiedown ring.
I set the jack up on a piece of 2x6 lumber on top of 2 cement blocks on the
concrete hangar floor. It would be safer to bolt a plate about 7 inches
square to the bottom of the jack and I plan to do this. Be sure to chock the
other main wheel as well as the nose wheel (if you have one). Dropping the
airplane and punching a hole in the wing skin would of course be a disaster.
I'm not saying this is the best way. I just used what I had available.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: exhaust bolt torque |
I torqued my O360 at 90 in-lbs. They have not come off or loosened in over
100 hours. I checked them at last annual and they were all still tight.
AND No leaks.
Maybe it should be considered to torque at the low end of Vetterman's or the
high end of the published torque table in the manual. I am sure Vetterman
knows his stuff. That is quite a spread between 100 and 140 however.
Usually you find this type spread when a cotter pin needs to be used which
is not the case here. Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
> I was going to torque down the nuts on the exhaust studs on my O-360 when
> I noticed a contradiction between my torque tables and Larry Vetterman's
> instructions. Larry says to torque the nuts to 100- 140 in-lb. That's
> the torque value for a 5/16-24 bolt, according to my table. But the
> exhaust studs in my engine are 5/16-18. The torque table says to use
> 80-90 in-lb for the coarse thread 5/16 bolts.
> What's the right torque value here?
>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
The Avery jack works fine on my RV7. I played around with other jacking
methods and they just did not seem safe after trying them. The Avery jack
has been used twice and I like it. Money well spent. Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
> changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like
> to
> know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like to
> hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing tires
> or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
> and what they did instead.
>
> Marty in Brentwood
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
I made some weldments that screw into the wing tiedown and standard aircraft
jacks for jacking... I will take some photos today and pass them on...
-Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:04 PM
There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like to
know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like to
hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing tires
or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
and what they did instead.
Marty in Brentwood
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to fly Constant Speed? |
Yes definately get some instruction. You'll learn
procedures and techniques with landing, etc that
you'll want to experience before you fly with a CS
prop. Not a big science, but as mentioned already, a
flight with a CFI on using a CS prop would be very
beneficial.
Paul Besing
--- bob rundle wrote:
>
>
> Can someone explain how to fly a constant speed
> prop? I can't seem to find
> much info in the wealth of flying books I have here.
> Any recommended books?
>
> So far I've read:
> To reduce power: Set throttle to desired RPM. See
> prop to MP, RPM will
> remain constant.
> To increase power: Set prop to fine. Increase
> throttle/RPM.
>
> Correct? Else?
>
> BobR
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN
> Search!
>
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Wanted Garmin 296 GPS |
Jerry,
I got my 296 on eBay from a guy who was doing just that... I see they've
sold 13 in the last 2 weeks, range about $1100-1300. Also might check Pac Coast
Avionics, they might get you one used...
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 7/11/2006 12:04:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Anyone on the list have a Garmin 296 they want to sell because they are
upgrading to a 396 etc?
do not archive
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
> Here is one that got away:
>
> The Navion corrected
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001213X30993&key=1
That aircraft, built in 1947, would be a Navion A. They are particularly
susceptible to vapour lock, and no mogas STC has been issued for them.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "you're gonna die because you use autogas" |
One thing I should point out is the source for my autogas. I have an
account at the local farm bureau here out in the sticks where I live in
central Indiana, and swipe my card to get biodiesel or unleaded and get a
bill every month. They get their fuel from a small refinery in southern
Indiana that only serves farm bureau distributors. I've talked to people at
the refinery and they assured me that alcohol is not used at all in their
refining processes. On many occasions (especially in the winter months) I
have run 100% 87 octane with no problem but as a precaution I mix 25/75
100LL. Since there is no requirement for their rural customers to use
oxygenates required by the EPA in and around major cities I suspect that is
why I have been successful in using the fuel I do. As a side note, the
source of oil for this particular refinery are small mom-and-pop oil wells
scattered throughout southern Indiana and Illinois. So when people talk
about lessening the dependence on foreign oil, I can honestly say that most
of the fuel we buy is sourced from a domestic supplier of crude oil. I also
drive a 50-mpg diesel car. Needless to say my motivation for running
autogas in my airplane goes beyond just saving a considerable chunk of $$
annually.
On another related note, I have a couple of friends with Rockets who I have
flown cross-country with many times. Every time we go somewhere we all fill
up and at our fuel stops we have a friendly contest to see who burned the
least amount of fuel. And every time, without fail, the Rockets beat the
RV's in least fuel used by a gallon or two. Every time the aircraft which
use the most fuel are the carbureted RV's with O-320's and fixed pitch
props. Its funny how counter intuitive that is.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
| Subject: | Jacking up an RV |
I bought a 2 ft piece of 5/8" (I think that's right) steel rod. This
slips inside the axle. I then use my floor jack used for the car, it
will fit under the steel rod, and jack the plane up. Works a lot like
Avery's jack stand, but you really don't need any more than the steel
rod.
John L. Danielson
RV-6 sold
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Emrath
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:04 PM
There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like
to
know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like
to
hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing
tires
or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the
RV
and what they did instead.
Marty in Brentwood
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to fly Constant Speed? |
I read Flying High Performance Singles and Twins and Flying the Beech Bonanzas.
They provide examples of power settings and the resulting performance of the
aircraft. As an example, from study level flight reducing the MP by 5 inches
will cause the Bonanza to descend at 500 fpm. So will extending the landing
gear.
My Basic rules
1 More MP (Manifold Pressure) means more power
2 Closing throttle and climbing will decrease MP
3 MP will not exceed density altitude pressure without assistance, will equal
it with engine off, and can be a predictor of takeoff performance.
4 More RPM means more power, and use maximum for takeoff.
5 High power and low RPM is bad. Causes unnecessary engine stress.
6 High RPM means high noise and engine wear.
7 Low power and high RPM can act as an aerodynamic brake on descent or approach.
Can someone explain how to fly a constant speed prop? I can't seem to find
much info in the wealth of flying books I have here. Any recommended books?
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
Idaho Falls
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com> |
| Subject: | Bleeding the brakes |
This technique sounds intriguing. Can you please describe the process?
Thanks, Jimmy Ayres
RV-7A - building
RV-6A - flying
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:42 AM
Why not just buy a "Mity-Vac" ,which is made for this kind of job ???
Harbor freight tools has one model for about 15 bucks and it has the
things needed to do the job. More expensive models have more equipment
and are re-buildable.
Bob Olds
RV-4
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)speedyquick.net> |
| Subject: | How to fly Constant Speed? |
Oversquare operation has been pretty much de-bunked as an old wives tale.
Most POH's show available operations well into oversquare territory. My
fixed-pitch prop RV operates oversquare on pretty much every takeoff. I
have MAP in mine and at sea level I show 31" at 2200 rpm on takeoff. I
usually pull back to 25" on climb (RPM approx 2300) and keep bumping the
power back up to 75% as I climb.
If you don't have MAP, then you don't know you're oversquare and it won't
harm the engine. :-)
Ed Bundy
On a sidenote on running oversquare:
How does one with a fixed pitch propeller operating from low altitude or
even sea level deal with said oversquare scenario's?
Isn't that pretty much an oversquare situation right from the get-go when
one applies full take off power?
As a Manifold Pressure Gauge is not required in a fixed pitch airplane,
how would one even know how much oversquare they are during the takeoff
roll?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
| Subject: | Instruments for Sale |
I am re-doing my RV-4 instrument panel and I am selling my old
instruments. Below is what I have for sale, first come first serve.....
The rest will go to eBay.
Also, if you feel the price is too high, feel free to make an offer,
I'll take the highest offer or I'll eBay them. All instruments were new
168 hours ago, except the Dynon has less than 100 hours and the KX155,
KI209, and the KT76A were used when I purchased them. Please respond
off list to n223rv (at)
wolflakeairport.net.
Pictures available upon request, but I will most likely only be able to
respond in the evenings.
All prices include FedEx ground shipping.
Item Current Price Asking Price
UMA 1.25" CHT gauge $117.95 $82.00
UMA 1.25" Oil Pressure gauge $118.95 $83.00
UMA 1.25" Ammeter gauge $154.95 $108.00
UMA 1.25" EGT gauge $117.95 $82.00
UMA 1.25" Fuel Pressure gauge $118.95 $83.00
UMA 1.25" Volt Meter gauge $118.95 $83.00
UMA 1.25" Oil Temp gauge $118.95 $83.00
Price for all 7 gauges $866.65 $570.00
King KX155 14V w/ G/S $2,000.00
King KI209 Indicator (VOR/Glideslope Indicator) $750.00
King KT76A 14V Transponder $750.00
Garmin 295, color GPS, all original accy's, extra power cords, manuals,
and original box $625.00
Comant Diplexer CI 1125 (Dual VOR and Dual G/S to one antenna) $125.95
$75.00
Van's Fuel Gauges (2) $70.00 $45.00
NavAid Autopilot $1,300.00 $650.00
Smart Coupler II LE $249.00 $200.00
UMA Tachometer PN TU 3041 and 19-806-11G (odometer showing 196 hours)
$198.75 $110.00
UMA Airspeed PN 16-310-241D $160.00 $125.00
Van's Manifold Pressure Gauge (gauge only, no sender) $73.40 $25.00
Falcon Altimeter PN ALT20INF-3N 0-20K' $196.95 $130.00
Dynon D10 w/ magnetometer,OAT sensor, and flush mount $2,285.00
$1,500.00
Westach Carb Mix and OAT Temp gauge PN 2DA3-8 $83.25 $50.00
EI Fuel Flow Gauge (gauge only, no sender) $518.00 $310.00
P.S. - I'm no scammer, feel free to read my feedback on eBay (user ID
mkraus01)
Also, anyone is welcome to fly into my house and pick up the
instruments, I live at 26W near Jackson, Michigan. Look us up on
AirNav.com or just come visit sometime. I love guests and I have a
flying RV-4 and building an RV-10.
Thanks,
Mike Kraus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garrett, Randy L Dr HQ INSCOM" <randy.garrett1(at)us.army.mil> |
| Subject: | Aerobatics and gyro's |
I am planning to begin aerobatics in my RV-6A (and will go through the
proper paperwork process to add aerobatic manuevers to my flight
limitations).
I have a vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyro and an
electrical turn coordinator.
Unfortunately, there is no simple way to quickly remove any of these
instruments.
A potentially clever alternative ...
I could easily adjust the vacuum so that the AH and DG do not run at all
(that is, there's zero air flowing though the instruments) and pull the
circuit breaker so that the turn coordinator is also off.
But, I don't know if this would be better or worse for the gyros to not
be spinning when they have G and centrifical forces applied to them.
Also, would there be a problem for the vacuum pump to be running, but
presumably not having any air flowing through it?
Thanks!
Randy Garrett
RV-6A
675 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <dan.beadle(at)inclinesoftworks.com> |
| Subject: | Aerobatics and gyro's |
I believe that this is a good solution. As long as they are not spinning,
there is little stress on the bearings.
_____
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garrett, Randy L Dr
HQ INSCOM
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
I am planning to begin aerobatics in my RV-6A (and will go through the
proper paperwork process to add aerobatic manuevers to my flight
limitations).
I have a vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyro and an electrical
turn coordinator.
Unfortunately, there is no simple way to quickly remove any of these
instruments.
A potentially clever alternative ...
I could easily adjust the vacuum so that the AH and DG do not run at all
(that is, there's zero air flowing though the instruments) and pull the
circuit breaker so that the turn coordinator is also off.
But, I don't know if this would be better or worse for the gyros to not be
spinning when they have G and centrifical forces applied to them. Also,
would there be a problem for the vacuum pump to be running, but presumably
not having any air flowing through it?
Thanks!
Randy Garrett
RV-6A
675 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and gyro's |
Incorrect. Our EAA chapter just had a presentation from an avionics and
major gyro rebuilding shop. I asked specifically about aerobatics and
gyros, they said "No problem whatsoever, UNLESS you do something silly
like remove the vacuum". They know the internals of gyros intimately,
and said there are stops for the gimbals and it does them no harm at all
to go to the stops for loops, rolls, etc. I know there are many wives
tales and hunches out there, but these guys have serious experience with
gyros.
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit (no, really) Auburn, CA
Dan Beadle wrote:
>
> I believe that this is a good solution. As long as they are not
> spinning, there is little stress on the bearings.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Garrett,
> Randy L Dr HQ INSCOM
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
> *To:* rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: Aerobatics and gyro's
>
>
>
>
>
> I am planning to begin aerobatics in my RV-6A (and will go through the
> proper paperwork process to add aerobatic manuevers to my flight
> limitations).
>
> I have a vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyro and an
> electrical turn coordinator.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no simple way to quickly remove any of these
> instruments.
>
> A potentially clever alternative ...
>
> I could easily adjust the vacuum so that the AH and DG do not run at
> all (that is, there's zero air flowing though the instruments) and
> pull the circuit breaker so that the turn coordinator is also off.
>
> But, I don't know if this would be better or worse for the gyros to
> not be spinning when they have G and centrifical forces applied to
> them. Also, would there be a problem for the vacuum pump to be
> running, but presumably not having any air flowing through it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Randy Garrett
> RV-6A
> 675 hours
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Parker Thomas" <me(at)parkerthomas.com> |
| Subject: | FW: powder coating panel - how big holes? |
Hi -
I'm getting ready to put a new panel in my 6a and plan to powder coat the
panel after it has been cut. Does anyone have any suggestions about how
much bigger we should cut holes to accommodate powder coating? How thick is
it?
Thanks,
Parker
____________________________________
F. Parker Thomas
ShredFirst
phone 510-433-0200
fax 510-217-5976
parker(at)shredfirst.biz
www.shredfirst.biz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FW: powder coating panel - how big holes? |
In a message dated 7/12/06 8:31:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
me(at)parkerthomas.com writes:
> I'm getting ready to put a new panel in my 6a and plan to powder coat the
> panel after it has been cut. Does anyone have any suggestions about how
> much bigger we should cut holes to accommodate powder coating? How thick
is
> it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Parker
============================================
Parker:
All according to what material they use for powder coating the thickness can
vary from .005 to .015" So, if you are looking for a depth to work with, I
would use .015" deeper. The worse condition would be the flat head screws would
sit below the panel face by .010"
If you coat thinner you might as well paint and save the cost and time.
The other option is to get a 100 Deg countersink and just do a slight hand
ream with the countersink. Just make sure it is 100 Deg ... As you probably
know aircraft screws are 100 Deg.
The other option is to use Pan Head or Philister Head Screws and just have
the screw holes a straight hole. Use the above heads and a thin washer for
looks. You can have the mounting hardware painted in a flat color to match or to
contrast. I happen to like Dark colors for the panel - Black or Blue, it helps
to cut down on glare. I fly an RV-6 & RV-6A they have light color panels and
glare at night is a problem. The canopy just reflects the light like a
parabola.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Instruments for Sale |
Have ad on Barnstormers for following :
Navaid head $400 good operating
Terra 760D com $400 good operating
Terra 200d nav $750 (needs some work as LOC ok, GS not indicating)
Terra Tri Nav C digital vor/loc/gs good operating $400
Will sell as combinations and discount p[rices.
e mail seiders(at)bellsouth.net or call 770 377 8342 if int.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. That's
from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this book.) Most car
engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same
reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore were
the size of a car engine's.
Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the low
compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use low octane gas.
Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Dan
Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is the date of
publication of this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
Charlie Kuss
>
>
>Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's
>bore is increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10
>units. That's from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and
>Practice -- Volume II." by Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for
>recommending this book.) Most car engine's bores are well under 4"
>and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same reference, our 8.7:1
>compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore were the
>size of a car engine's.
>
>Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the
>low compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use
>low octane gas. Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
>
>Dan Hopper
>RV-7A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "you're gonna die because you use autogas" |
>From: SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net>
>There seems to be an attitude especially decidedly
>anti-mogas. It would appear to be an elitist sort of thing.
>I've flown with plenty of "holier than thou types" who
>disdain mogas (but have absolutely no experience with it).
There has been an abundance of sarcastic condescending
attitude, as apparent from you post's title. It's a waste of
time in a constructive dialog or discourse.
You have your story wrong. I even said I'd consider
MOgas with a LOW compression engine and proper
protection against vapor lock. Provided I could readily
get good MOgas.
MOgas has been at the scene of the accident, some fatal
a few times. Sorry if that upsets you. Even Glasair in their
hey day recognized it and switched to selling Lycs for their
kits with fuel pump cooling shrouds. WHY? Even AVgas
can vapor lock. The first of their tight cowl hi-perf kits
suffered vapor lock.
BTW If any one wants a mechanical fuel pump cooling
shroud, here is a source. (see products, last item)
http://www.showplanes.com/index_1024.htm
Scott apparently the way you deal with important safety
info is name calling. So if you don't like what you hear you
want to shut them up by insulting them. Nice move.
My way is to educate people and give them the information
to make good decisions and mitigate or minimize the risk.
I suggest people get the full scoop and know the negatives
as well as the positive, cost savings. There was and still is
decidedly one side dialog going on. I made my point for the
good presenting the other side. Too bad if you don't like it.
For some reason if someone has a different view the
procedure is to attack the person and make personal
comments. Sad. There is no room for emotion and denial
in aviation safety. Deal with it.
You quote Bob as an example and say SEE! Bob is some
one who is very careful and a model for others planning
auto fuel. Never once did I say MOgas operations can not
or never be done safely, BUT it does take great and extra
care.
I don't care what you do, but I sure would hate another
RV'er to crash and say, hey I did not understand vapor
lock or octane. No else mentioned it, so I did.
Scott it's not disdain for your beloved MOgas, just a
cautious approach, that's all. Excuse me for having
an opinion that's different than yours. Have a nice day.
Cheers Captain AVgas,
give me 100/100LL or give me death. (sarcasm)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics and gyro's |
In a message dated 7/12/2006 4:24:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dale1rv6(at)comcast.net writes:
Then why did they make gyros that were cageable?
===============================
I thought it was so that you could re-erect the gyro once you got straight
and level after completing your aerobatic maneuvers.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 801hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to work
well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or staying
open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower cowl
to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone pulls
on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Charlie,
"The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
Charles Taylor was published in 1968 by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. I found a copy on Ebay.
Dan
In a message dated 7/12/2006 10:41:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
chaztuna(at)adelphia.net writes:
Dan
Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is the date of publication of
this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
Charlie Kuss
Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. That's
from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this book.) Most car
engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same
reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore were
the size of a car engine's.
Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the low
compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use low octane gas.
Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units.
Dan:
This is a rule of thumb that is meant to compare similarly designed engines of
different displacements, such as the O-320 and O-360. It would be a mistake to
apply it to significantly different engine designs without taking into
consideration other factors. For example, combustion chamber shape is equally
significant, so that a smaller-bore combustion chamber can require higher
octane than a larger-bore chamber, at the same CR, if its shape is more
conducive to detonation. One can't simply conclude that one engine requires
higher octane than another simply because its bore is larger.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Also available from amazon.com
-------------- Original message ----------------------
>
>
> Charlie,
>
> "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
> Charles Taylor was published in 1968 by the Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology. I found a copy on Ebay.
>
> Dan
>
>
> In a message dated 7/12/2006 10:41:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> chaztuna(at)adelphia.net writes:
>
> Dan
> Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is the date of publication of
> this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units. That's
> from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." by
> Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this book.) Most car
> engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 is 5 1/8". From the same
> reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks like more than 10:1 if the bore
> were
> the size of a car engine's.
>
> Those using auto gas should keep this in mind when thinking that the low
> compression ratios of aircraft engines should allow us to use low octane gas.
> Your engine may be closer to detonation than you realize.
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19207_1152723451_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19207_1152723451_1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charlie,
"The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Volume II." b
y
Charles Taylor was published in 1968 by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. I found a copy on Ebay.
Dan
In a message dated 7/12/2006 10:41:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
chaztuna(at)adelphia.net writes:
<
FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size
=2>Dan
Thanks for the info. I'm curious however. What is th
e date
of publication of this tome? Also, where might one find a copy?
Charlie
Kuss
Here
is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore
is
increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units.
;
That's from "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice -- Vo
lume
II." by Charles Taylor. (Thanks Jim Baker for recommending this
book.) Most car engine's bores are well under 4" and the Lyc 360 i
s 5
1/8". From the same reference, our 8.7:1 compression ratio looks l
ike
more than 10:1 if the bore were the size of a car
engine's.
Those using auto gas should keep this in mind whe
n
thinking that the low compression ratios of aircraft engines should allo
w us
to use low octane gas. Your engine may be closer to detonation tha
n
you realize.
Dan
Hopper
RV-7A
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_19207_1152723451_1--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
Terry, I did not like version 2.0 either so I scrapped the magnet and the
magnet holder of version 1.0, and potted three smaller magnets on the
outside of the FAB with 3M DP-190 epoxy. It takes a bit more force to get
it open now. I put some dychem machinists ink on the throat of the
carburetor as an indicator to show if the door was opening in flight and
contacting the carb and so far it hasn't. I absolutely will not put
anything mechanical in the path of non-filtered air that could come loose
and get sucked into the engine. The airbox really takes a beating from
vibration.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
On 7/12/06, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
You can't reach in through the exhaust opening in the lower cowl?
I glassed my version 1.0 door shut; and close the carb heat door/alt air
door at first indication of precip/birds/meteors.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How to fly Constant Speed? |
An interesting discussion. Strong statements related to the engine. And
the propeller seems to be ignored.
Certified aircraft have POH power settings directly related to the engine
/propeller combination installed on that aircraft. Unfortunately, the POH power
settings for an RV would be much more difficult to establish, because of all
of the different engine/propeller combinations used.
Just an aside. The engine may provide more horsepower with an increase in
RPM, but the propeller requires more horsepower to turn at a given airspeed
with an increase in RPM.
Empirically, in cruise at full throttle at 7,500', the 72" diameter CS
propeller on a Lycoming O-360 engine requires more horsepower than the engine
produces when the RPM is increased from 2600 to 2700. This results in a slight
decrease in airspeed.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan <jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk> |
| Subject: | MAC servo supplier |
Hi,
Can anyone help with the contact details for Menzimer Aircraft Components
Inc... I have a old address for Vista CA....but no reply from the phone
number I got... Have they gone out of business or has the business been
sold..changed owner... ??
Regards
Jan
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Hi,
Can anyone help
with the
contact details for Menzimer Aircraft Components Inc… I have a
old
address for Vista CA….but no reply from the
phone number
I got… Have they gone out of business or has the business been
sold..changed owner… ??
Regards
Jan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
Here is my take on the FAB alternate air intake. The FAB was first
introduced without any regard to alternate air intake. Someone, or perhaps
several had a problem with ice on the carb filter as I understand it due to
flying into icing conditions, ie, freezing rain, or snow and the carb heat
activated after the fact did not melt the ice because the warmed air could
not flow to melt the ice. The pop up door remedied this problem but on some
large engines like the 360 it could open due to the amount of vacuum created
during high power settings such as during take off in perhaps dusty
conditions. That could affect engine longevity because unfiltered air was
getting into the engine. So the pop up door was replaced with a manual door
that the pilot had to activate with a pull lever. The carb heat feature can
close off all freezing moisture if activated before the air filter
completely freezes, thereby cutting off all air movement through the filter.
The new manually activated door allows unfiltered air into the carb when
done can get through the filter.
I don't think there is any problem with the FAB without an alternate air
solution IF the carb heat is utilized before the air filter freezes over
solid. So if the pilot recognizes the possibility of snow or freezing rain
situation and pulls carb heat before air flow is totally cut off, there
should not be a reason to activate the new manual alternate air solution as
the heated air from carb heat will melt the ice on the filter.
Based on this understanding, I removed the pop up door to save my engine
from possible harm and glassed over it and did not install the sliding door
solution. Aside from not activating carb heat in time, the one situation
that the manual alternate air system will help on is if a plastic bag, or
bird, or something is ingested in the air input that cuts off air to the
carb. I don't know but the vacuum pressure could be strong enough to burst
a bag and it might not be a problem without the alternate air. I liked the
pop up door before I learned of its weakness. I am surprised Vans did not
just strengthen the door so it could not accidentally deploy. Someone
suggested adding stronger magnets. I think that is a better solution.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "low pass" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to fly Constant Speed? |
Lots of detail above. Two VERY GENERAL sequences of operation used to operate
a CS prop/engine combo:
Enrich the mixture, increase prop rpm, increase power (throttle).
Decrease power (throttle), decrease rpm, lean the mixture.
The specific numbers will vary with engine, prop, AC, etc. There are also lots
of variations to these general sequences.
Search for contollable pitch propeller (FAA lingo). Try the FAA document, Airplane
Flying Handbook.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-5of7.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=46751#46751
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
Thanks Indiana Larry. That all makes good sense, but I have fuel injection
and therefore no carb heat door. A carb heat door would solve part of the
problem -- if a bird or big snowball got stuck in the intake ahead of the
carb heat inlet -- but the alternate air door is intended to also let air
into the engine if the filter gets covered with ice, as I understand it. So
a carb heat door, even with a fuel injection system, would solve half of the
problem, or handle some but not all of the anticipated possible air inlet
blockages.
And thanks North Carolina Larry. Because I have a nosewheel, I don't think I
could reach up in there to close the door properly, but I would sure give it
a try before I removed the lower cowl.
I think I can live with what I have, but I am still hoping someone has come
up with an idea that makes this door work as intended. I have been thinking
about getting a control cable with a T-handle and push-button to discourage
me from pulling the wrong knob, but my history warns me that might not stop
me.
Thanks,
Terry
Here is my take on the FAB alternate air intake. The FAB was first
introduced without any regard to alternate air intake. Someone, or perhaps
several had a problem with ice on the carb filter as I understand it due to
flying into icing conditions, ie, freezing rain, or snow and the carb heat
activated after the fact did not melt the ice because the warmed air could
not flow to melt the ice. The pop up door remedied this problem but on some
large engines like the 360 it could open due to the amount of vacuum created
during high power settings such as during take off in perhaps dusty
conditions. That could affect engine longevity because unfiltered air was
getting into the engine. So the pop up door was replaced with a manual door
that the pilot had to activate with a pull lever. The carb heat feature can
close off all freezing moisture if activated before the air filter
completely freezes, thereby cutting off all air movement through the filter.
The new manually activated door allows unfiltered air into the carb when
done can get through the filter.
I don't think there is any problem with the FAB without an alternate air
solution IF the carb heat is utilized before the air filter freezes over
solid. So if the pilot recognizes the possibility of snow or freezing rain
situation and pulls carb heat before air flow is totally cut off, there
should not be a reason to activate the new manual alternate air solution as
the heated air from carb heat will melt the ice on the filter.
Based on this understanding, I removed the pop up door to save my engine
from possible harm and glassed over it and did not install the sliding door
solution. Aside from not activating carb heat in time, the one situation
that the manual alternate air system will help on is if a plastic bag, or
bird, or something is ingested in the air input that cuts off air to the
carb. I don't know but the vacuum pressure could be strong enough to burst
a bag and it might not be a problem without the alternate air. I liked the
pop up door before I learned of its weakness. I am surprised Vans did not
just strengthen the door so it could not accidentally deploy. Someone
suggested adding stronger magnets. I think that is a better solution.
Indiana Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Ted,
Yes, lots of things determine the octane required. Combustion chamber shape
is certainly one which is very significant. In fact the open chamber like
our Lycomings, in general, are the least resistant to detonation according to
this book.
All other things being equal, it IS fair to say that a larger bore engine
requires higher octane fuel. This is not a rule of thumb, but was determined
by a lot of testing. There are many graphs in this book which show the data
from these tests. The book admits that there was (is?) still much to learn
about the causes and cures of detonation. I'm not sure how much we've learned
since then, but I think anything written in 1968 still applies to Lycomings!
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/12/2006 12:58:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tedd(at)vansairforce.org writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bore is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units.
Dan:
This is a rule of thumb that is meant to compare similarly designed engines
of
different displacements, such as the O-320 and O-360. It would be a mistake
to
apply it to significantly different engine designs without taking into
consideration other factors. For example, combustion chamber shape is
equally
significant, so that a smaller-bore combustion chamber can require higher
octane than a larger-bore chamber, at the same CR, if its shape is more
conducive to detonation. One can't simply conclude that one engine requires
higher octane than another simply because its bore is larger.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MAC servo supplier |
Jan,
Ray Allan purchased the company. MAC is now RAC. Go to:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
Charlie Kuss
>Hi,
>
>Can anyone help with the contact details for
>Menzimer Aircraft Components Inc=85 I have a old
>address for Vista CA=85.but no reply from the
>phone number I got=85 Have they gone out of
>business or has the business been sold..changed owner=85 ??
>
>Regards
>
>Jan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MAC servo supplier |
Try this:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/
Jan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Can anyone help with the contact details for Menzimer Aircraft
> Components Inc... I have a old address for Vista CA....but no reply
> from the phone number I got... Have they gone out of business or has
> the business been sold..changed owner... ??
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
One thing to think about. Many RV's don't have enough temperature rise
with carb heat to do much good. That little tube with the bite out of it
that Van's sells is about useless. Deploying carb heat in a timely
manner in snow might not do enough and you might still wind up with
filter blockage. Even if you have to manually reset it after use,
alternate air might save the day sometime.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:18 PM
I don't think there is any problem with the FAB without an alternate air
solution IF the carb heat is utilized before the air filter freezes over
solid. So if the pilot recognizes the possibility of snow or freezing
rain
situation and pulls carb heat before air flow is totally cut off, there
should not be a reason to activate the new manual alternate air solution
as
the heated air from carb heat will melt the ice on the filter.
Based on this understanding, I removed the pop up door to save my engine
from possible harm and glassed over it and did not install the sliding
door
solution. Aside from not activating carb heat in time, the one
situation
that the manual alternate air system will help on is if a plastic bag,
or
bird, or something is ingested in the air input that cuts off air to the
carb. I don't know but the vacuum pressure could be strong enough to
burst
a bag and it might not be a problem without the alternate air. I liked
the
pop up door before I learned of its weakness. I am surprised Vans did
not
just strengthen the door so it could not accidentally deploy. Someone
suggested adding stronger magnets. I think that is a better solution.
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> I installed Van's first version of the alternate air intake, the one
with
> the magnet holding the door closed. It didn't look like it was going
to
> work
> well so when the reports started coming in about them not closing or
> staying
> open, I junked that Filtered Air Box and ordered another one. Then
Van's
> came out with version 2.0 of the alternate air intake, a round opening
in
> the bottom of the F.A.B. with a door that pivots on one screw. I
installed
> that in my new F.A.B. I don't like this one either. My best efforts
still
> mean it's a one-shot deal. If I open it I will have to remove the
lower
> cowl
> to get it completely closed again. Considering that it is an emergency
air
> source and would only be opened when I thought the front opening was
> obstructed, that isn't completely unreasonable.
>
> But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone
> pulls
> on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
>
> Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
Terry,
I agree -- its a one shot deal. I couldn't get mine to seal all that well
either, so I put a very small bead of RTV around it. Its there only for a
rare emergency.
One correction though. You can easily close it with only the upper cowl off.
Dan Hopped
RV-7A 200 HP IO-360
In a message dated 7/12/2006 12:21:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
terry(at)tcwatson.com writes:
But I hate the idea of needing to remove the lower cowl anytime anyone pulls
on the control, intentionally or otherwise.
Maybe I am missing something important here. Any thoughts?
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
On my RV-6A (following involuntary glider training precipitated by snow
in the FAB) I built a somewhat complicated filter bypass that takes the
carb heat air (not hot enough to melt snow) and dumps it in the FAB
AFTER the air filter. See
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/RV6_FAB.jpg>
I like Van's alternate air solutions better than what I built for my
-6A, but Van's wasn't available at the time.
For my RV-10 (IO-540) I'm using a hinged alternate air door on the
bottom of the FAB that opens and closes using the push/pull cable,
rather than the "one way" sliding door arrangement. Photo is at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/Alt_air.jpg>. I've not flown the -10
yet.
Tim Lewis
N47TD
Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
> One thing to think about. Many RV's don't have enough temperature rise
> with carb heat to do much good. That little tube with the bite out of it
> that Van's sells is about useless. Deploying carb heat in a timely
> manner in snow might not do enough and you might still wind up with
> filter blockage. Even if you have to manually reset it after use,
> alternate air might save the day sometime.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
I have a '40 Ford coupe with a flathead V8 and 3 wodden clothespins on the
fuel line to the carb. IT WORKS.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jacking up an RV |
I have a local RV friend that has developed a simple but effective
jack for RV 6s and 7s. that works inboard of the gear, thus is out of
your way!
If there is an interest I'll get a picture . . . I don't know if he's
selling or simply sharing the plans but it looks like a better
solution to me? (But I'm a RV-8 guy)
Send me an email directly and I'll put you in touch.
Good luck!
Bob in SE Iowa
On 7/10/06, Emrath wrote:
>
> There has been a lot of information shared over the years on tires and
> changing of tires. I'm about to finish installing my gear and would like to
> know if the Avery RV Jack Stand is the way to go or not. I would like to
> hear from some who can extol the benefits of this method of changing tires
> or from anyone that was not satisfied with this type of jacking up the RV
> and what they did instead.
>
> Marty in Brentwood
> RV-6A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: re:Clothes pins |
In a message dated 7/13/06 8:30:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mark(at)macomb.com
writes:
> At
> one point we were told about this great new idea of vaporizing the fuel
> before it reached the cylinders. Gee, I believe that a couple of bicycle
> mechanics from Ohio used this method on an engine back in 1903.
======================
Mark:
I did not see the "This is humor" note, I guess I missed it.
The Internet is a super tool, unfortunately it also spreads BS faster than
The Man of Steel can fly.
Have you ever heard the story of skunk essence being used to prolong the
smell of perfume? And that is also the reason why perfume cost more than cologne
(hard to find people to mile a skunk). I started that story way back when I
was about 11 years old.
As for the idea about atomizing the fuel before it reaches the cylinders, I
did not know my breven thought of that ... I thought I did way back in 1966. I
made a plate that fit between the Carb and the intake manifold. It had an
impeller mounted on it. It spun from the suction of the cylinders and being
that it was below the carburetor the idea was droplets of fuel would hit the
impeller and be broken up still further. I never patented the idea, but a few
years later I saw my idea being sold in J.C. Whitney.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
I had a serious response to the original clothespin post, with my scientific
testing nose in the air, when I finally saw the "humor" comment. Almost
made quite a fool of myself, which wouldn't have been hard. After that I
just had get out of the house and to go to the hanger to build some more,
clapping my hands as I left and kissing my clove of garlic I hang round my
neck (just that morning got a fresh batch). Those damned elephants haven't
been around since I started clapping, and I'm not the only one who's making
sure they stay away. Lot of the neighbors clap as well. Clearly it's
working. Not sure about the vampires. Hard to tell.
John Jessen
-10 Tailcone
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:17 AM
In a message dated 7/13/06 8:30:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mark(at)macomb.com
writes:
> At
> one point we were told about this great new idea of vaporizing the
> fuel before it reached the cylinders. Gee, I believe that a couple of
> bicycle mechanics from Ohio used this method on an engine back in 1903.
======================
Mark:
I did not see the "This is humor" note, I guess I missed it.
The Internet is a super tool, unfortunately it also spreads BS faster than
The Man of Steel can fly.
Have you ever heard the story of skunk essence being used to prolong the
smell of perfume? And that is also the reason why perfume cost more than
cologne (hard to find people to mile a skunk). I started that story way
back when I was about 11 years old.
As for the idea about atomizing the fuel before it reaches the cylinders, I
did not know my breven thought of that ... I thought I did way back in 1966.
I made a plate that fit between the Carb and the intake manifold. It had an
impeller mounted on it. It spun from the suction of the cylinders and being
that it was below the carburetor the idea was droplets of fuel would hit the
impeller and be broken up still further. I never patented the idea, but a
few years later I saw my idea being sold in J.C. Whitney.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
"This is a rule of thumb that is meant to compare similarly designed engi
nes
of
different displacements,"
Ted, you hit the nail more on the head with the term "displacements". Da
n
actually said bore size and I am thinking either he meant different or th
e
book was a little skewed based on it's age. Of course bore size, chamber
shape, stroke, piston composition, piston shape, and squish all play an
active role in this. I don't know much about the lycomings, but even wit
h a
relatively high compression ratio, you can achieve pretty good dynamics b
y
optimizing the squish and picking the right piston for the application.
Lycomings may not apply since the availability of products is more limite
d
than typical auto engines.
Tim
ex Auto Machine Shop Owner but did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last
night
RV-6
-------Original Message-------
> Here is something I didn't know until recently. When the engine's bor
e
is
> increased from 4" to 5", the octane required increases by 10 units.
Dan:
This is a rule of thumb that is meant to compare similarly designed engin
es
of
different displacements, such as the O-320 and O-360. It would be a mist
ake
to
apply it to significantly different engine designs without taking into
consideration other factors. For example, combustion chamber shape is
equally
significant, so that a smaller-bore combustion chamber can require higher
octane than a larger-bore chamber, at the same CR, if its shape is more
conducive to detonation. One can't simply conclude that one engine requi
res
higher octane than another simply because its bore is larger.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New F.A.B. alternate air intake |
I've done something a little different on my RV-6A. I've tested Van's
original magnet scheme and found that my O-320-D1A engine doesn't open it
under normal take off conditions. A plugged filter does open it OK. (Don't
ask how I know.) The actual implementation of the trap door does not open
into the lower cowl, but rather, into the FAB box it self. There's enough
space between the bottom of the filter assembly and the FAB box shell to
allow for the intake air flow. This way, the carb heat is always available
to either filtered or unfiltered air. I periodically check the
position/operation of the trap door by inserting a stiff wire through a
small hole in the FAB box. And, yes, I epoxied the magnet into position so
it can't get detached.....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
720 Hrs 3'd offender
Building an RV-7A
Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu>
On my RV-6A (following involuntary glider training precipitated by
snow
in the FAB) I built a somewhat complicated filter bypass that takes
the
carb heat air (not hot enough to melt snow) and dumps it in the FAB
AFTER the air filter. See
< " target=otherpages>
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/RV6_FAB.jpg>
http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/RV6_FAB.jpg>
I like Van's alternate air solutions better than what I built for my
-6A, but Van's wasn't available at the time.
For my RV-10 (IO-540) I'm using a hinged alternate air door on the
bottom of the FAB that opens and closes using the push/pull cable,
rather than the "one way" sliding door arrangement. Photo is at
< ." target=otherpages>
<http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/Alt_air.jpg>
http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/Alt_air.jpg>. I've not flown the -10
yet.
Tim Lewis
N47TD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
The FAA aviation weather book describes haze as a yellowish or bluish tinged
uniformly distributed contaminant formed from salt or dust particles. A
temperature inversion keeps them from being diluted. Flying in haze
yesterday, I started wondering why it seemed to thicken as I ascended. And
why do ground stations report 6 miles when you can't see 6 miles from one
mile agl? The book also says visibility is reduced toward the sun but I
thought having the sun behind you would lessen visibility because of
reflection from the particles back toward your eye. Any thoughts/info?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com> |
July 02, 2006 - July 13, 2006
RV-Archive.digest.vol-sb