Engines-Archive.digest.vol-an
December 21, 2005 - June 27, 2006
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> > degrees
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
> > Performance
> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine was
> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity since
> > (in
> > my basement workshop).
> > Hope this additional info helps,
> > Jim
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> > degrees
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
> though
> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
> >> Archie
> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set the
> >>> mag.
> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop not
> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
> rotating
> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
> >>> rotating
> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no FOD
> in
> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to do
> >>> to
> >>> correct it?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
(but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and to
rotate
the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
probability.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Say it ain't so.
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jim...
>>
>> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
>> pump
>> push rod...
>>
>> Best... Steve
>>
>>
>> ----Original Message Follows----
>> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
>>
>>
>> Philip,
>> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
>> felt
>> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was present
>> for
>> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
>> they
>> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during reassembly.
>>
>> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making a
>> full
>> 360.
>>
>> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well during
>> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs in
>> each
>> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm not
>> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve covers
>> and
>> start trying to isolate the cause.
>>
>> Thanks for your response,
>> Jim
>>
>> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
>> > Clonky -
>> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
>> >
>> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
>> >
>> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
>> > split
>> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
>> > half-cases.
>> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it can
>> > get
>> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
>> > allow
>> > the
>> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
>> >
>> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do too,
>> > and
>> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
>> >
>> > Was the engine "pickled"?
>> >
>> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and unfortunately
>> this
>> > can't be sent through e-mail...
>> >
>> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers. Remove
>> > the
>> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens when
>> > one
>> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Philip
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
>> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> > degrees
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
>> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
>> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
>> > Performance
>> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine was
>> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity since
>> > (in
>> > my basement workshop).
>> > Hope this additional info helps,
>> > Jim
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> > degrees
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
>> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
>> though
>> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
>> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
>> >> Archie
>> >> Archie's Racing Service
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> To:
>> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set the
>> >>> mag.
>> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop not
>> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
>> rotating
>> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
>> >>> rotating
>> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
>> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no FOD
>> in
>> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
>> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to do
>> >>> to
>> >>> correct it?
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Jim
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Johnson" <glasair(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Jim,
An easy thing to do would be to check for a valve contacting the top of
a piston by removing the spark plugs. This could be caused by either a stuck
valve or a lifter stuck in the fully pumped up position.
Good luck
Ken Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
> (but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and
to
> rotate
> the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
> probability.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
> To:
> Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
> >
> > Say it ain't so.
> > Jim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
degrees
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim...
> >>
> >> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
> >> pump
> >> push rod...
> >>
> >> Best... Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> ----Original Message Follows----
> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
degrees
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
> >>
> >>
> >> Philip,
> >> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
> >> felt
> >> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was
present
> >> for
> >> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
> >> they
> >> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during
reassembly.
> >>
> >> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making a
> >> full
> >> 360.
> >>
> >> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well
during
> >> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs in
> >> each
> >> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm
not
> >> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve covers
> >> and
> >> start trying to isolate the cause.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your response,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
> >> > Clonky -
> >> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
> >> >
> >> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
> >> >
> >> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
> >> > split
> >> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
> >> > half-cases.
> >> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it can
> >> > get
> >> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
> >> > allow
> >> > the
> >> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
> >> >
> >> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do too,
> >> > and
> >> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
> >> >
> >> > Was the engine "pickled"?
> >> >
> >> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and unfortunately
> >> this
> >> > can't be sent through e-mail...
> >> >
> >> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers. Remove
> >> > the
> >> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens when
> >> > one
> >> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Philip
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Stone
> >> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> >> > degrees
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
> >> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
> >> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
> >> > Performance
> >> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine was
> >> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity
since
> >> > (in
> >> > my basement workshop).
> >> > Hope this additional info helps,
> >> > Jim
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> >> > To:
> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> >> > degrees
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
> >> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
> >> though
> >> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
> >> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
> >> >> Archie
> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
> >> >> To:
> >> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
degrees
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set the
> >> >>> mag.
> >> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop
not
> >> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
> >> rotating
> >> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
> >> >>> rotating
> >> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
> >> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no
FOD
> >> in
> >> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
> >> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to
do
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> correct it?
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Jim
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Good point.
Simply remove the rocker arms. That should eliminate valve movement,
and if the crank turns easily 720+ degrees, you have isolated the problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Johnson" <glasair(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Jim,
> An easy thing to do would be to check for a valve contacting the top of
> a piston by removing the spark plugs. This could be caused by either a
> stuck
> valve or a lifter stuck in the fully pumped up position.
> Good luck
> Ken Johnson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>>
>> Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
>> (but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and
> to
>> rotate
>> the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
>> probability.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> To:
>> Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Say it ain't so.
>> > Jim
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >
>> >
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jim...
>> >>
>> >> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
>> >> pump
>> >> push rod...
>> >>
>> >> Best... Steve
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----Original Message Follows----
>> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> To:
>> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Philip,
>> >> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
>> >> felt
>> >> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was
> present
>> >> for
>> >> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
>> >> they
>> >> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during
> reassembly.
>> >>
>> >> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making
>> >> a
>> >> full
>> >> 360.
>> >>
>> >> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well
> during
>> >> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs in
>> >> each
>> >> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm
> not
>> >> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve
>> >> covers
>> >> and
>> >> start trying to isolate the cause.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your response,
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
>> >> > Clonky -
>> >> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
>> >> >
>> >> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
>> >> > split
>> >> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
>> >> > half-cases.
>> >> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it can
>> >> > get
>> >> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
>> >> > allow
>> >> > the
>> >> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do
>> >> > too,
>> >> > and
>> >> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the engine "pickled"?
>> >> >
>> >> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and
>> >> > unfortunately
>> >> this
>> >> > can't be sent through e-mail...
>> >> >
>> >> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers. Remove
>> >> > the
>> >> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens
>> >> > when
>> >> > one
>> >> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> > Philip
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> >> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Stone
>> >> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> >> > degrees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
>> >> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
>> >> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
>> >> > Performance
>> >> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine
>> >> > was
>> >> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity
> since
>> >> > (in
>> >> > my basement workshop).
>> >> > Hope this additional info helps,
>> >> > Jim
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>> >> > To:
>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> >> > degrees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
>> >> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
>> >> though
>> >> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
>> >> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
>> >> >> Archie
>> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> >> To:
>> >> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set the
>> >> >>> mag.
>> >> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop
> not
>> >> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
>> >> rotating
>> >> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
>> >> >>> rotating
>> >> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
>> >> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no
> FOD
>> >> in
>> >> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
>> >> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to
> do
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> correct it?
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Jim
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TBelvin38(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/20/05 |
Sir, you may have something stuck on the crank gear. You may be able to see
through the mag hole into the acc case. What ever you do don't force it.Who
did
the rebuild on it? Best of luck.
Tom Belvin A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I will
varify that again tomorrow.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Johnson" <glasair(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Jim,
> An easy thing to do would be to check for a valve contacting the top of
> a piston by removing the spark plugs. This could be caused by either a
> stuck
> valve or a lifter stuck in the fully pumped up position.
> Good luck
> Ken Johnson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>>
>> Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
>> (but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and
> to
>> rotate
>> the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
>> probability.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> To:
>> Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Say it ain't so.
>> > Jim
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >
>> >
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jim...
>> >>
>> >> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
>> >> pump
>> >> push rod...
>> >>
>> >> Best... Steve
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----Original Message Follows----
>> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> To:
>> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Philip,
>> >> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
>> >> felt
>> >> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was
> present
>> >> for
>> >> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
>> >> they
>> >> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during
> reassembly.
>> >>
>> >> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making
>> >> a
>> >> full
>> >> 360.
>> >>
>> >> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well
> during
>> >> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs in
>> >> each
>> >> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm
> not
>> >> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve
>> >> covers
>> >> and
>> >> start trying to isolate the cause.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your response,
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
>> >> > Clonky -
>> >> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
>> >> >
>> >> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
>> >> > split
>> >> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
>> >> > half-cases.
>> >> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it can
>> >> > get
>> >> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
>> >> > allow
>> >> > the
>> >> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do
>> >> > too,
>> >> > and
>> >> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the engine "pickled"?
>> >> >
>> >> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and
>> >> > unfortunately
>> >> this
>> >> > can't be sent through e-mail...
>> >> >
>> >> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers. Remove
>> >> > the
>> >> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens
>> >> > when
>> >> > one
>> >> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> > Philip
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> >> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Stone
>> >> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> >> > degrees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
>> >> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
>> >> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
>> >> > Performance
>> >> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine
>> >> > was
>> >> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity
> since
>> >> > (in
>> >> > my basement workshop).
>> >> > Hope this additional info helps,
>> >> > Jim
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>> >> > To:
>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> >> > degrees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
>> >> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
>> >> though
>> >> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
>> >> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
>> >> >> Archie
>> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> >> To:
>> >> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set the
>> >> >>> mag.
>> >> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop
> not
>> >> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
>> >> rotating
>> >> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
>> >> >>> rotating
>> >> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
>> >> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no
> FOD
>> >> in
>> >> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
>> >> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to
> do
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> correct it?
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Jim
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/20/05 |
An old timer with hundreds of overhauls, at my local FBO. He used to work
on race cars in his earlier years.
Thanks for the steer.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <TBelvin38(at)aol.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/20/05
>
> Sir, you may have something stuck on the crank gear. You may be able to
> see
> through the mag hole into the acc case. What ever you do don't force
> it.Who
> did
> the rebuild on it? Best of luck.
> Tom Belvin A&P
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Depending on position, not necessarily.
It may rule out valve/piston interference, but
not valve/guide clearance, or lack of.
Removing the rockers and rotating will also verify this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I
> will
> varify that again tomorrow.
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Johnson" <glasair(at)epix.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>>
>> Jim,
>> An easy thing to do would be to check for a valve contacting the top
>> of
>> a piston by removing the spark plugs. This could be caused by either a
>> stuck
>> valve or a lifter stuck in the fully pumped up position.
>> Good luck
>> Ken Johnson
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
>>> (but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and
>> to
>>> rotate
>>> the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
>>> probability.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>> degrees
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Say it ain't so.
>>> > Jim
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
>>> > To:
>>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim...
>>> >>
>>> >> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
>>> >> pump
>>> >> push rod...
>>> >>
>>> >> Best... Steve
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----Original Message Follows----
>>> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>> >> To:
>>> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Philip,
>>> >> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
>>> >> felt
>>> >> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was
>> present
>>> >> for
>>> >> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
>>> >> they
>>> >> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during
>> reassembly.
>>> >>
>>> >> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making
>>> >> a
>>> >> full
>>> >> 360.
>>> >>
>>> >> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well
>> during
>>> >> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs
>>> >> in
>>> >> each
>>> >> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm
>> not
>>> >> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve
>>> >> covers
>>> >> and
>>> >> start trying to isolate the cause.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for your response,
>>> >> Jim
>>> >>
>>> >> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
>>> >> > Clonky -
>>> >> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
>>> >> > split
>>> >> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
>>> >> > half-cases.
>>> >> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it
>>> >> > can
>>> >> > get
>>> >> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
>>> >> > allow
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do
>>> >> > too,
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Was the engine "pickled"?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and
>>> >> > unfortunately
>>> >> this
>>> >> > can't be sent through e-mail...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers.
>>> >> > Remove
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens
>>> >> > when
>>> >> > one
>>> >> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regards
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Philip
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> >> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
>> Stone
>>> >> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>> >> > degrees
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
>>> >> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
>>> >> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
>>> >> > Performance
>>> >> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine
>>> >> > was
>>> >> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity
>> since
>>> >> > (in
>>> >> > my basement workshop).
>>> >> > Hope this additional info helps,
>>> >> > Jim
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>>> >> > To:
>>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>> >> > degrees
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
>>> >> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
>>> >> though
>>> >> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
>>> >> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
>>> >> >> Archie
>>> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
>>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>> >> >> To:
>>> >> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set
>>> >> >>> the
>>> >> >>> mag.
>>> >> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop
>> not
>>> >> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
>>> >> rotating
>>> >> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
>>> >> >>> rotating
>>> >> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
>>> >> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no
>> FOD
>>> >> in
>>> >> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
>>> >> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to
>> do
>>> >> >>> to
>>> >> >>> correct it?
>>> >> >>> Thanks,
>>> >> >>> Jim
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Must have my head up my ---!
Your problem must have been generated after assembly,
inasmuch as after the cylinders are installed, the pushrods must be set to
the proper clearance, therefore the engine must be rotated.
If there was a problem then, it would have manifested itself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Good, does that give you a better idea of where I should start looking, I
haven't dug into the rocker arm removal so I'm up for anything.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Must have my head up my ---!
> Your problem must have been generated after assembly,
> inasmuch as after the cylinders are installed, the pushrods must be set to
> the proper clearance, therefore the engine must be rotated.
> If there was a problem then, it would have manifested itself.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Jim...
There's no magic bullet here... You might have to start taking it apart...
Best... Steve
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:13:16 -0500
Good, does that give you a better idea of where I should start looking, I
haven't dug into the rocker arm removal so I'm up for anything.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Must have my head up my ---!
> Your problem must have been generated after assembly,
> inasmuch as after the cylinders are installed, the pushrods must be set
to
> the proper clearance, therefore the engine must be rotated.
> If there was a problem then, it would have manifested itself.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip A. C." <philipac(at)suncraftgroup.com> |
| Subject: | Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Jim,
If it's an exhaust valve that is stuck, the piston will be on its way down,
close to BDC.
I'd check under the valve covers first, that's easily accessible... Then,
after this is ruled out, the accessory case. Then... Do you need a full
re-assembly guide, with pictures? :>)
Have a nice day
Philip
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
degrees
During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I will
varify that again tomorrow.
Thanks,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Johnson" <glasair(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> Jim,
> An easy thing to do would be to check for a valve contacting the top of
> a piston by removing the spark plugs. This could be caused by either a
> stuck
> valve or a lifter stuck in the fully pumped up position.
> Good luck
> Ken Johnson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>>
>> Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
>> (but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and
> to
>> rotate
>> the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
>> probability.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> To:
>> Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Say it ain't so.
>> > Jim
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
>> > To:
>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >
>> >
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jim...
>> >>
>> >> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
>> >> pump
>> >> push rod...
>> >>
>> >> Best... Steve
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----Original Message Follows----
>> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> To:
>> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Philip,
>> >> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
>> >> felt
>> >> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was
> present
>> >> for
>> >> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
>> >> they
>> >> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during
> reassembly.
>> >>
>> >> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making
>> >> a
>> >> full
>> >> 360.
>> >>
>> >> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well
> during
>> >> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs in
>> >> each
>> >> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm
> not
>> >> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve
>> >> covers
>> >> and
>> >> start trying to isolate the cause.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your response,
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
>> >> > Clonky -
>> >> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
>> >> >
>> >> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
>> >> > split
>> >> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
>> >> > half-cases.
>> >> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it can
>> >> > get
>> >> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
>> >> > allow
>> >> > the
>> >> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do
>> >> > too,
>> >> > and
>> >> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the engine "pickled"?
>> >> >
>> >> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and
>> >> > unfortunately
>> >> this
>> >> > can't be sent through e-mail...
>> >> >
>> >> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers. Remove
>> >> > the
>> >> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens
>> >> > when
>> >> > one
>> >> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> > Philip
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> >> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
> Stone
>> >> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> >> > degrees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
>> >> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
>> >> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
>> >> > Performance
>> >> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine
>> >> > was
>> >> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity
> since
>> >> > (in
>> >> > my basement workshop).
>> >> > Hope this additional info helps,
>> >> > Jim
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>> >> > To:
>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> >> > degrees
>> >> >
>> >> >
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
>> >> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
>> >> though
>> >> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
>> >> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
>> >> >> Archie
>> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>> >> >> To:
>> >> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set the
>> >> >>> mag.
>> >> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop
> not
>> >> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
>> >> rotating
>> >> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
>> >> >>> rotating
>> >> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
>> >> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no
> FOD
>> >> in
>> >> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
>> >> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to
> do
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> correct it?
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Jim
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Philip,
I have an overhaul manual so it should provide enough pics to get me
started. So that I understand you, are you proposing removing the valve
covers and then rotating the engine while watching the function of each
valve?
I can do that.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip A. C." <philipac(at)suncraftgroup.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
> Jim,
>
> If it's an exhaust valve that is stuck, the piston will be on its way
> down,
> close to BDC.
>
> I'd check under the valve covers first, that's easily accessible... Then,
> after this is ruled out, the accessory case. Then... Do you need a full
> re-assembly guide, with pictures? :>)
>
> Have a nice day
>
> Philip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>
>
> During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I
> will
> varify that again tomorrow.
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Johnson" <glasair(at)epix.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>>
>> Jim,
>> An easy thing to do would be to check for a valve contacting the top
>> of
>> a piston by removing the spark plugs. This could be caused by either a
>> stuck
>> valve or a lifter stuck in the fully pumped up position.
>> Good luck
>> Ken Johnson
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not likely in the accessory case based on your description and symptoms,
>>> (but possible). The crankshaft gear is one of the smallest in there, and
>> to
>>> rotate
>>> the crank in either direction around 350 deg."almost" dismisses that
>>> probability.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Fw: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>> degrees
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Say it ain't so.
>>> > Jim
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com>
>>> > To:
>>> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim...
>>> >>
>>> >> Could be in the assesory case...Maybe even the oil pump...Or the fuel
>>> >> pump
>>> >> push rod...
>>> >>
>>> >> Best... Steve
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----Original Message Follows----
>>> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>> >> To:
>>> >> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>> >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:27:34 -0500
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Philip,
>>> >> The hang is solid, firm not mushy and has sort of a clunk that can be
>>> >> felt
>>> >> in the accessory section, which is why I removed the mag. I was
>> present
>>> >> for
>>> >> most of the overhaul and I had my mech disassemble the jugs to ensure
>>> >> they
>>> >> were assembled correctly. Perhaps a mistake was made during
>> reassembly.
>>> >>
>>> >> The engine has always been very stiff and I don't recall every making
>>> >> a
>>> >> full
>>> >> 360.
>>> >>
>>> >> The engine was not pickled, but as stated earlier, was oiled well
>> during
>>> >> assymbly and has been at 70 degrees year round with desicator plugs
>>> >> in
>>> >> each
>>> >> of the upper plug holes. Moisture doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm
>> not
>>> >> sure how to check for the the pushrods but will remove the valve
>>> >> covers
>>> >> and
>>> >> start trying to isolate the cause.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for your response,
>>> >> Jim
>>> >>
>>> >> > How is the feel of the "hang"? Solid with a Clonk, solid but not so
>>> >> > Clonky -
>>> >> > rather giving for a few thousandth before to stop, or mushy?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Was the engine rotated before, when fresh from overhaul?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There is another type of FO possible: many mechanics use pieces of
>>> >> > split
>>> >> > rubber hose to hold the conrods upright when joining the two
>>> >> > half-cases.
>>> >> > Forget to remove one (unlikely, but can still happen...), and it
>>> >> > can
>>> >> > get
>>> >> > stuck between the crankshaft anf the cylinder's skirt. It may even
>>> >> > allow
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > engine to be rotated a few times before to wedge itself.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Internal corrosion can also do... pray not! A stuck valve can do
>>> >> > too,
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > this can be a result of corrosion on the stem.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Was the engine "pickled"?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The "feel" helps a lot in determining what's wrong, and
>>> >> > unfortunately
>>> >> this
>>> >> > can't be sent through e-mail...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Rotate slowly, listen attentively, feel through your fingers.
>>> >> > Remove
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > valve covers and check the pushrods. See if the blockage happens
>>> >> > when
>>> >> > one
>>> >> > particular rocker starts pushing on one valve.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regards
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Philip
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> >> > [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
>> Stone
>>> >> > To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
>>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>> >> > degrees
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks Archie, I was hoping you would give me you opinion.
>>> >> > Not sure about the rings. Probably Lycoming but not sure.
>>> >> > The cylinders are new. I ordered new jugs from Lycoming and had
>>> >> > Performance
>>> >> > Aero flow balance and install 10 to 1 forged pistons. The engine
>>> >> > was
>>> >> > overhauled 3 years ago and has been at constant temp and humidity
>> since
>>> >> > (in
>>> >> > my basement workshop).
>>> >> > Hope this additional info helps,
>>> >> > Jim
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
>>> >> > To:
>>> >> > Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>> >> > degrees
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Excessive choke and tight ring gaps will do it.
>>> >> >> If you are using standard aircraft rings, should not be a problem,
>>> >> though
>>> >> >> you can normally drive a truck through the gaps.
>>> >> >> Are the cylinders oversize? Were they bored correctly?
>>> >> >> Archie
>>> >> >> Archie's Racing Service
>>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> >> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>> >> >> To:
>>> >> >> Subject: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I have a 0 time overhauled Lyc 540 and while attempting to set
>>> >> >>> the
>>> >> >>> mag.
>>> >> >>> I was rotating the engine with the starter ring or flywheel (prop
>> not
>>> >> >>> installed) and noticed the engine would stop at one point while
>>> >> rotating
>>> >> >>> clockwise (60degrees btdc) and at a slightly different place when
>>> >> >>> rotating
>>> >> >>> counterclockwise(40 degrees btdc).
>>> >> >>> At both hang points, no piston was approaching TDC (indicating no
>> FOD
>>> >> in
>>> >> >>> cylinder). I removed the mag but no improvement.
>>> >> >>> Anyone have any ideas on what might cause this and what I need to
>> do
>>> >> >>> to
>>> >> >>> correct it?
>>> >> >>> Thanks,
>>> >> >>> Jim
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
It only takes a few minutes to pull a cylinder, and not all that much longer
to replace them. Why not pull the cylinders on one side of the engine,
which will allow you to inspect that side directly, plus the bottom side of
the other bank, and the interior of the crankcase? In a morning's work,
you could have the thing apart, checked, and back together.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Seems easy on paper but but keep in mind that my engine is almost ready for
flight complete with baffles, hoses, oil cooler, ect.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
> It only takes a few minutes to pull a cylinder, and not all that much
> longer
> to replace them. Why not pull the cylinders on one side of the engine,
> which will allow you to inspect that side directly, plus the bottom side
> of
> the other bank, and the interior of the crankcase? In a morning's work,
> you could have the thing apart, checked, and back together.
> JimC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Jim Stone a crit :
>
>Seems easy on paper but but keep in mind that my engine is almost ready for
>flight complete with baffles, hoses, oil cooler, ect.
>Jim
>
>
Jim,
Your engine is far from being ready for flight, since its mechanical
intergrity is in question ;-(
In my opinion, there are checks that even a mechanically challenged
pilot can perform, wether alone or with the help of his hangar mates.
The easiest thing to do is rule out the stuck valve case (most probable).
- Remove the cowlings
- Remove the spark plugs (all of them)
- Check again engine rotation
- With a big screw driver, remove rocker covers. They are always readily
accessible, even with the baffles.
- Check again engine rotation while observing rocker movement.
- Check freeness of all valves, pushing on the rocker with suitable soft
and blunt tool (tool handle ?)
- Call back with valve check results
FWIW,
With best wishes for Christmas and the New Year,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Gilles,
Thanks for a gameplan. I'll let you know the results soon.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Jim Stone a crit :
>
>>
>>Seems easy on paper but but keep in mind that my engine is almost ready
>>for
>>flight complete with baffles, hoses, oil cooler, ect.
>>Jim
>>
>>
> Jim,
>
> Your engine is far from being ready for flight, since its mechanical
> intergrity is in question ;-(
>
> In my opinion, there are checks that even a mechanically challenged
> pilot can perform, wether alone or with the help of his hangar mates.
> The easiest thing to do is rule out the stuck valve case (most probable).
>
> - Remove the cowlings
> - Remove the spark plugs (all of them)
> - Check again engine rotation
> - With a big screw driver, remove rocker covers. They are always readily
> accessible, even with the baffles.
> - Check again engine rotation while observing rocker movement.
> - Check freeness of all valves, pushing on the rocker with suitable soft
> and blunt tool (tool handle ?)
>
> - Call back with valve check results
>
> FWIW,
> With best wishes for Christmas and the New Year,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
| From: | cecilth(at)juno.com |
Take it back to the person who assembled it and say FIX IT!
Cecil
writes:
>
>
> Good, does that give you a better idea of where I should start
> looking, I
> haven't dug into the rocker arm removal so I'm up for anything.
> Thanks,
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>
>
>
> >
> > Must have my head up my ---!
> > Your problem must have been generated after assembly,
> > inasmuch as after the cylinders are installed, the pushrods must
> be set to
> > the proper clearance, therefore the engine must be rotated.
> > If there was a problem then, it would have manifested itself.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
Sorry to say this but if it won't turn it's as good as a boat anchor
right now.I know how you feel,
the last thing you want to do is rip it apart but the longer you delay,
the longer you'll be on the ground.
I absolutely hate going backwards myself but if there's one thing I've
learned this past year putting
C-IOVC together;sometimes ya just have to bite the bullet and get on
with it.I've gone backwards
so many times I feel like that's my natural state.I still have to go
through two friends of mine who are
AME's and they said ,"wait till we get through with you"!They are doing
this as a favour to me!
>
>Seems easy on paper but but keep in mind that my engine is almost ready for
>flight complete with baffles, hoses, oil cooler, ect.
>Jim
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>
>
>
>
>>
>>It only takes a few minutes to pull a cylinder, and not all that much
>>longer
>>to replace them. Why not pull the cylinders on one side of the engine,
>>which will allow you to inspect that side directly, plus the bottom side
>>of
>>the other bank, and the interior of the crankcase? In a morning's work,
>>you could have the thing apart, checked, and back together.
>>JimC
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360 degrees |
True. That means that it'll take 6 hours instead of 4 to remove two
cylinders on one bank, inspect the innards, and reassemble. I'd pull the
rockers first, and attempt to rotate, then pull the cylinders if need be.
JimC
----- Original Message -----
>>Seems easy on paper but but keep in mind that my engine is almost ready
>>for
>>flight complete with baffles, hoses, oil cooler, ect.
>>Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Won't rotate |
Jim,
I may have missed seeing every suggestion on this stuck rotation
subject, but have you used a borescope to inspect the total interior of
every cylinder? Something left in a cylinder,or a piston touching the
head seems improbable since it was pointed out that the engine had to be
turned through more than a complete revolution to check dry tappet
clearances during assembly(assuming that wasn't forgotten). Therefore,
it seems the problem developed AFTER major assembly. However,the
borescope could help search the accessory case interior for something
created during the attachment of one of the accessories. Why not remove
one-by-one the fuel pump,BOTH mags,etc and test it as each is removed.
Using the borescope into each opening as you proceed could also be
helpful to see more of the case interior along the way. This would be
far less invasive than beginning to totally dismantle the cylinders, and
you mentioned feeling and/or hearing the clunk sound near the accessory
case as I believe I recall.
Jim McCulley
> Jim,
>
> If it's an exhaust valve that is stuck, the piston will be on its way down,
> close to BDC.
>
> I'd check under the valve covers first, that's easily accessible... Then,
> after this is ruled out, the accessory case. Then... Do you need a full
> re-assembly guide, with pictures? :>)
>
> Have a nice day
>
> Philip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
> degrees
>
>
>
> During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I will
> varify that again tomorrow.
> Thanks,
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Won't rotate |
Hi Fellas,
I've got good news! After pulling rocker box covers to verify valve action
on each cylinder, I started with my next suspect area which was the
accessory section, in particular the Mag and the Vac pad area, both of which
I have had open post overhaul. No luck on either place. So, as all good
troubleshooters do prior to major tear downs looking for that Gremlin, I sat
down and starred at the engine, rethinking my strategy and attempting to
catch what I must have overlooked. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit, but
this is was my discovery.
I had installed a single and temporary bolt to hold the fly-wheel to the
crankshaft and I was turning the engine using the flywheel teeth with my
gloved hand. The bolt I chose, stuck out the back of the crank flange about
1/2" and as I rotated the engine the bolt end was contacting the Electro air
ignition pickup arm which is mounted under and just aft of the aft face of
the crank flange. Boy was I relieve to find this prior to disassembly of
the jugs.
I sure do appreciate all the help I got from those of you who took time to
respond, and it gave me the motivation to get to the bottom of the problem
ASAP.
Thanks again guys,
Jim Stone
Harmon Rocket II
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engine Won't rotate
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I may have missed seeing every suggestion on this stuck rotation
> subject, but have you used a borescope to inspect the total interior of
> every cylinder? Something left in a cylinder,or a piston touching the
> head seems improbable since it was pointed out that the engine had to be
> turned through more than a complete revolution to check dry tappet
> clearances during assembly(assuming that wasn't forgotten). Therefore,
> it seems the problem developed AFTER major assembly. However,the
> borescope could help search the accessory case interior for something
> created during the attachment of one of the accessories. Why not remove
> one-by-one the fuel pump,BOTH mags,etc and test it as each is removed.
> Using the borescope into each opening as you proceed could also be
> helpful to see more of the case interior along the way. This would be
> far less invasive than beginning to totally dismantle the cylinders, and
> you mentioned feeling and/or hearing the clunk sound near the accessory
> case as I believe I recall.
>
> Jim McCulley
>> Jim,
>>
>> If it's an exhaust valve that is stuck, the piston will be on its way
>> down,
>> close to BDC.
>>
>> I'd check under the valve covers first, that's easily accessible... Then,
>> after this is ruled out, the accessory case. Then... Do you need a full
>> re-assembly guide, with pictures? :>)
>>
>> Have a nice day
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
>> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>> degrees
>>
>>
>>
>> During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I
>> will
>> varify that again tomorrow.
>> Thanks,
>> Jim
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Won't rotate |
.Good Show !!!
What a wonderful Christmas present !
All the best,
JimC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engine Won't rotate
>
> Hi Fellas,
> I've got good news! ........ The bolt I chose, stuck out the back of the
> crank flange about
> 1/2" and as I rotated the engine the bolt end was contacting the Electro
> air
> ignition pickup arm which is mounted under and just aft of the aft face of
> the crank flange.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Won't rotateEngine Won't rotate |
That is good news! Going thru the "discovery" process is a good exercise for
us all. Troubleshooting is an art, really, and one never loses from the
experience, even someone else's. That "step back and take another look" idea
is a good one. I use it every time I go flying. .. two wings, three wheels,
one propeller, no chains. good idea.
Wes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob & Toodie Marshall" <rtmarshall(at)osb.net> |
Jim, As a rocket builder/flyer I enjoy following the threads on the
rocket,engine, and aeroelectric lists. The help you were receiving was as
good as it gets for straight forward suggestions on why that puppy wouldn't
rotate. I think back on my engine at your stage and I was lucky that I had
not installed that pickup yet and I had stacked a bunch of hardware washers
under the bolts, but they did stick through some, Thanks for shedding the
light on a simple mess up, which is hard to admit to a whole bunch of
sometimes very critical people. this helps us all to be more objective and
less critical. Bob HRII, Snowing here in the high Sierras today . Do Not
Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Won't rotate |
YAAAAAAAAAAAY!;Glad to hear it all worked out for you.I'm glad it was a
simple fix.Happy New Year!
>
>Hi Fellas,
>I've got good news! After pulling rocker box covers to verify valve action
>on each cylinder, I started with my next suspect area which was the
>accessory section, in particular the Mag and the Vac pad area, both of which
>I have had open post overhaul. No luck on either place. So, as all good
>troubleshooters do prior to major tear downs looking for that Gremlin, I sat
>down and starred at the engine, rethinking my strategy and attempting to
>catch what I must have overlooked. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit, but
>this is was my discovery.
>I had installed a single and temporary bolt to hold the fly-wheel to the
>crankshaft and I was turning the engine using the flywheel teeth with my
>gloved hand. The bolt I chose, stuck out the back of the crank flange about
>1/2" and as I rotated the engine the bolt end was contacting the Electro air
>ignition pickup arm which is mounted under and just aft of the aft face of
>the crank flange. Boy was I relieve to find this prior to disassembly of
>the jugs.
>I sure do appreciate all the help I got from those of you who took time to
>respond, and it gave me the motivation to get to the bottom of the problem
>ASAP.
>Thanks again guys,
>Jim Stone
>Harmon Rocket II
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net>
>To:
>Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engine Won't rotate
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>I may have missed seeing every suggestion on this stuck rotation
>>subject, but have you used a borescope to inspect the total interior of
>>every cylinder? Something left in a cylinder,or a piston touching the
>>head seems improbable since it was pointed out that the engine had to be
>>turned through more than a complete revolution to check dry tappet
>>clearances during assembly(assuming that wasn't forgotten). Therefore,
>>it seems the problem developed AFTER major assembly. However,the
>>borescope could help search the accessory case interior for something
>>created during the attachment of one of the accessories. Why not remove
>>one-by-one the fuel pump,BOTH mags,etc and test it as each is removed.
>>Using the borescope into each opening as you proceed could also be
>>helpful to see more of the case interior along the way. This would be
>>far less invasive than beginning to totally dismantle the cylinders, and
>>you mentioned feeling and/or hearing the clunk sound near the accessory
>>case as I believe I recall.
>>
>>Jim McCulley
>>
>>
>>>Jim,
>>>
>>>If it's an exhaust valve that is stuck, the piston will be on its way
>>>down,
>>>close to BDC.
>>>
>>>I'd check under the valve covers first, that's easily accessible... Then,
>>>after this is ruled out, the accessory case. Then... Do you need a full
>>>re-assembly guide, with pictures? :>)
>>>
>>>Have a nice day
>>>
>>>Philip
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Stone
>>>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Engine won't rotate by hand a full 360
>>>degrees
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>During the hang, no piston is near TDC, does that rule out a valve? I
>>>will
>>>varify that again tomorrow.
>>>Thanks,
>>>Jim
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Won't rotate |
| From: | "gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com 12/27/2005 20":56:02(at)roxy.matronics.com, |
Serialize complete at 12/27/2005 20:56:02(at)roxy.matronics.com
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Engine Won't rotate
Hi Fellas,
I've got good news! After pulling rocker box covers to verify valve
action
on each cylinder, I started with my next suspect area which was the
accessory section, in particular the Mag and the Vac pad area, both of
which
I have had open post overhaul. No luck on either place. So, as all good
troubleshooters do prior to major tear downs looking for that Gremlin, I
sat
down and starred at the engine, rethinking my strategy and attempting to
catch what I must have overlooked. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit, but
this is was my discovery.
I had installed a single and temporary bolt to hold the fly-wheel to the
crankshaft and I was turning the engine using the flywheel teeth with my
gloved hand. The bolt I chose, stuck out the back of the crank flange
about
1/2" and as I rotated the engine the bolt end was contacting the Electro
air
ignition pickup arm which is mounted under and just aft of the aft face of
the crank flange. Boy was I relieve to find this prior to disassembly of
the jugs.
I sure do appreciate all the help I got from those of you who took time to
respond, and it gave me the motivation to get to the bottom of the problem
ASAP.
Thanks again guys,
Jim Stone
Harmon Rocket II
Hey Jim:
I feel much better knowing I am not the only guy that has on more than one
occasion spent hours wondering how much this is going to cost while I was
looking for a problem that in the end I created! Feels great when you find
out that it was easily fixed though!
Gary
AA1B O-320
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
Would anyone have any rules of thumb on how close silicone radiator
hoses and silicone air ducts can safely be to exhaust stacks before
shielding or insulation is needed?
So far I've shielded areas that are closer than 3 or 4 inches. I am
wondering if I should wrap some glass cloth or fiberfrax on a few other
areas. Silicone is generally good for over 400F although I'm not sure
how well it conducts surface radiant heat away.
thank you for any comments
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: heat shields |
Would anyone have any rules of thumb on how close silicone radiator
hoses and silicone air ducts can safely be to exhaust stacks before
shielding or insulation is needed?
So far I've shielded areas that are closer than 3 or 4 inches. I am
wondering if I should wrap some glass cloth or fiberfrax on a few other
areas. Silicone is generally good for over 400F although I'm not sure
how well it conducts surface radiant heat away.
thank you for any comments
Ken
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hi Ken. I guess the easiest way to get the point across about radiant heat from the exhaust system is this, Go to any electric stove. turn on the top burner and let it heat up. When it is glowing "red" hot that is about 1400 f degrees. Now remember your nifty EGT gauge shows 1450- 1500 f. The first foot or so of the exhaust system starting at the head is that temp. Take your hand and hold it over the stove burner and see how fast you move your hand away... Your thoughts of 3-4" is a pretty good number to live by. Anything closer needs a heat shield to absorb the radiant heat and prevent scorching of componants. On my beast I protect the engine mounts, wires and any other thing that I don't want to get cooked. On my coolant lines leading to my radiator they are mounted clear of any excess heat source. The fact that coolant is flowing through them will help cool them but the surface may still get scorched if they are run real close to the exhaust pipes. I am coming up on 100 hours on my experimental and on every takeoff I run 1600f+ EGT temps, there is no sign of any heat related transfers that are degrading parts in the cowling. You can go the my web site www.haaspowerair.com and click on pics to see how I routed lines on the whole engine. You are wise to realize that radiant heat is a BIG factor in placing componants around the engine... Happy New Year guys..............
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
Would anyone have any rules of thumb on how close silicone radiator
hoses and silicone air ducts can safely be to exhaust stacks before
shielding or insulation is needed?
So far I've shielded areas that are closer than 3 or 4 inches. I am
wondering if I should wrap some glass cloth or fiberfrax on a few other
areas. Silicone is generally good for over 400F although I'm not sure
how well it conducts surface radiant heat away.
thank you for any comments
Ken
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hi Ken. I guess the easiest way to get the point across about radiant heat from the exhaust system is this, Go to any electric stove. turn on the top burner and let it heat up. When it is glowing "red" hot that is about 1400 f degrees. Now remember your nifty EGT gauge shows 1450- 1500 f. The first foot or so of the exhaust system starting at the head is that temp. Take your hand and hold it over the stove burner and see how fast you move your hand away.G.. Your thoughts of 3-4" is a pretty good number to live by. Anything closer needs a heat shield to absorb the radiant heat and prevent scorching of componants. On my beastI protect the engine mounts, wires and any other thing that I don't want to get cooked. On my coolant lines leading to my radiator they are mounted clear of any excess heat source. The fact that coolant is flowing through them will help cool them but the surface may still get scorched if they are run real close to the exhaust pipes. I am coming up on 100 hours on my experimental and on every takeoff I run 1600f+ EGT temps, there is no sign of any heat related transfers that are degrading parts in the cowling. You can go the my web site www.haaspowerair.com and click on pics to see how I routed lines on the whole engine. You are wise to realize that radiant heat is a BIG factor in placing componants around the engine... Happy New Year guys..............
BenHaas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: heat shields |
If it leaves a burn spot( discolorations) it is too close. TSO C51 Teflon
should not deteriorate with elevated temperatures, You know a hose is ruined
when it is crunchy when you squeeze it with hand pressure ( comes off on
your fingers ). Should be able to pass appropriate size ball through hose to
assure that interior has not be affected by anything. Just my opinion David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: heat shields |
thank you Ben and David for your comments on heat shielding.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | All New BBS Interface For Matronics List Forums! |
Dear Listers,
I'm very proud to announce a completely new BBS interface is now available for
all of the Email Lists at Matronics! This is a full-featured system that allows
for viewing, posting, attachments, polls - the works.
But the best part is that it is *completely* integrated with all of the existing
email tools currently available at Matronics! What this means at the most basic
level is that, if you post a message to List from Email in the traditional
way, it will show up on the BBS system *and* get distributed to everyone currently
subscribed to the Email List. By the same token, if you are on the BBS
and post a message to a given List-Forum, the message will not only show up on
the BBS, but also be distributed to everyone on the Email List!!
It is really a very nice implementation and I am very pleased with its operation.
All of the tools you have come to know and love such as the List Search Engine
and List Browse and Download will still be available and contain all of the
latest posts. Think of the new BBS interface as just another method of accessing
the all of the Lists.
You can use the BBS to view all of the latest posts without having to do anything
except use your browser to surf over to the site. You can view and look at
all of the various List's posts. If you want to post a new message or reply
to an existing message from the BBS, you will have to Register on the BBS. This
is a *very* simple process and will only take a couple of minutes. There is
a small icon in the upper righthand side of the main BBS page labeled "Register"
to get you started.
I strongly recommend that you use the exact *same* email address you are subscribed
to the Email Lists with when registering on the BBS. Also, while not an
absolute requirement, I would really appreciate it if people would use their full
name when choosing their Username on the BBS (for example "Matt Dralle").
This just makes it easier for everyone to know who's posting. Also, I have enabled
the ability to upload a small user picture with your profile called an
"avatar". Please use a *real* picture of yourself *with* your cloths on! Thank
you! Maximum size of the bitmap is 120x120.
You can either be subscribed to the BBS, or any number of Email Lists, or both.
Registering on the BBS will allow you to email directly to all of the various
Lists. However, to receive direct List Email, you will need to be *subscribed*
to the various Lists as you have in the past. No changes here in operation.
I have added numerous links on the BBS pointing to the Email List subscription
page.
I've had the BBS connected to the Lists for about a week now, so its already loaded
up with a fair number of messages. You can post photos and other documents
directly to the BBS and links to them will appear in the List Email distributions.
Also, when any messages posted to the BBS are viewed in the List Email
distribution, there will be a URL link at the bottom of the message pointing
back to the BBS.
And here's what you've been waiting for -- the main URL for the new Matronics Email
List BBS is:
http://forums.matronics.com
Please surf on over, Register, and have a great time! I think this will be the
dawn of a whole new era for the Lists at Matronics!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
Pilots,
Send this to OTHER PILOTS and YOUR NON-FLYING FRIENDS. Then go to the AOPA
site listed below and give the
FAA your input.
Thanks.
Since 9/11, pilots are required to follow rules that most motorists would
consider ludicrous.
The analogy below describes what it takes to fly into an Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ).
An ADIZ presently exists all around Washington D.C. The federal Aviation
Administration wants to make the Washington ADIZ permanent.
All MAJOR U.S. CITIES COULD BE NEXT.
Scenario...
Because of the Oklahoma City truck bombing, a law is passed that everyone
within 75 miles of any large city must place a call for every car trip they
make and give your name, car make, license plate number, what time you will be
leaving, specifically where you are going, and exactly when you expect to
arrive.
You will be given a number which you must write on a card and display in the
window for your entire drive. You will be given a time you can leave, and
what roads you are to follow.
You will need to call a traffic cop on your cell phone prior to leaving,
during the trip, and until you reach your destination. You will be required to
stay in constant communication. They will tell you when you are okay to enter
that 75 mile radius, and then you will talk to them for the entire drive,
including following any new instructions.
Now... If you take a wrong turn, fail to display the card properly, fail to
follow the traffic cop's instructions, lose cell phone coverage, or any of a
whole host of other things occur such as mechanical problems, you can lose
your drivers license, and possibly be arrested. If your cell phone signal
fades, the traffic cop gives confusing or contradictory instructions, or a little
dirt or sun glare makes the card hard to read, that is entirely your problem
to correct, or deal with the consequences.
If you drive a motorcycle and can't figure a way to mount the card or hear
the cell phone over the motor and wind noise, that is your problem.
If you get really lost and blunder into the wrong neighborhood, they might
blow up your car with you in it. Deadly force is not only likely, but
recommended.
You will have to do this everywhere you go, even if you pull into the street
to let you spouse out of the driveway. This is for every single-destination
trip. If you are running errands, you must treat each leg as a separate trip.
Good luck dealing with the authorities if you plan to depart or arrive
anywhere that doesn't have a traditional driveway or parking lot.
All skateboards, scooters, sleds, wagons, bicycles and tricycles are
prohibited within that 75 miles.
Sound ludicrous? Welcome to a fliers world.
Small airplanes follow these restrictions every day in the ADIZ areas even
though it is widely recognized that most general aviation aircraft cannot
carry enough explosives to create damage even close to the explosion in OKC.
Trucks however, are still allowed to drive right up to the front of most
office buildings. Any terrorist (aka idiot) can rent one, from Ryder.
All pilots are in favor of national security but there is a right way and a
wrong way to acquire it.
Creating a permanent ADIZ is the wrong way.
Aircraft first, then soon, automobiles.
The FAA has extended the ADIZ public comment period until February 6, 2006,
and will hold an AOPA-requested public meeting on its plan to make the
Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) permanent.
("AOPA" is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.)
You can contact the FAA and voice your protest to this permanent ADIZ by
going to:
_http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/_ (http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/)
Thank you for your time, please act now.
Jay Carpenter
President - Texas Aviation Association
512-454-5455
_president(at)txaa.org_ (mailto:president(at)txaa.org)
_www.txaa.org_ (http://www.txaa.org)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PERMANENT ADIZ |
None of this has any relavance to me as yet but you never know when the
Canadian government may decide to jump on the band wagon.You are
absolutely correct in what you say;it is rediculous in every way and it
is some little politicians way of solving a problem without having
looked into it in the first place.On 911 the planes used were passenger
carriers loaded with enough fuel to carry them to the west coast.They
did this on purpose so they would have a maximum amount of
explosives.The average small plane that flies anywhere can only carry
enough fuel to blow up ,if they were lucky enough to penetrate a
window,perhaps one cubical in any office anywhere in the world.That's
right ,you heard right ,one cubical.The area of about 10 sqare feet if
your lucky.Perhaps destroying someones lunch sitting on the side of a
desk.The most likely thing that would happen is that the plane would hit
the side of the building and slide down;the case of most ultra lights
anyway.We are the most feared by the government because they can hardly
see us on radar.We can do a lot of damage when destoying somebodies
lunch!Sound stupid,you bet,as stupid as the rules you just layed out!
>
>
>Pilots,
>
>Send this to OTHER PILOTS and YOUR NON-FLYING FRIENDS. Then go to the AOPA
>site listed below and give the
>FAA your input.
>Thanks.
>
>Since 9/11, pilots are required to follow rules that most motorists would
>consider ludicrous.
>
>The analogy below describes what it takes to fly into an Air Defense
>Identification Zone (ADIZ).
>
>An ADIZ presently exists all around Washington D.C. The federal Aviation
>Administration wants to make the Washington ADIZ permanent.
>
>All MAJOR U.S. CITIES COULD BE NEXT.
>
>
>Scenario...
>
>Because of the Oklahoma City truck bombing, a law is passed that everyone
>within 75 miles of any large city must place a call for every car trip they
>make and give your name, car make, license plate number, what time you will be
>leaving, specifically where you are going, and exactly when you expect to
>arrive.
>
>You will be given a number which you must write on a card and display in the
>window for your entire drive. You will be given a time you can leave, and
>what roads you are to follow.
>
>You will need to call a traffic cop on your cell phone prior to leaving,
>during the trip, and until you reach your destination. You will be required
to
>stay in constant communication. They will tell you when you are okay to enter
>that 75 mile radius, and then you will talk to them for the entire drive,
>including following any new instructions.
>
>Now... If you take a wrong turn, fail to display the card properly, fail to
>follow the traffic cop's instructions, lose cell phone coverage, or any of a
>whole host of other things occur such as mechanical problems, you can lose
>your drivers license, and possibly be arrested. If your cell phone signal
>fades, the traffic cop gives confusing or contradictory instructions, or a little
>dirt or sun glare makes the card hard to read, that is entirely your problem
>to correct, or deal with the consequences.
>
>If you drive a motorcycle and can't figure a way to mount the card or hear
>the cell phone over the motor and wind noise, that is your problem.
>
>If you get really lost and blunder into the wrong neighborhood, they might
>blow up your car with you in it. Deadly force is not only likely, but
>recommended.
>
>You will have to do this everywhere you go, even if you pull into the street
>to let you spouse out of the driveway. This is for every single-destination
>trip. If you are running errands, you must treat each leg as a separate trip.
>Good luck dealing with the authorities if you plan to depart or arrive
>anywhere that doesn't have a traditional driveway or parking lot.
>
>All skateboards, scooters, sleds, wagons, bicycles and tricycles are
>prohibited within that 75 miles.
>
>Sound ludicrous? Welcome to a fliers world.
>
>Small airplanes follow these restrictions every day in the ADIZ areas even
>though it is widely recognized that most general aviation aircraft cannot
>carry enough explosives to create damage even close to the explosion in OKC.
>
>Trucks however, are still allowed to drive right up to the front of most
>office buildings. Any terrorist (aka idiot) can rent one, from Ryder.
>
>All pilots are in favor of national security but there is a right way and a
>wrong way to acquire it.
>
>Creating a permanent ADIZ is the wrong way.
>
>Aircraft first, then soon, automobiles.
>
>The FAA has extended the ADIZ public comment period until February 6, 2006,
>and will hold an AOPA-requested public meeting on its plan to make the
>Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) permanent.
>
>("AOPA" is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.)
>
>You can contact the FAA and voice your protest to this permanent ADIZ by
>going to:
>
>_http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/_ (http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/)
>
>Thank you for your time, please act now.
>
>Jay Carpenter
>President - Texas Aviation Association
>512-454-5455
>_president(at)txaa.org_ (mailto:president(at)txaa.org)
>_www.txaa.org_ (http://www.txaa.org)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david stroud" <dstroud(at)storm.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PERMANENT ADIZ |
Harvey..concentrate on the Piet. This is 2006.. :)
The snow will melt this year..maybe soon...relax, eh?
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
F-24 C-FDAE in restoration
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Rule" <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: PERMANENT ADIZ
>
> None of this has any relavance to me as yet but you never know when the
> Canadian government may decide to jump on the band wagon.You are
> absolutely correct in what you say;it is rediculous in every way and it
> is some little politicians way of solving a problem without having
> looked into it in the first place.On 911 the planes used were passenger
> carriers loaded with enough fuel to carry them to the west coast.They
> did this on purpose so they would have a maximum amount of
> explosives.The average small plane that flies anywhere can only carry
> enough fuel to blow up ,if they were lucky enough to penetrate a
> window,perhaps one cubical in any office anywhere in the world.That's
> right ,you heard right ,one cubical.The area of about 10 sqare feet if
> your lucky.Perhaps destroying someones lunch sitting on the side of a
> desk.The most likely thing that would happen is that the plane would hit
> the side of the building and slide down;the case of most ultra lights
> anyway.We are the most feared by the government because they can hardly
> see us on radar.We can do a lot of damage when destoying somebodies
> lunch!Sound stupid,you bet,as stupid as the rules you just layed out!
>
> >
> >
> >Pilots,
> >
> >Send this to OTHER PILOTS and YOUR NON-FLYING FRIENDS. Then go to the AOPA
> >site listed below and give the
> >FAA your input.
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Since 9/11, pilots are required to follow rules that most motorists would
> >consider ludicrous.
> >
> >The analogy below describes what it takes to fly into an Air Defense
> >Identification Zone (ADIZ).
> >
> >An ADIZ presently exists all around Washington D.C. The federal Aviation
> >Administration wants to make the Washington ADIZ permanent.
> >
> >All MAJOR U.S. CITIES COULD BE NEXT.
> >
> >
> >Scenario...
> >
> >Because of the Oklahoma City truck bombing, a law is passed that everyone
> >within 75 miles of any large city must place a call for every car trip they
> >make and give your name, car make, license plate number, what time you will
be
> >leaving, specifically where you are going, and exactly when you expect to
> >arrive.
> >
> >You will be given a number which you must write on a card and display in the
> >window for your entire drive. You will be given a time you can leave, and
> >what roads you are to follow.
> >
> >You will need to call a traffic cop on your cell phone prior to leaving,
> >during the trip, and until you reach your destination. You will be required
to
> >stay in constant communication. They will tell you when you are okay to enter
> >that 75 mile radius, and then you will talk to them for the entire drive,
> >including following any new instructions.
> >
> >Now... If you take a wrong turn, fail to display the card properly, fail to
> >follow the traffic cop's instructions, lose cell phone coverage, or any of
a
> >whole host of other things occur such as mechanical problems, you can lose
> >your drivers license, and possibly be arrested. If your cell phone signal
> >fades, the traffic cop gives confusing or contradictory instructions, or a
little
> >dirt or sun glare makes the card hard to read, that is entirely your problem
> >to correct, or deal with the consequences.
> >
> >If you drive a motorcycle and can't figure a way to mount the card or hear
> >the cell phone over the motor and wind noise, that is your problem.
> >
> >If you get really lost and blunder into the wrong neighborhood, they might
> >blow up your car with you in it. Deadly force is not only likely, but
> >recommended.
> >
> >You will have to do this everywhere you go, even if you pull into the street
> >to let you spouse out of the driveway. This is for every single-destination
> >trip. If you are running errands, you must treat each leg as a separate trip.
> >Good luck dealing with the authorities if you plan to depart or arrive
> >anywhere that doesn't have a traditional driveway or parking lot.
> >
> >All skateboards, scooters, sleds, wagons, bicycles and tricycles are
> >prohibited within that 75 miles.
> >
> >Sound ludicrous? Welcome to a fliers world.
> >
> >Small airplanes follow these restrictions every day in the ADIZ areas even
> >though it is widely recognized that most general aviation aircraft cannot
> >carry enough explosives to create damage even close to the explosion in OKC.
> >
> >Trucks however, are still allowed to drive right up to the front of most
> >office buildings. Any terrorist (aka idiot) can rent one, from Ryder.
> >
> >All pilots are in favor of national security but there is a right way and a
> >wrong way to acquire it.
> >
> >Creating a permanent ADIZ is the wrong way.
> >
> >Aircraft first, then soon, automobiles.
> >
> >The FAA has extended the ADIZ public comment period until February 6, 2006,
> >and will hold an AOPA-requested public meeting on its plan to make the
> >Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) permanent.
> >
> >("AOPA" is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.)
> >
> >You can contact the FAA and voice your protest to this permanent ADIZ by
> >going to:
> >
> >_http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/_ (http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/)
> >
> >Thank you for your time, please act now.
> >
> >Jay Carpenter
> >President - Texas Aviation Association
> >512-454-5455
> >_president(at)txaa.org_ (mailto:president(at)txaa.org)
> >_www.txaa.org_ (http://www.txaa.org)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PERMANENT ADIZ |
Amen!
>
>Harvey..concentrate on the Piet. This is 2006.. :)
>The snow will melt this year..maybe soon...relax, eh?
>
>
>David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
>C-FDWS Christavia
>F-24 C-FDAE in restoration
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harvey Rule" <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: PERMANENT ADIZ
>
>
>
>
>>
>>None of this has any relavance to me as yet but you never know when the
>>Canadian government may decide to jump on the band wagon.You are
>>absolutely correct in what you say;it is rediculous in every way and it
>>is some little politicians way of solving a problem without having
>>looked into it in the first place.On 911 the planes used were passenger
>>carriers loaded with enough fuel to carry them to the west coast.They
>>did this on purpose so they would have a maximum amount of
>>explosives.The average small plane that flies anywhere can only carry
>>enough fuel to blow up ,if they were lucky enough to penetrate a
>>window,perhaps one cubical in any office anywhere in the world.That's
>>right ,you heard right ,one cubical.The area of about 10 sqare feet if
>>your lucky.Perhaps destroying someones lunch sitting on the side of a
>>desk.The most likely thing that would happen is that the plane would hit
>>the side of the building and slide down;the case of most ultra lights
>>anyway.We are the most feared by the government because they can hardly
>>see us on radar.We can do a lot of damage when destoying somebodies
>>lunch!Sound stupid,you bet,as stupid as the rules you just layed out!
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Pilots,
>>>
>>>Send this to OTHER PILOTS and YOUR NON-FLYING FRIENDS. Then go to the AOPA
>>>site listed below and give the
>>>FAA your input.
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>Since 9/11, pilots are required to follow rules that most motorists would
>>>consider ludicrous.
>>>
>>>The analogy below describes what it takes to fly into an Air Defense
>>>Identification Zone (ADIZ).
>>>
>>>An ADIZ presently exists all around Washington D.C. The federal Aviation
>>>Administration wants to make the Washington ADIZ permanent.
>>>
>>>All MAJOR U.S. CITIES COULD BE NEXT.
>>>
>>>
>>>Scenario...
>>>
>>>Because of the Oklahoma City truck bombing, a law is passed that everyone
>>>within 75 miles of any large city must place a call for every car trip they
>>>make and give your name, car make, license plate number, what time you will
be
>>>leaving, specifically where you are going, and exactly when you expect to
>>>arrive.
>>>
>>>You will be given a number which you must write on a card and display in the
>>>window for your entire drive. You will be given a time you can leave, and
>>>what roads you are to follow.
>>>
>>>You will need to call a traffic cop on your cell phone prior to leaving,
>>>during the trip, and until you reach your destination. You will be required
to
>>>stay in constant communication. They will tell you when you are okay to enter
>>>that 75 mile radius, and then you will talk to them for the entire drive,
>>>including following any new instructions.
>>>
>>>Now... If you take a wrong turn, fail to display the card properly, fail to
>>>follow the traffic cop's instructions, lose cell phone coverage, or any of
a
>>>whole host of other things occur such as mechanical problems, you can lose
>>>your drivers license, and possibly be arrested. If your cell phone signal
>>>fades, the traffic cop gives confusing or contradictory instructions, or a
little
>>>dirt or sun glare makes the card hard to read, that is entirely your problem
>>>to correct, or deal with the consequences.
>>>
>>>If you drive a motorcycle and can't figure a way to mount the card or hear
>>>the cell phone over the motor and wind noise, that is your problem.
>>>
>>>If you get really lost and blunder into the wrong neighborhood, they might
>>>blow up your car with you in it. Deadly force is not only likely, but
>>>recommended.
>>>
>>>You will have to do this everywhere you go, even if you pull into the street
>>>to let you spouse out of the driveway. This is for every single-destination
>>>trip. If you are running errands, you must treat each leg as a separate trip.
>>>Good luck dealing with the authorities if you plan to depart or arrive
>>>anywhere that doesn't have a traditional driveway or parking lot.
>>>
>>>All skateboards, scooters, sleds, wagons, bicycles and tricycles are
>>>prohibited within that 75 miles.
>>>
>>>Sound ludicrous? Welcome to a fliers world.
>>>
>>>Small airplanes follow these restrictions every day in the ADIZ areas even
>>>though it is widely recognized that most general aviation aircraft cannot
>>>carry enough explosives to create damage even close to the explosion in OKC.
>>>
>>>Trucks however, are still allowed to drive right up to the front of most
>>>office buildings. Any terrorist (aka idiot) can rent one, from Ryder.
>>>
>>>All pilots are in favor of national security but there is a right way and a
>>>wrong way to acquire it.
>>>
>>>Creating a permanent ADIZ is the wrong way.
>>>
>>>Aircraft first, then soon, automobiles.
>>>
>>>The FAA has extended the ADIZ public comment period until February 6, 2006,
>>>and will hold an AOPA-requested public meeting on its plan to make the
>>>Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) permanent.
>>>
>>>("AOPA" is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.)
>>>
>>>You can contact the FAA and voice your protest to this permanent ADIZ by
>>>going to:
>>>
>>>_http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/_ (http://www.aopa.org/adizalert/)
>>>
>>>Thank you for your time, please act now.
>>>
>>>Jay Carpenter
>>>President - Texas Aviation Association
>>>512-454-5455
>>>_president(at)txaa.org_ (mailto:president(at)txaa.org)
>>>_www.txaa.org_ (http://www.txaa.org)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: PERMANENT ADIZ |
In a message dated 1/14/06 8:36:45 AM, harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca writes:
> Because of the Oklahoma City=A0 truck bombing, a law is passed that everyone
> >>>within 75 miles of any large=A0 city must place a call for every car trip
> they
> >>>make and give your name, car=A0 make, license plate number, what time you
> will be
> >>>leaving, specifically where=A0 you are going, and exactly when you expect
> to=A0
> >>>arrive.
>
Wow, can you say police state?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PERMANENT ADIZ |
What in hells name does a truck bombing have to do with flying?That's
what I'd like to know?
>
>
>In a message dated 1/14/06 8:36:45 AM, harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca writes:
>
>
>
>
>>Because of the Oklahoma City=A0 truck bombing, a law is passed that everyone
>>
>>
>>>>>within 75 miles of any large=A0 city must place a call for every car trip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>they
>>
>>
>>>>>make and give your name, car=A0 make, license plate number, what time you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>will be
>>
>>
>>>>>leaving, specifically where=A0 you are going, and exactly when you expect
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>to=A0
>>
>>
>>>>>arrive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>Wow, can you say police state?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Well Harvy, if you had been following the PERMANENT ADIZ thread, you would
know that someone made the strong and telling analogy between the permanent
ADIZ and similar treatment of ground vehicle traffic. They demonstrated, I
thought quite well, what would have happened if the Oklahoma City terrorist
bombing had caused the government to react to car and truck traffic like
they have to aircraft traffic after 9/11. The point (as I got it) being that
if the non-flying public new how intrusive and ineffective the permanent
ADIZ is, maybe they wouldn't be trying to make it bigger and create more of
them across the country, the thus severely impact our ability to fly.
That's "what in hells name a truck bombing has to do with flying". A DO NOT
ARCHIVE would have kept this out of the mass of information people will have
to dig through in the future to find what they are looking for.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harvey Rule
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: PERMANENT ADIZ
What in hells name does a truck bombing have to do with flying?That's
what I'd like to know?
>
>
>In a message dated 1/14/06 8:36:45 AM, harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca writes:
>
>
>
>
>>Because of the Oklahoma City=A0 truck bombing, a law is passed that
everyone
>>
>>
>>>>>within 75 miles of any large=A0 city must place a call for every car
trip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>they
>>
>>
>>>>>make and give your name, car=A0 make, license plate number, what time
you
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>will be
>>
>>
>>>>>leaving, specifically where=A0 you are going, and exactly when you
expect
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>to=A0
>>
>>
>>>>>arrive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>Wow, can you say police state?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAVID HUNTER <david.hunter68(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | NSI EA81 Engine. |
Can anyone help me to find a new or used vacuum pump drive for the NSI Subaru EA81
engine.I am in difficulties since NSI had their problems and stopped supporting
these engines.I could also use a spare ignition isolator.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans Teijgeler" <hans(at)jodel.com> |
| Subject: | NSI EA81 Engine. |
Didn't NSI sell off their EA81 assets to Stratus?? I'd give Maikel Tempelman
of Stratus a call.
http://www.stratus2000.homestead.com/
Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-engines-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID HUNTER
> Sent: zondag 15 januari 2006 17:12
> To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Engines-List: NSI EA81 Engine.
>
>
>
> Can anyone help me to find a new or used vacuum pump drive for the NSI
> Subaru EA81 engine.I am in difficulties since NSI had their problems and
> stopped supporting these engines.I could also use a spare ignition
> isolator.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Tappan <dancfi(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
"Hi Don
Same thing happened to me on an old Mitsubishi pick up I bought. As one of the
other posts said I used PB blaster very day for a week after driving it.I then
worked the plug in and out a little more each day. After five days I shot
it one last time and grunted with a braker bar. It came out. So did a few threads
but not enough to hurt anything. New plug went rite in.
The old Piper service manuals suggested running the engine until hot and making
a paper cone / funnel . After fitting the small end over the plug you give
it a shot of CO2 (the cold stuff in fire extingwisher) The extreme cold is supposed
to shrink the plug enough to free it up. Sounds good in theory never saw
it done thou. Good luck!
Dan
---------------------------------
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
Have used that method several times.
And yes, it does work.
If the plug rotates a bit, you can also heat the area up,
and place some wax around the threads, (keeping the plug
in the center of the free area.).
It will melt into crevices, and not evaporate.
Amazing how well this frequently works.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Tappan" <dancfi(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Stuck Spark Plug
>
>
> "Hi Don
> Same thing happened to me on an old Mitsubishi pick up I bought. As one
> of the other posts said I used PB blaster very day for a week after
> driving it.I then worked the plug in and out a little more each day. After
> five days I shot it one last time and grunted with a braker bar. It came
> out. So did a few threads but not enough to hurt anything. New plug went
> rite in.
> The old Piper service manuals suggested running the engine until hot and
> making a paper cone / funnel . After fitting the small end over the plug
> you give it a shot of CO2 (the cold stuff in fire extingwisher) The
> extreme cold is supposed to shrink the plug enough to free it up. Sounds
> good in theory never saw it done thou. Good luck!
>
> Dan
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
> whatever.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
On automotive engines I have always used Copaslip or a similar,
high-temperature anti-sieze compound on the spark plug threads. But many years
ago someone told that that this is a bad idea on engines with air cooled
cylinder heads, due to lowering the heat transfer between the plug and the
head. I've always thought this advice had "old wives tale" written all over
it, but it has nevertheless prevented me from using anti-sieze compound on
aircraft engines. Am I worried about nothing?
---
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stuck Plug- Follow-Up Question |
| From: | "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com> |
Thanks for all of the ideas. I will continue to soak the plug and see
if we can break her free.
Regards,
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
Aircraft plug manufacturers recommend using
a light anti seize compound on the threads, avoiding
getting any on the "nose" of the plug.
Most have their own, which is a bit thinner than
the more conventional anti-seize.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Stuck Spark Plug
>
> On automotive engines I have always used Copaslip or a similar,
> high-temperature anti-sieze compound on the spark plug threads. But many
> years
> ago someone told that that this is a bad idea on engines with air cooled
> cylinder heads, due to lowering the heat transfer between the plug and the
> head. I've always thought this advice had "old wives tale" written all
> over
> it, but it has nevertheless prevented me from using anti-sieze compound on
> aircraft engines. Am I worried about nothing?
>
> ---
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC, Canada
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
Tedd,
It is more important to use anti-seize on air cooled aircraft engines
because the aluminum head and therefore the threaded head-to-plug joint runs
much hotter than with liquid cooled engines.
I not seen any evidence that anti-seize affects plug temperature; it might
even reduce it by increasing thread contact area with the head. In any
event, I believe that any such change is negligible relative to other
factors.
I use anti-seize on all spark plugs used with aluminum heads (both air and
liquid cooled), either the usual paste type or plain graphite powder. I
suggest that the very long plug maintenance intervals with modern cars and
poor access with most V engines (to the plugs for 'rear' cylinders) makes
anti-seize increasingly important.
Mike ('with' aluminum Lycoming and aluminum auto heads)
On automotive engines I have always used Copaslip or a similar,
high-temperature anti-sieze compound on the spark plug threads. But many
years
ago someone told that that this is a bad idea on engines with air cooled
cylinder heads, due to lowering the heat transfer between the plug and the
head. I've always thought this advice had "old wives tale" written all over
it, but it has nevertheless prevented me from using anti-sieze compound on
aircraft engines. Am I worried about nothing?
---
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stuck Spark Plug |
Don't bother, just add heat. I noticed you live in B.C.; Add more heat than
usual.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Stuck Spark Plug
On automotive engines I have always used Copaslip or a similar, high-temperature
anti-sieze compound on the spark plug threads. But many years ago someone told
that that this is a bad idea on engines with air cooled cylinder heads, due to
lowering the heat transfer between the plug and the head. I've always thought
this advice had "old wives tale" written all over it, but it has nevertheless
prevented me from using anti-sieze compound on aircraft engines. Am I worried
about nothing?
---
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
On our club aircraft, we do 50 hour inspections and
oil changes. Every inspection includes spark plug
cleaning and regapping. Before the plugs are
re-installed, a very small amount of Champion Spark
Plug Lubricant is applied to the threads. I must
emphasize, a very small amount is used. Over a period
of 2000 hours, that amounts 40 times the spark plugs
are removed and re-installed.
Dave
--- Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
>
> On automotive engines I have always used Copaslip or
> a similar,
> high-temperature anti-sieze compound on the spark
> plug threads. But many years
> ago someone told that that this is a bad idea on
> engines with air cooled
> cylinder heads, due to lowering the heat transfer
> between the plug and the
> head. I've always thought this advice had "old
> wives tale" written all over
> it, but it has nevertheless prevented me from using
> anti-sieze compound on
> aircraft engines. Am I worried about nothing?
>
> ---
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC, Canada
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
I use the Permatex 'silver' anti-seize compound. I've never had any
problems with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck Spark Plug |
I did have a plug stick in a cylinder head on an O540 in a Commanche. When
the plug came out, the heli-coil came with it. THe owner claimed he always
used the Champion anti-seize. I've always used the Permatex anti-seize and
I've been very happy with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Graham Nutt" <graham(at)trace.com.au> |
I have an IO-360B1B engine with forward facing injector. Not sure if
they had this as standard or if it was modified by Lycon. On the back of
the sump is a similar sized boss (about 3/4" thick with 4 holes drilled
and tapped at the same spacing as the injector body mounting studs but
there is no bore for induction.
The front boss appears to be welded on while the rear one seems to be an
integral part of the sump casting.
My problem is that the lower left corner of this interferes with my
mount (but not by much).
My options are to rework the mount (ouch) or take a bevel cut on the
boss but I have no idea how much material is available. This cut would
be about from the inside edge of the threaded hole at about 45 degrees
to the left edge and bottom edge of the boss tapering outward so as not
to go into the sump body.
Does anyone have experience with this.
Thanks
Graham Nutt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Sump Question |
The B1B was an updraft. Call Ken at LyCon and ask him. 559-651-1070
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Confusion over ECI Cylinder AD |
| From: | "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com> |
I'm confused about information we received from ECI on the AD for the
standard cast cylinders. We have a set of ECI cylinders that have 1
hour of dyno time on them and were pulled off the customer's engine.
The cylinders originally cost us $951 each for a total of $5,706. Now
ECI is saying they will give us a 40% discount on new Titan assemblies
which means we will have to pay an additional $544.80 per cylinder
assembly. That means I'll have $8974.80 in a set of six cylinders that
would only cost me $5448 to begin with. There's no way! Has anyone out
there received similar communications from ECI?
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Confusion over ECI Cylinder AD |
| From: | "James Ball" <jball(at)eci2fly.com> |
Rhonda,
The discount is 60% for any cylinders under 800 hrs. plus a pro-rated
labor amount that can be deducted from the cylinder cost. Say you have 4
steel Classic Case cylinders that are affected with 800 hrs, the total
cost for 4 complete assemblies, all new parts would be $1,216. That's
$304.00 each. For cylinders with O time or just dyno time, ECi will
replace them with new Titan cylinders at not charge at all.
Details on identification of affected cylinders can be found on the ECi
service bulletin # MSB 05-8 posted at eci2fly.com under technical
reference materials.
Kind Regards,
Jim Ball
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda
Bewley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Confusion over ECI Cylinder AD
-->
I'm confused about information we received from ECI on the AD for the
standard cast cylinders. We have a set of ECI cylinders that have 1
hour of dyno time on them and were pulled off the customer's engine.
The cylinders originally cost us $951 each for a total of $5,706. Now
ECI is saying they will give us a 40% discount on new Titan assemblies
which means we will have to pay an additional $544.80 per cylinder
assembly. That means I'll have $8974.80 in a set of six cylinders that
would only cost me $5448 to begin with. There's no way! Has anyone out
there received similar communications from ECI?
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Confusion over ECI Cylinder AD |
| From: | "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com> |
Thanks for the clarification. It's the exact opposite of a written
response I have from Joe in your warranty department. I do appreciate
the response.
Rhonda
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Ball
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Confusion over ECI Cylinder AD
Rhonda,
The discount is 60% for any cylinders under 800 hrs. plus a pro-rated
labor amount that can be deducted from the cylinder cost. Say you have 4
steel Classic Case cylinders that are affected with 800 hrs, the total
cost for 4 complete assemblies, all new parts would be $1,216. That's
$304.00 each. For cylinders with O time or just dyno time, ECi will
replace them with new Titan cylinders at not charge at all.
Details on identification of affected cylinders can be found on the ECi
service bulletin # MSB 05-8 posted at eci2fly.com under technical
reference materials.
Kind Regards,
Jim Ball
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda
Bewley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Confusion over ECI Cylinder AD
-->
I'm confused about information we received from ECI on the AD for the
standard cast cylinders. We have a set of ECI cylinders that have 1
hour of dyno time on them and were pulled off the customer's engine.
The cylinders originally cost us $951 each for a total of $5,706. Now
ECI is saying they will give us a 40% discount on new Titan assemblies
which means we will have to pay an additional $544.80 per cylinder
assembly. That means I'll have $8974.80 in a set of six cylinders that
would only cost me $5448 to begin with. There's no way! Has anyone out
there received similar communications from ECI?
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marion Jonker" <hemetlady(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Subaru EA81-Firewall forward package FOR SALE |
Marion Jonker
hemetlady(at)earthlink.net
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!
Subject: Subaru EA81-Firewall forward package FOR SALE (Kit built)
We have a Subaru EA-81 Engine with 300 hours on zero time engine,
102 horsepower @ 5200 RPM
PSRU -- Ross Aero 2.17 to 1 reduction
propeller -- Amar-demuth 69" x 54" two blade - wooden (custom made)
Fuel Injection -- Airflow Performance
Dual Electronic Ignition
Stainless Steel Exhaust
Installed in a Zenair Zodiac 601 HDS - Also for sale without N number or certification
All electronics and instruments included
Lost medical -- do not want builder liability problems
$10,000 you pick up -- Southern California Location
or call me at (951) 927-9640
Marion Jonker
hemetlady(at)earthlink.net
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FW: Subaru EA81-Firewall forward package FOR SALE |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Interesting approach on the liability avoidance Marion.
I wonder how much more effective this is than writing a liability
release in the real world of lawyers.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marion
Jonker
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: Engines-List: FW: Subaru EA81-Firewall forward package FOR SALE
-->
Marion Jonker
hemetlady(at)earthlink.net
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!
Subject: Subaru EA81-Firewall forward package FOR SALE (Kit built)
We have a Subaru EA-81 Engine with 300 hours on zero time engine,
102 horsepower @ 5200 RPM
PSRU -- Ross Aero 2.17 to 1 reduction
propeller -- Amar-demuth 69" x 54" two blade - wooden (custom made)
Fuel Injection -- Airflow Performance
Dual Electronic Ignition
Stainless Steel Exhaust
Installed in a Zenair Zodiac 601 HDS - Also for sale without N
number or certification
All electronics and instruments included Lost medical -- do not want
builder liability problems
$10,000 you pick up -- Southern California Location
or call me at (951) 927-9640
Marion Jonker
hemetlady(at)earthlink.net
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Six New Email Lists / Forums At Matronics! |
Dear Listers,
Its my pleasure to announce the addition of six new Email List / Forums to the
aviation line up at Matronics! These new lists support all the usual features
you've come to know and love from the Matronics Email List including full integration
with the All New Web BBS Forums Site!! The new Lists include:
LycomingEngines-List Textron/Lycoming Engines
RotaxEngines-List Rotax Engine for Aircraft
M14PEngines-List Vendenyev M14P Radial Engine
MurphyMoose-List Murphy Moose Aircraft
Allegro-List Allegro 2000, a Czech-built, Rotax-powered Aircraft
Falco-List Sequoia Aircraft's Falco Experimental
To sign up for any or all of the new Lists, surf over to the Matronics Email List
Subscription Form and follow the instructions:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Don't forget to check out the All New Web BBS Forum now available along with all
of the usual message and archive viewing tools at the Matronics Email Lists
site. Surf over to the following URL for information on the BBS Forum:
http://forums.matronics.com
Enjoy the new Lists!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Low Time IO-360 A1A |
| From: | "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com> |
One of our customers is replacing his low-time (300 hours since new)
IO-360-A1A with one of our IO-390s and asked me to send a message to let
the list know that his engine is for sale. I don't know any other
details about the engine He is located in France. His name is
Christophe Jacquard with Corsair Warbird, Ltd.. He can be reached by
fax at +33 03 80 35 69 19 for additional information if you are
interested.
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | 320-E2G question - front main bearing |
The E2G is listed as having the O-235 front main bearing. Not having
had an O-235 apart before, what does this mean? Is the bearing
smaller, shorter, no provision for hydraulic prop control? What makes
this different?
I have this engine in my RV-4 and I'm pulling the engine to fix some
nuisance oil leaks and am debating a few additional "fixes". I am
wondering if this bearing is not substantial enough for a lot of
aerobatics.
Thanks in advance.
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | 320-E2G sump question |
Has anyone successfully made a carbureted O-320 have 100 or less EGT
spread through the full range of the throttle? If so what model
engine and what sump is on the engine?
Carbureted engine, I'm trying to sort out an annoying mixture
distribution (I know.. buy fuel injection). Full throttle is nice
and even, typical 75-100 EGT spread. Just off of full throttle #3 &
4 leans out and #1 & 2 goes rich, typically 275 deg F EGT spread.
Back to 2/3 throttle and on down they even back out again.
Carb is a 10-5009 with the nozzle kit to make it a 10-5217. The kit
was supposed to improve mixture distribution. It didn't.
From the symptoms I can say it's not an induction leak. I'm
wondering if this particular engine with its particular sump and
induction tubes has something to do with it.
The O-320-E2G is listed as having an A sump. I see some references
to a straight riser sump ( -A1B for instance). My O-320-E2G
induction tubes on cylinders 3 & 4 come out from the narrow part of
the sump in the back directly under the lower engine mount. The
four induction tubes don't point directly to the riser where the
carb bolts on.
Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
(I know .. get rid of the engine monitor)
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 320-E2G question - front main bearing |
In a message dated 2/11/06 6:26:47 PM, jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com writes:
> Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
> 13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2
>
Hi Mike,
I worked with a Mike McKee. I had to double-take.
I would suggest calling Ken Tunnell at LyCon and picking his brain. If he
can give you Steve Mahelek phone number, he could probably answer you also.
the LyCon number is (559) 651-1070. Catch him first thing in the morning or
you'll never catch him off the phone.
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
Cc: "'jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com'"
| Subject: | RE: 320-E2G sump question |
Michael,
I've been having exactly the same problem with an O-320-D1A that had 9:1
pistons. I've tried rejetting it, even sent the Carb back to Aero Sport
Power. Nothing seems to correct the situation. I did read on the Lycoming
web site last week that this is a common occurrence with Carb'ed engines.
Iv I run the engine at different power settings, I get different EGT's &
CHT's. At 2350 RPM (fixed pitch prop) in cold air (less than 25*F) # 4 CHT
goes so low it will start skipping, especially if I have leaned at all. All
temps are fine at full throttle and at something like 2150 RPM. In warm air
the situation is much less pronounced....
So I've gotten to the point where I ether fly slow in cold air,
(especially down low) or at full throttle, leaned, at high altitudes
(11,000' or more). Sure makes me want to reconsider a fuel injection
system....
I do have all EGT's and CHT's, and have talked to Bart at Aero Sport Power
extensively about this situation. He doesn't have too much to add....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
South Windsor, Ct 06074
phone: (860)727-2393
email: fred.stucklen(at)utcfuelcells.com
From: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com>
Subject: Engines-List: 320-E2G sump question
Has anyone successfully made a carbureted O-320 have 100 or less EGT
spread through the full range of the throttle? If so what model
engine and what sump is on the engine?
Carbureted engine, I'm trying to sort out an annoying mixture
distribution (I know.. buy fuel injection). Full throttle is nice
and even, typical 75-100 EGT spread. Just off of full throttle #3 &
4 leans out and #1 & 2 goes rich, typically 275 deg F EGT spread.
Back to 2/3 throttle and on down they even back out again.
Carb is a 10-5009 with the nozzle kit to make it a 10-5217. The kit
was supposed to improve mixture distribution. It didn't.
From the symptoms I can say it's not an induction leak. I'm
wondering if this particular engine with its particular sump and
induction tubes has something to do with it.
The O-320-E2G is listed as having an A sump. I see some references
to a straight riser sump ( -A1B for instance). My O-320-E2G
induction tubes on cylinders 3 & 4 come out from the narrow part of
the sump in the back directly under the lower engine mount. The
four induction tubes don't point directly to the riser where the
carb bolts on.
Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
(I know .. get rid of the engine monitor)
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
> I've tried rejetting it, even sent the Carb back to Aero
> Sport Power. Nothing seems to correct the situation. I did read on
the
> Lycoming web site last week that this is a common occurrence
with
> Carb'ed engines.
Not that you may be able to do anything about it, but this sure
sounds like an exhaust scavenging problem. If all the intake runners
are approximately the same length, what is the situation with your
exhaust systems? Is it an issue that a crossover system might cure?
Just a thought.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
Just listening in here All carbureted engines should have the distinct
slight rise in RPM just prior to fuel off at Idle RPM. That establishes not
induction leaks and proper idle fuel to air ration. That said better swap your
probe around to establish repeatability of you symptom. Use a remote
pyrometer and be sure that you guages are accurate. The spark plugs are vital,
play musical sparkplug's. Keep a numbering system and vibe ech them to keep
them straight. Plugs should be examined closely for indications as to
combustion quality. Compressions should be with in 80 percent of each other.
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
Cc: "'jlbaker(at)telepath.com'"
| Subject: | RE: 320-E2G sump question |
Jim,
My RV-6A does use the Vetterman crossover exhaust system.....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
>
> I've tried rejetting it, even sent the Carb back to Aero
> Sport Power. Nothing seems to correct the situation. I did read on
the
> Lycoming web site last week that this is a common occurrence
with
> Carb'ed engines.
Not that you may be able to do anything about it, but this sure
sounds like an exhaust scavenging problem. If all the intake runners
are approximately the same length, what is the situation with your
exhaust systems? Is it an issue that a crossover system might cure?
Just a thought.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | RE: 320-E2G sump question |
>
> Nothing seems to correct the situation. I did read on the Lycoming
> web site last week that this is a common occurrence with Carb'ed
> engines.
> Iv I run the engine at different power settings, I get different
> EGT's &
> CHT's. At 2350 RPM (fixed pitch prop) in cold air (less than 25*F)
> # 4 CHT
> goes so low it will start skipping, especially if I have leaned at
> all. All
> temps are fine at full throttle and at something like 2150 RPM. In
> warm air
> the situation is much less pronounced....
> So I've gotten to the point where I ether fly slow in cold air,
> (especially down low) or at full throttle, leaned, at high altitudes
> (11,000' or more). Sure makes me want to reconsider a fuel injection
> system....
> I do have all EGT's and CHT's, and have talked to Bart at Aero
> Sport Power
> extensively about this situation. He doesn't have too much to add....
>
>
> Fred Stucklen
One thing that we learned on car engines way back when was that the
carb inlet condition makes a big difference. I've seen some aircraft
installations that were well done except for the carb inlet. Ideally
the inlet should be a bell-mouth (elliptical is a good approximation)
or at least radiused with equal air flow from all directions. Not
easy to do with the tight space constraints that usually exist. One
way to do it that I have looked at (not done as I don't have a carb'd
engine) is to bolt a radius - no duct - to the carb inlet and then
surround the carb with inlet air by building a dam well above the
inlet that extends outward from the carb to the lower cowl. Air can
then flow past the carb and enter the inlet from the rear, balancing
the flow that comes from the front. The lower restriction will give
more power as well. Remember, a sharp-edge inlet will have a Cd of
about 0.6 compared to a radiused inlet that will have a Cd of almost
1.0, meaning the pressure drop at the inlet will be 60% of what it is
with a sharp edge. Might be worth a try.
Another thing we tried was a "dip tube", which is a tube that extends
down (oops, up) into the manifold slightly past where the individual
runners come off the manifold. This creates a sharp edge that
prevents the fuel and/or air from clinging to one side and not the
other. Made a definite improvement and carefully done didn't impede
the air flow too much.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
Cc: "'Dww0708(at)aol.com'"
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
David,
I've calibrated all probes (with a certified calibrations device). All are
within 1% accuracy. The idle cuttoff RPM rise is present (but this should
have no effect on the cruise RPM or cruise mixture problem). I've also tried
a new set of plugs, with exactly the same results.
Just to recap the issue, CHT's & EGt's between cyclinders are diverging
under certainpower settings (10-5217 carbureted O-320-D1A engine with
Vetterman crossover exhaust). Running the engine at low power settings (2100
RPM and lower) and at full power setting results in CHT's & EGT's that are
very similar (CHT's within 5*-10*, EGT's within 50*). Runing the engine
between 2200 - 2440 RPMS (maybe around 90% throttle) results in diverging
CHT's & EGT's, with cylinders #3 & #4 (#4 being the coldest), especially in
cold air (< 25*F) and leaned. #4 CHT will go below 200*F and begin skipping.
The tests I have run seem to indicate that the CHT/EGT divergence is
directly related to the throttle plate position. Try this: pick an altitude
below 8000' where the OTA is 20* or less. Run at 1900 RPM cruise, full rich,
and note all CHT's & EGT's. Be sure to allow time for thermal stabalization.
Repeat the same test at 500 RPM increments, and then at different mixture
settings (witht he 1900 RPM mixture setting as the reference point.).
Normalize the numbers by showing only the differences in temps between the
1900 RPM full rich data, and all other data. Plot out curves of divergence
Vs Throttle position for different mixture settings. (Having a normalized
CHT/EGT gauge helps emmensly in visualizing the resulting divergences...)
What I saw was about the same CHT's/EGT's differences at 1900 RPM and
full throttle, with diverging temps at throttle positions in between those
settings. I have also noted that at higher Outside Air temps, there is a
lesser problem. This might suggest that the fuel atomization at the colder
OAT's is not as complete at is is with higher OAT's. This, coupled with the
throttle plate position, could cause more fuel to be routed into the front
cylinders, with more air going to the back cylinders. (Remember, the
throttle plate position [at less than full throttle] favors flow towards the
front cylinders.)
I would like to try other carburetors to see if there isn't a better
solution. I'm not sure that there are any other carbs out there that will
run OK on this engine.... Another solution might be to put a honey cone type
device between the carb and the sump. This should help straighten out the
air flow....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
430 Hrs
Just listening in here All carbureted engines should have the
distinct
slight rise in RPM just prior to fuel off at Idle RPM. That
establishes not
induction leaks and proper idle fuel to air ration. That said
better swap your
probe around to establish repeatability of you symptom. Use a remote
pyrometer and be sure that you guages are accurate. The spark plugs
are vital,
play musical sparkplug's. Keep a numbering system and vibe ech them
to keep
them straight. Plugs should be examined closely for indications as
to
combustion quality. Compressions should be with in 80 percent of each
other.
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
vetterman? The idle cut off check is kind of an induction tube integitidy
check,it proofs if you have vacuum leaky pipes. Vacuum is strongest at idle
RPMs and a sucking leak will inhibit the proper RPM rise ( lean out ) at Idle
cutoff indicating lean condition. I know Lyc uses an oil heated induction
manifold, Helps atomization. If the carb heat is leaking it can adversely affect
the fuel air ratio. Any way looks like you have been trial and erroring it.
The industry is like that. I am curious, Lyc operators manual? I have
one, the thing that comes to me is what is the manifold pressure doing? Is
there a curve trend that should/would mirror you other parameters? Manifold
pressure at pressure altitude and OAT. Manifold pressure is the power
indicator. Then there is the basic push rod clearance with dry tap it. Very
important to brake horses and volumetric effeciency.Selection of push rod lengths
are how to adjust dry tappet clearance. Some might say that that valve timing
issue would lead to engine roughness and it should but needs confirmed. Very
basic. If I was a Lyc tech rep I would verify all this before before
experimenting away from the basic engine design. Have read about the intake and
exhaust rocker arm movements and making sure consistent to other cylinders. Are
all the correct part number items include in proper engine build up. David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
Cc: "'Dww0708(at)aol.com'" , "'glcasey(at)adelphia.net'"
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
David, Gary,
Veternman crossover exhaust: I think his company name is High Mountain
Exhaust.
Standard system for most RV's.....
The idle cutoff test worked fine, with a 100 RPM rise, so I'm sure there
aren't any
intake leaks. I've looked very carefully at all intake components and can't
find any
leaks. I've even performed checks to find cracks (exterior surface powder &
carb
cleaner into intakes/exhaust ports, compression checks, visual checks)....
Trial & Error approach: I'd like to think that I've taken a lot of data
that characterizes
just how the engine is operating. I have documented everything: fuel flow,
manifold
pressure, OAT, EGT, CHT, throttle position, mixture position, RPM, oil temp
&
pressure, etc.... The ONLY relationship to the poor EGT's & CHT's seems to
be
throttle position.
By the way, Bart Lablond (Aero Sport Power) has also looked at this engine
and can't seem to find why it's behaving the way it is..... He ran it in a
test cell, I've
run it in the plane, so the induction system (major difference) might still
be the
culprit.
I have checked the dry tappet clearances and they are within the Lycoming
specs...
Induction System: I'm using Van's standard FAB320 Air box. This is a
snorkel type
airbox that utilizes the lower cowl shape (snorkel) to feed air into a short
snorkel,
then into a larger chamber (much like a car airbox). The air filter is
mounted to
the bottom of the carb (Oval shaped with top/bottom plates). I have tried
to
modify the airflow into the filter box area by placing a wedge in front of
the filter
to divert some of the ram air flow. This didn't seem to help at all.
Since this is the second RV-6A that I've built (the first didn't have
these problems)
I've had a chance to compare the two induction systems. The first RV did
have
a larger volume area around the filter. This probably allowed better
distribution of
the air around the filter. I've ordered a new fiberglass air box part, and
plan on
installing it with modifications that will increase the airbox volume.
(Unfortunately,
Van has made some cowl, and engine mount changes that don't allow for the
use of his original airbox.) The air filter is the same....
I have experimented with the current air box. Putting a hole
in the bottom of the box (allowing air to enter/exit into the lower cowl)
did show
a significant change in the EGT/CHT patterns. The basic problem didn't go
away,
just changed how the engine breaths.
So that is the path that I'm going down next........ A modified airbox to
increase
the volume. I'd also like to run the engine without a filter to see what
happens to
the EGT/CHT patterns at various throttle settings. The filter should
actually result
in better airflows into the carb, but I need to know what it does without
it.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
vetterman? The idle cut off check is kind of an induction tube
integitidy
check,it proofs if you have vacuum leaky pipes. Vacuum is strongest
at idle
RPMs and a sucking leak will inhibit the proper RPM rise ( lean out )
at Idle
cutoff indicating lean condition. I know Lyc uses an oil heated
induction
manifold, Helps atomization. If the carb heat is leaking it can
adversely affect
the fuel air ratio. Any way looks like you have been trial and
erroring it.
The industry is like that. I am curious, Lyc operators manual? I
have
one, the thing that comes to me is what is the manifold pressure
doing? Is
there a curve trend that should/would mirror you other parameters?
Manifold
pressure at pressure altitude and OAT. Manifold pressure is the power
indicator. Then there is the basic push rod clearance with dry tap
it. Very
important to brake horses and volumetric effeciency.Selection of push
rod lengths
are how to adjust dry tappet clearance. Some might say that that
valve timing
issue would lead to engine roughness and it should but needs
confirmed. Very
basic. If I was a Lyc tech rep I would verify all this before before
experimenting away from the basic engine design. Have read about the
intake and
exhaust rocker arm movements and making sure consistent to other
cylinders. Are
all the correct part number items include in proper engine build up.
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 320-E2G sump question |
A couple more comments:
It looks like you correctly found out that throttle position makes a
difference. Sometimes it is better for the throttle to be full open
and other times it is better with the throttle partly closed or even
past fully open, deflecting the flow the other way. There is nothing
wrong with running with a partially closed throttle as the last maybe
20 degrees of rotation won't give any more air flow anyway.
Another observation - these engines are running in certified aircraft
and from you description I'm sure they don't have the problem - or at
least not so serious as to cause a problem. Since the engine itself
(sump, runners, carb) is of a standard configuration, what else is
different. The engine configuration probably doesn't need fixing.
Some have argued that the exhaust system could play a role, but I
reject that notion as at the rpm you are running there isn't much in
the way of tuning or pulsation effects that will be noticeable.
Also, any cam wear or valve clearance issues will only result in
slight power differences between cylinders, not large mixture
variations.
I still strongly suspect the carb inlet configuration. What is it like?
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin(at)dc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
Fred -
Sounds like you've zeroed in on your engine's performance pretty
accurately. Before you get your knickers in a real knot, realize you
are collecting data at a level few people do with what production
aircraft your engine is in. My friend and I both had Grumman Cheetahs
with the carburated O320s. He installed the four cyl JPI EGT/CHT probe
system very accurately i.e. all the CHT probes were screw-in and the EGT
probes were positioned as close as possible to be in the same position
relative to the exhaust outlet per JPI install instructions. As an
engineer I was very interested because we were going to really get some
improved BSFC out of these engines. (we thought). Long story short, we
experienced exactly what you are seeing and in my humble opinion, you
will not be able to tighten the observed spread in EGT performance with
respect to throttle position in all cases. That's one reason why the
manufacturers eventually went to the mechanical fuel injection systems
in use today. They can tune each cylinder as if it were an individual
engine and not worry about how the fuel is distributed. Wide open
throttle is what we settled for and used altitude as the variable for
desired percent power. Don't waste any more time, go get some fuel
injection for it and spend your time tuning the injection nozzles to
tighten your EGT spread. Then you can go after fine tuning of the
cooling baffles to even out the CHT spread. JBB
Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR wrote:
>
>David, Gary,
>
> Veternman crossover exhaust: I think his company name is High Mountain
>Exhaust.
>Standard system for most RV's.....
> The idle cutoff test worked fine, with a 100 RPM rise, so I'm sure there
>aren't any
>intake leaks. I've looked very carefully at all intake components and can't
>find any
>leaks. I've even performed checks to find cracks (exterior surface powder &
>carb
>cleaner into intakes/exhaust ports, compression checks, visual checks)....
> Trial & Error approach: I'd like to think that I've taken a lot of data
>that characterizes
>just how the engine is operating. I have documented everything: fuel flow,
>manifold
>pressure, OAT, EGT, CHT, throttle position, mixture position, RPM, oil temp
>&
>pressure, etc.... The ONLY relationship to the poor EGT's & CHT's seems to
>be
>throttle position.
> By the way, Bart Lablond (Aero Sport Power) has also looked at this engine
>and can't seem to find why it's behaving the way it is..... He ran it in a
>test cell, I've
>run it in the plane, so the induction system (major difference) might still
>be the
>culprit.
> I have checked the dry tappet clearances and they are within the Lycoming
>specs...
>
> Induction System: I'm using Van's standard FAB320 Air box. This is a
>snorkel type
>airbox that utilizes the lower cowl shape (snorkel) to feed air into a short
>snorkel,
>then into a larger chamber (much like a car airbox). The air filter is
>mounted to
>the bottom of the carb (Oval shaped with top/bottom plates). I have tried
>to
>modify the airflow into the filter box area by placing a wedge in front of
>the filter
>to divert some of the ram air flow. This didn't seem to help at all.
> Since this is the second RV-6A that I've built (the first didn't have
>these problems)
>I've had a chance to compare the two induction systems. The first RV did
>have
>a larger volume area around the filter. This probably allowed better
>distribution of
>the air around the filter. I've ordered a new fiberglass air box part, and
>plan on
>installing it with modifications that will increase the airbox volume.
>(Unfortunately,
>Van has made some cowl, and engine mount changes that don't allow for the
>use of his original airbox.) The air filter is the same....
> I have experimented with the current air box. Putting a hole
>in the bottom of the box (allowing air to enter/exit into the lower cowl)
>did show
>a significant change in the EGT/CHT patterns. The basic problem didn't go
>away,
>just changed how the engine breaths.
> So that is the path that I'm going down next........ A modified airbox to
>increase
>the volume. I'd also like to run the engine without a filter to see what
>happens to
>the EGT/CHT patterns at various throttle settings. The filter should
>actually result
>in better airflows into the carb, but I need to know what it does without
>it.
>
>Fred Stucklen
>RV-6A N926RV
>
>
>
>
> vetterman? The idle cut off check is kind of an induction tube
>integitidy
> check,it proofs if you have vacuum leaky pipes. Vacuum is strongest
>at idle
> RPMs and a sucking leak will inhibit the proper RPM rise ( lean out )
>at Idle
>
> cutoff indicating lean condition. I know Lyc uses an oil heated
>induction
> manifold, Helps atomization. If the carb heat is leaking it can
>adversely affect
>
> the fuel air ratio. Any way looks like you have been trial and
>erroring it.
>
> The industry is like that. I am curious, Lyc operators manual? I
>have
> one, the thing that comes to me is what is the manifold pressure
>doing? Is
>
> there a curve trend that should/would mirror you other parameters?
>Manifold
> pressure at pressure altitude and OAT. Manifold pressure is the power
>
> indicator. Then there is the basic push rod clearance with dry tap
>it. Very
>
> important to brake horses and volumetric effeciency.Selection of push
>rod lengths
>
> are how to adjust dry tappet clearance. Some might say that that
>valve timing
>
> issue would lead to engine roughness and it should but needs
>confirmed. Very
> basic. If I was a Lyc tech rep I would verify all this before before
> experimenting away from the basic engine design. Have read about the
>intake and
>
> exhaust rocker arm movements and making sure consistent to other
>cylinders. Are
>
> all the correct part number items include in proper engine build up.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: 320-E2G sump question |
In a message dated 2/15/06 7:00:44 AM, glcasey(at)adelphia.net writes:
> There is nothing=A0
> wrong with running with a partially closed throttle as the last maybe=A0
> 20 degrees of rotation won't give any more air flow anyway.
>
Not sure if you've tried this, (I haven't read all of the emails) but, try a
little carb heat at different throttle positions. I have an O360 with the
JPI 800. Carb heat has shown to move the EGT spread around at different
throttle settings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
> That's one reason why the manufacturers eventually went to the
> mechanical fuel injection systems in use today. They can tune
each
> cylinder as if it were an individual engine and not worry about how
> the fuel is distributed. >
Well, that's partly true. FI is a whole lot better than carburetion in
terms of getting the right amount to each port.....avoiding having it
robbed from one port to someplace in the induction runner or to
another intake port is still a problem. I see about 125F difference
from top to bottom on my IO520. Unless you can do direct injection,
there's always some interference in the process at some given
RPM(s).
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin(at)dc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
Jim -
The Cont 520 series is well known for its air/fuel mixture distribution
problem. That of course is what the calibrated injector nozzles from
George Braly at GAMI are all about. Are you using the GAMI nozzles in
your airplane? The A36 with the Tornado Alley Turbo normalizer I fly
has them and the spread is minimal and lean of peak cruise is very
smooth and economical. I don't have the spread at my fingertips here
because I actually only monitor TIT during operation. JBB
Jim Baker wrote:
>
>
>
>>That's one reason why the manufacturers eventually went to the
>>mechanical fuel injection systems in use today. They can tune
>>
>>
>each
>
>
>>cylinder as if it were an individual engine and not worry about how
>>the fuel is distributed. >
>>
>>
>
>
>Well, that's partly true. FI is a whole lot better than carburetion in
>terms of getting the right amount to each port.....avoiding having it
>robbed from one port to someplace in the induction runner or to
>another intake port is still a problem. I see about 125F difference
>from top to bottom on my IO520. Unless you can do direct injection,
>there's always some interference in the process at some given
>RPM(s).
>
>
>Jim Baker
>580.788.2779
>'71 SV, 492TC
>Elmore City, OK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
It's not the absolute EGT or even the difference from one cylinder to
another that is the most important, but whether or not all cylinders reach
peak EGT at close to the same time and mixture control position. Granted,
this will change with throttle position and rpm and maybe other things but
if the spread in fuel flow from the first cylinder to reach peak to the last
is about .25 gph (on an IO-520 say) then you have a pretty even mixture
distribution and the engine will run smooth on the lean side of peak EGT.
You can have 2 different cylinders that are 50F or more apart temperature
wise but reach peak EGT at the very same time. The GAMI injectors taylor
the fuel flow to match the uneven airflow distribution and thereby hopefully
have all cylinders reach peak EGT at close to the same time.
Cliff
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Baldwin" <jamesbaldwin(at)dc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: 320-E2G sump question
>
> Jim -
> The Cont 520 series is well known for its air/fuel mixture distribution
> problem. That of course is what the calibrated injector nozzles from
> George Braly at GAMI are all about. Are you using the GAMI nozzles in
> your airplane? The A36 with the Tornado Alley Turbo normalizer I fly
> has them and the spread is minimal and lean of peak cruise is very
> smooth and economical. I don't have the spread at my fingertips here
> because I actually only monitor TIT during operation. JBB
>
> Jim Baker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>That's one reason why the manufacturers eventually went to the
>>>mechanical fuel injection systems in use today. They can tune
>>>
>>>
>>each
>>
>>
>>>cylinder as if it were an individual engine and not worry about how
>>>the fuel is distributed. >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, that's partly true. FI is a whole lot better than carburetion in
>>terms of getting the right amount to each port.....avoiding having it
>>robbed from one port to someplace in the induction runner or to
>>another intake port is still a problem. I see about 125F difference
>>from top to bottom on my IO520. Unless you can do direct injection,
>>there's always some interference in the process at some given
>>RPM(s).
>>
>>
>>Jim Baker
>>580.788.2779
>>'71 SV, 492TC
>>Elmore City, OK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Baldwin <jamesbaldwin(at)dc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
Yes.
flyv35b wrote:
>
>It's not the absolute EGT or even the difference from one cylinder to
>another that is the most important, but whether or not all cylinders reach
>peak EGT at close to the same time and mixture control position. Granted,
>this will change with throttle position and rpm and maybe other things but
>if the spread in fuel flow from the first cylinder to reach peak to the last
>is about .25 gph (on an IO-520 say) then you have a pretty even mixture
>distribution and the engine will run smooth on the lean side of peak EGT.
>You can have 2 different cylinders that are 50F or more apart temperature
>wise but reach peak EGT at the very same time. The GAMI injectors taylor
>the fuel flow to match the uneven airflow distribution and thereby hopefully
>have all cylinders reach peak EGT at close to the same time.
>
>Cliff
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Baldwin" <jamesbaldwin(at)dc.rr.com>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: 320-E2G sump question
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Jim -
>>The Cont 520 series is well known for its air/fuel mixture distribution
>>problem. That of course is what the calibrated injector nozzles from
>>George Braly at GAMI are all about. Are you using the GAMI nozzles in
>>your airplane? The A36 with the Tornado Alley Turbo normalizer I fly
>>has them and the spread is minimal and lean of peak cruise is very
>>smooth and economical. I don't have the spread at my fingertips here
>>because I actually only monitor TIT during operation. JBB
>>
>>Jim Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's one reason why the manufacturers eventually went to the
>>>>mechanical fuel injection systems in use today. They can tune
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>each
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>cylinder as if it were an individual engine and not worry about how
>>>>the fuel is distributed. >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, that's partly true. FI is a whole lot better than carburetion in
>>>terms of getting the right amount to each port.....avoiding having it
>>>robbed from one port to someplace in the induction runner or to
>>>another intake port is still a problem. I see about 125F difference
>>>
>>>
>>>from top to bottom on my IO520. Unless you can do direct injection,
>>
>>
>>>there's always some interference in the process at some given
>>>RPM(s).
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim Baker
>>>580.788.2779
>>>'71 SV, 492TC
>>>Elmore City, OK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
sounds like pretty good scoop.... no irregularity intended David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 320-E2G sump question |
> That of course is what the calibrated injector
> nozzles from George Braly at GAMI are all about. Are you using
the
> GAMI nozzles in your airplane?
Well, that's the sad part. I live about 30 miles from Ada, OK and the
GAMI folks, have been over there several times watching installs
and test cell runs, but no, I don't because the cost/benefit for me
would be marginal.....except I really like the idea of LOP operation. A
GAMI install would first necessitate a JPI install as well. $$$$$
Sigh.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Balancing Connecting Rods |
I made a search in the archives and couldn't find anything on this subject.
Is is safe to remove metal from a Lycoming rod to match up a set of 4? The
worst one is 9 grams heavier on the big end. That is quite a volume of
metal, and the rods don't look like they have that much to spare. One option
is
to do it on the crank. Is it safe to remove metal from the crank.
I'm concerned about the nitride coating layer, mostly. Is there any advice
that anyone can give me about what to do or not do.
The engine is an IO-360-A1A. The rods are LW10646.
Thanks, Dan Hopper RV-7A Flying 144 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
If you attend Oshkosh, I conduct seminars on engine balancing.
Briefly, Aircraft manufacturers balance rods in total weight.
While this is satisfactory, for horizontally opposed engines,
an improvement is to separate Reciprocating from Rotating weights.
9 Grams is doable with care and stress knowledge.
On Lyc rods, there is an area by the rod bolt that is unfinished.
This area can be taken down and polished.
Do not use a grinding wheel. Metal must be removed with a high speed
belt sander so as not to allow the rod to overheat. If this happens, the
bore will distort.
Prior to starting, you may want to check the bore accuracy. Most aircraft
shops merely
replace the pin bushings and rod bolts. I have found that most rod bores
are "not on the money", but people use them as is anyhow. (no comment on
that)
Same with crank balancing. For the most part, they are not usually too bad.
Grinding and polishing is my preference. The factory balancing is with a
fairly
coarse finish.
Also, do not forget the starter gear. It becomes part of the crank
rotational force
when attached. (as do the bolts).
Archie
>
> I made a search in the archives and couldn't find anything on this
> subject.
>
> Is is safe to remove metal from a Lycoming rod to match up a set of 4?
> The
> worst one is 9 grams heavier on the big end. That is quite a volume of
> metal, and the rods don't look like they have that much to spare. One
> option is
> to do it on the crank. Is it safe to remove metal from the crank.
>
> I'm concerned about the nitride coating layer, mostly. Is there any
> advice
> that anyone can give me about what to do or not do.
>
> The engine is an IO-360-A1A. The rods are LW10646.
>
> Thanks, Dan Hopper RV-7A Flying 144 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
Archie,
Thanks for your reply. I understand about the whole rod vs. big end and
small end weights. The rods are actually at a local shop which specializes in
race car engines. I think they are pretty knowledgeable, but not experienced
in Lycomings. Could you be a little more specific about where to remove
metal. The rods have quite a lot of metal already removed along side the bolts.
I say that because it looks like rough machining there. There is an area
near the nut on the rod proper (not the cap) with some to spare possibly. Or
are you talking about on the cap? Knowing what 9 grams of steel looks like,
I am worried about trying to take that much off.
I will attend your seminar at OSH this summer, but that will be too late for
this job. I have attended a balancing seminar already, there. But, they
were just trying to sell prop "dynamic" balancing equipment. Don't get me
wrong. I am a believer in doing a final balance job on the prop end of the
engine, but I think it is a good idea to match up the internal parts first. The
pistons were within a few tenths of a gram, and the crank was also very good.
But the rods were by far the worst. If there is not enough "meat" on the
rods, how do you feel about taking some off the crank? I know that its like
two wrongs making a right, but its all rotating weight, so theoretically it
should be in balance.
Thanks again,
Dan Hopper RV-7A
In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:37:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
archie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
If you attend Oshkosh, I conduct seminars on engine balancing.
Briefly, Aircraft manufacturers balance rods in total weight.
While this is satisfactory, for horizontally opposed engines,
an improvement is to separate Reciprocating from Rotating weights.
9 Grams is doable with care and stress knowledge.
On Lyc rods, there is an area by the rod bolt that is unfinished.
This area can be taken down and polished.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
Why don't you try swapping rods with someone if that's a possibility. Or
do you have access to a shop with inventory that might let you had pick
a new rod to replace the 9 g heavy one you have?
John Grosse
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>Archie,
>
>Thanks for your reply. I understand about the whole rod vs. big end and
>small end weights. The rods are actually at a local shop which specializes in
>race car engines. I think they are pretty knowledgeable, but not experienced
>in Lycomings. Could you be a little more specific about where to remove
>metal. The rods have quite a lot of metal already removed along side the bolts.
> I say that because it looks like rough machining there. There is an area
>near the nut on the rod proper (not the cap) with some to spare possibly. Or
>are you talking about on the cap? Knowing what 9 grams of steel looks like,
>I am worried about trying to take that much off.
>
>I will attend your seminar at OSH this summer, but that will be too late for
>this job. I have attended a balancing seminar already, there. But, they
>were just trying to sell prop "dynamic" balancing equipment. Don't get me
>wrong. I am a believer in doing a final balance job on the prop end of the
>engine, but I think it is a good idea to match up the internal parts first.
The
>pistons were within a few tenths of a gram, and the crank was also very good.
> But the rods were by far the worst. If there is not enough "meat" on the
>rods, how do you feel about taking some off the crank? I know that its like
>two wrongs making a right, but its all rotating weight, so theoretically it
>should be in balance.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Dan Hopper RV-7A
>
>
>In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:37:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>archie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>
>If you attend Oshkosh, I conduct seminars on engine balancing.
>Briefly, Aircraft manufacturers balance rods in total weight.
>While this is satisfactory, for horizontally opposed engines,
>an improvement is to separate Reciprocating from Rotating weights.
>9 Grams is doable with care and stress knowledge.
>On Lyc rods, there is an area by the rod bolt that is unfinished.
>This area can be taken down and polished.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
The area on the main rod just above the nuts is unfinished on the factory
rods.
The obvious forging mark is there, and can be taken down maintaining the
same arc curve. This area is usually good for about five grams.
I cannot go into details here, but will tell you not to try and remove too
much
from any given area.
In certain instances, have turned a couple of grams off on a lathe.(nuff
said here).
Do not remove any metal from the periphery of the bolt holes.
(Superior rods are completely finished.)
Do not try to correct a rod weight by working the crank.
Adding bob weights is not the answer.
It is either right or wrong. If necessary, and you are not comfortable
with rod correction, either obtain closer rods, leave it alone, or just
use total rod weight..
There is much more to machinery dynamics than wheel balancing,
and not worth the risk of part failure if not experienced in this area.
Archie
> Archie,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I understand about the whole rod vs. big end and
> small end weights. The rods are actually at a local shop which
> specializes in
> race car engines. I think they are pretty knowledgeable, but not
> experienced
> in Lycomings. Could you be a little more specific about where to remove
> metal. The rods have quite a lot of metal already removed along side the
> bolts.
> I say that because it looks like rough machining there. There is an area
> near the nut on the rod proper (not the cap) with some to spare possibly.
> Or
> are you talking about on the cap? Knowing what 9 grams of steel looks
> like,
> I am worried about trying to take that much off.
>
> I will attend your seminar at OSH this summer, but that will be too late
> for
> this job. I have attended a balancing seminar already, there. But,
> they
> were just trying to sell prop "dynamic" balancing equipment. Don't get
> me
> wrong. I am a believer in doing a final balance job on the prop end of
> the
> engine, but I think it is a good idea to match up the internal parts
> first. The
> pistons were within a few tenths of a gram, and the crank was also very
> good.
> But the rods were by far the worst. If there is not enough "meat" on the
> rods, how do you feel about taking some off the crank? I know that its
> like
> two wrongs making a right, but its all rotating weight, so theoretically
> it
> should be in balance.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Dan Hopper RV-7A
>
>
> In a message dated 3/4/2006 8:37:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> archie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>
> If you attend Oshkosh, I conduct seminars on engine balancing.
> Briefly, Aircraft manufacturers balance rods in total weight.
> While this is satisfactory, for horizontally opposed engines,
> an improvement is to separate Reciprocating from Rotating weights.
> 9 Grams is doable with care and stress knowledge.
> On Lyc rods, there is an area by the rod bolt that is unfinished.
> This area can be taken down and polished.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Malpassi fuel pressure regulators |
Hi all,
I'm looking for information on Malpassi fuel pressure regulators, as
used on the Rotax 914 engine.
I understand these regulators are fitted on many race cars. The
particular model on the Rotax is for turbo engines, and has dual outlets.
Any information, drawings, specs, appreciatied.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Malpassi fuel pressure regulators |
Although I have no info on these, if you are simply seeking a four port,
there are many manufacturers of them.
Hilborn,
Professional products,
Kinsler, etc, etc.
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for information on Malpassi fuel pressure regulators, as
> used on the Rotax 914 engine.
> I understand these regulators are fitted on many race cars. The
> particular model on the Rotax is for turbo engines, and has dual outlets.
> Any information, drawings, specs, appreciatied.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Malpassi fuel pressure regulators |
Archie a crit :
>
>Although I have no info on these, if you are simply seeking a four port,
>there are many manufacturers of them.
>Hilborn,
>Professional products,
>Kinsler, etc, etc.
>
>
>
Archie,
Thank you for responding.
I'm not seeking for a regulator, as it performs flawlessly on my engine.
I was looking for further info on this specific model, to answer some
fellow homebuilders' questions. It appears on numerous fuel system
catalogs, but I was unable to find the manufacturer's wherabouts.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Malpassi fuel pressure regulators |
Hello Gilles,
I found:
http://www.officinamalpassi.it/
There are 8 models for carburetor / turbo.
Unfortunately no specifications: "*Descrizione tecnica:* Non disponibile".
Regards,
Jan de Jong
Gilles Thesee wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm looking for information on Malpassi fuel pressure regulators, as
>used on the Rotax 914 engine.
>I understand these regulators are fitted on many race cars. The
>particular model on the Rotax is for turbo engines, and has dual outlets.
>Any information, drawings, specs, appreciatied.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Regards,
>Gilles Thesee
>Grenoble, France
>http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
----- Original Message -----
From: Archie
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Balancing Connecting Rods
If you attend Oshkosh, I conduct seminars on engine balancing.
Briefly, Aircraft manufacturers balance rods in total weight.
While this is satisfactory, for horizontally opposed engines,
an improvement is to separate Reciprocating from Rotating weights.
9 Grams is doable with care and stress knowledge.
On Lyc rods, there is an area by the rod bolt that is unfinished.
This area can be taken down and polished.
Do not use a grinding wheel. Metal must be removed with a high speed
belt sander so as not to allow the rod to overheat. If this happens, the
bore will distort.
Prior to starting, you may want to check the bore accuracy.
This is a great suggestion. Aircraft rods are sometimes returned to service in
unserviceable condition because many of the shops do not edven check the big
end bores. If your heavy rod(s) also need to have the big end bore resized, that
could fix both problems at the same time.
Red Hamilton
Most aircraft
shops merely
replace the pin bushings and rod bolts. I have found that most rod bores
are "not on the money", but people use them as is anyhow. (no comment on
that)
Same with crank balancing. For the most part, they are not usually too bad.
Grinding and polishing is my preference. The factory balancing is with a
fairly
coarse finish.
Also, do not forget the starter gear. It becomes part of the crank
rotational force
when attached. (as do the bolts).
Archie
>
> I made a search in the archives and couldn't find anything on this
> subject.
>
> Is is safe to remove metal from a Lycoming rod to match up a set of 4?
> The
> worst one is 9 grams heavier on the big end. That is quite a volume of
> metal, and the rods don't look like they have that much to spare. One
> option is
> to do it on the crank. Is it safe to remove metal from the crank.
>
> I'm concerned about the nitride coating layer, mostly. Is there any
> advice
> that anyone can give me about what to do or not do.
>
> The engine is an IO-360-A1A. The rods are LW10646.
>
> Thanks, Dan Hopper RV-7A Flying 144 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
Archie,
I have been giving this balancing problem a lot of thought. I am used to
thinking race car engines -- V8s with a 4 plane crank. In that case it is of
course necessary to match up all the rods and counterweight the crank while
balancing it. It occurs to me that if all the unbalance (imbalance?) is in a
single plane -- say the small ends of the rods match but the big ends don't,
then a 4 cylinder engine CAN be brought into balance by just adding weight at
the front end. That is, that balancing the prop does correct for imbalance
even at the back of the shaft. Therefore it is not necessary to balance the
big ends of the rods if you do a dynamic balance of the prop after the engine
is installed on the airplane.
What do you think?
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying -- working on another engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:31:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
redswing(at)mcn.org writes:
Prior to starting, you may want to check the bore accuracy.
This is a great suggestion. Aircraft rods are sometimes returned to service
in unserviceable condition because many of the shops do not edven check the
big end bores. If your heavy rod(s) also need to have the big end bore
resized, that could fix both problems at the same time.
Red Hamilton
I almost missed this comment embedded in Archie's text. That is a great
suggestion, Red. I'll bring it up as a possibility with the shop doing the
balancing. Also, see my other post on why it may not even be necessary to
balance the big ends.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- Building up another engine for a spare, or
something!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
Archie and listers,
Sorry to reply to my own post! Please disregard the attached earlier post.
I didn't have my brain fully engaged yet this morning!
Even when balancing a wheel (with width), you have to be able to get to both
ends in order to bring it into dynamic balance. A crankshaft is no
different in this regard. So therefore it is important to match up all the rod
big
ends.
Dan
In a message dated 3/6/2006 7:02:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Archie,
I have been giving this balancing problem a lot of thought. I am used to
thinking race car engines -- V8s with a 4 plane crank. In that case it is
of
course necessary to match up all the rods and counterweight the crank while
balancing it. It occurs to me that if all the unbalance (imbalance?) is in
a
single plane -- say the small ends of the rods match but the big ends
don't,
then a 4 cylinder engine CAN be brought into balance by just adding weight
at
the front end. That is, that balancing the prop does correct for imbalance
even at the back of the shaft. Therefore it is not necessary to balance
the
big ends of the rods if you do a dynamic balance of the prop after the
engine
is installed on the airplane.
What do you think?
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying -- working on another engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Malpassi fuel pressure regulators |
Jan de Jong a crit :
>
>Hello Gilles,
>
>I found:
>http://www.officinamalpassi.it/
>There are 8 models for carburetor / turbo.
>Unfortunately no specifications: "*Descrizione tecnica:* Non disponibile".
>
>
>
Jan,
Great ! Thanks for the link.
I had skipped that one when Googling...
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
On V-8 engines, the total weight of the rotating end is incorporated
in the formula for bob weight setup, and only 50% of reciprocating weight.
(which also includes, Piston, Pin, and Rings.
This basic formula can be modified for over or under balance,
but is beyond the scope of conversation here.
When a crankshaft is being corrected, it is not only balanced rotationally,
but also end to end. AKA "COUPLE".
BTW, most of my work is in racing engines.
Archie
>
> Archie,
>
> I have been giving this balancing problem a lot of thought. I am used to
> thinking race car engines -- V8s with a 4 plane crank. In that case it
> is of
> course necessary to match up all the rods and counterweight the crank
> while
> balancing it. It occurs to me that if all the unbalance (imbalance?) is
> in a
> single plane -- say the small ends of the rods match but the big ends
> don't,
> then a 4 cylinder engine CAN be brought into balance by just adding
> weight at
> the front end. That is, that balancing the prop does correct for
> imbalance
> even at the back of the shaft. Therefore it is not necessary to balance
> the
> big ends of the rods if you do a dynamic balance of the prop after the
> engine
> is installed on the airplane.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A Flying -- working on another engine
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Balancing Connecting Rods |
Sorry, I had it in a contrasting color--that got stripped.
Red
----- Original Message -----
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Balancing Connecting Rods
In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:31:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
redswing(at)mcn.org writes:
Prior to starting, you may want to check the bore accuracy.
This is a great suggestion. Aircraft rods are sometimes returned to service
in unserviceable condition because many of the shops do not edven check the
big end bores. If your heavy rod(s) also need to have the big end bore
resized, that could fix both problems at the same time.
Red Hamilton
I almost missed this comment embedded in Archie's text. That is a great
suggestion, Red. I'll bring it up as a possibility with the shop doing the
balancing. Also, see my other post on why it may not even be necessary to
balance the big ends.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- Building up another engine for a spare, or
something!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john koning <fltrbg(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | C-90 or 0-200 cam. |
Hello all,
I'm about to begin re-assembly of a C-90 and I have both the C-90 and 0-200
cams available.I'd like some advice as to which one to use.
Is it preferable to use the C-90 cam with a slightly higher pitch prop,or the
0-200 cam with less pitch prop to allow higher RPM.The plane that it will power
has about 100 mph cruise and I'm trying to maximize short field performance.
Thanks in advance for any advice,
John Koning
C-FGCC
Stits Flut-r-bug.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrc" <jrccea(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: C-90 or 0-200 cam. |
The 90 with a relatively flat pitch will give you better takeoff and climb
(you won't be able to reach maximum rater rpm with either engine or prop).
The 90 does better at lower rpm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "john koning" <fltrbg(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 9:07 PM
Subject: Engines-List: C-90 or 0-200 cam.
>
> Hello all,
> I'm about to begin re-assembly of a C-90 and I have both the C-90 and
> 0-200 cams available.I'd like some advice as to which one to use.
> Is it preferable to use the C-90 cam with a slightly higher pitch
> prop,or the 0-200 cam with less pitch prop to allow higher RPM.The plane
> that it will power has about 100 mph cruise and I'm trying to maximize
> short field performance.
> Thanks in advance for any advice,
> John Koning
> C-FGCC
> Stits Flut-r-bug.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Fwd: image.jpg |
bad file WORM_NYXEM.E Virus Found
Best... Steve
----Original Message Follows----
From: "engines-list" <engines-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Fwd: image.jpg
Date: 13 Mar 2006 17:31:05 -0800
DSC-00465.jpg
DSC-00466.jpg
DSC-00467.jpg
<< Attachments00.HQX >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
I am in the middle of overhauling a Lycoming IO-360-A1A for my RV-7A. It
has come to my attention that there are 2 different rod bolts that will work in
the LW10646 connecting rods. One has a small head and a later bolt has a
larger head.
First question -- Is there anything wrong with using the small headed bolt
(these are the ones I bought from Aircraft Specialties about a year ago)
PN75060?
Second question -- What is the weight difference between the two bolts?
I have weighed the rods (big ends and small ends), and could possibly use
the heavier bolts to get a better matching set to improve the engine balance.
Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6 grams at
the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks like I have
about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good (under 1 gram),
and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
Thanks,
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A N766DH Flying 144 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Balance criteria on any component is dependent on application parameters.
I personally maintain 1/5 of a gram on statics, and .01 in/oz on dynamics
(or better), for aircraft. Racing engines better than that.
Why not? If you are there working anyway, why not do the best, or close to
it?
(a dollar bill weighs one gram)
Archie
---- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:14 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions
>
>
> I am in the middle of overhauling a Lycoming IO-360-A1A for my RV-7A. It
> has come to my attention that there are 2 different rod bolts that will
> work in
> the LW10646 connecting rods. One has a small head and a later bolt has a
> larger head.
>
> First question -- Is there anything wrong with using the small headed bolt
> (these are the ones I bought from Aircraft Specialties about a year ago)
> PN75060?
>
> Second question -- What is the weight difference between the two bolts?
>
> I have weighed the rods (big ends and small ends), and could possibly use
> the heavier bolts to get a better matching set to improve the engine
> balance.
>
> Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6 grams
> at
> the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks like I
> have
> about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good (under 1
> gram),
> and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A N766DH Flying 144 hours.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Archie,
I took the rods to a shop to be weighed. I didn't want them to remove any
metal until I had a chance to analyze the weights. Actually, I didn't want to
risk the damage they could do! I don't have the equipment or facilities to
do the job myself, or I would do as you say. Since they were much, much
worse than the values you gave, I wonder if there is really anything to be gained
by getting so "perfect." I overhauled a Continental O-200 a few years ago
and got a very smooth running engine by putting the heavier parts opposite
each other, and matching heavy rods with lighter pistons, etc. The final
assembly was not near as close as you would have done. The Continental Overhaul
Manual states that pistons opposite each other should be within 1/2 ounce --
that's about 14 grams.
I know that you will say to send the rods out to be balanced, but I still
want an answer to my original question from those who know from experience. I
once read that "good enough is perfect." Being a perfectionist myself, I
often have to use that philosophy to move projects along.
Thanks,
Dan
In a message dated 3/18/2006 7:28:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, arc
hie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie"
Balance criteria on any component is dependent on application parameters.
I personally maintain 1/5 of a gram on statics, and .01 in/oz on dynamics
(or better), for aircraft. Racing engines better than that.
Why not? If you are there working anyway, why not do the best, or close to
it?
(a dollar bill weighs one gram)
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
As you indicate, it is better to spend a little time and money now,
than to wish you had.
There is no substitute for perfection........... None!
The factory recommends 1/2 ounce?
Well, keep in mind these are the same people that give us oil burners,
AD's on an engine that has not changed for over 60 years, 1/2 hp per cu. in.
And they still do not have it right.
They essentially have a captive following that buys this.
If they did not have that, they would have folded long ago.
How would you like to be buying a new car and the salesperson told you
you must run plug gaps of .016 because magnetos will not support more,
It will burn oil, Is subject to AD's which you will forever pay for,
Has poor fuel economy, Blow-by, and 1/2 hp per cu in?
Would you find these attractive? Would you buy this car?
If a small hole in the wall shop like mine can correct most of these,
why can't they? Why do they have engineering if the most basic of problems
have not been corrected? Bean counters tend to run these companies, and
quality, plus R&D have fallen dormant.
I have somewhat evaded a succinct reply to your last post, but am thoroughly
miffed with the beaurocratic ineptitude, greed, and propagandists that seem
to be the root culprit hampering any progress.
Sorry about the long wind, but I have only started, and will quit now
to cool off.
==================================================
> I took the rods to a shop to be weighed. I didn't want them to remove
> any
> metal until I had a chance to analyze the weights. Actually, I didn't
> want to
> risk the damage they could do! I don't have the equipment or facilities
> to
> do the job myself, or I would do as you say. Since they were much, much
> worse than the values you gave, I wonder if there is really anything to
> be gained
> by getting so "perfect." I overhauled a Continental O-200 a few years
> ago
> and got a very smooth running engine by putting the heavier parts
> opposite
> each other, and matching heavy rods with lighter pistons, etc. The final
> assembly was not near as close as you would have done. The Continental
> Overhaul
> Manual states that pistons opposite each other should be within 1/2
> ounce --
> that's about 14 grams.
>
> I know that you will say to send the rods out to be balanced, but I still
> want an answer to my original question from those who know from
> experience. I
> once read that "good enough is perfect." Being a perfectionist myself, I
> often have to use that philosophy to move projects along.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>
> In a message dated 3/18/2006 7:28:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, arc
> hie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie"
>
> Balance criteria on any component is dependent on application parameters.
> I personally maintain 1/5 of a gram on statics, and .01 in/oz on dynamics
> (or better), for aircraft. Racing engines better than that.
> Why not? If you are there working anyway, why not do the best, or close
> to
> it?
> (a dollar bill weighs one gram)
> Archie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
I'll cautiously take what is probably the unpopular side of the
discussion..
I don't understand the emphasis that gets placed on engine
balancing. These engines run relatively slowly and the perceived
vibration in airframe is usually dominated by the propeller. The
propeller imparts vibration from a number of sources - one is its
balance - the blades are at such a large radius that the slightest
variation will result in more vibration than can be expected by the
rotating parts of the engine. Second is the pitch variation from
blade to blade. Again, the slightest pitch error operating at such a
long lever arm will have a big effect on airframe vibration.
finally, the airflow into the prop is not uniform around the
circumference since it is affected by the airframe behind it as well
as the mounting angle of the engine.
The balance of either the reciprocating or rotating parts will have
essentially no effect on the durability or output of the engine -
combustion loads overwhelm any possible mismatch in weights. A
couple of anecdotes that add evidence, but of course don't prove the
point - a friend used to win drag races by building "dual
displacement" engines - the inspectors would always check the
displacement of the #1 cylinder so he would make the first crank
throw a shorter stroke than the other three - engines ran great. I
while back I helped one of my teenagers rebuild his turbo Chrysler 4-
banger. He didn't have any money so we scrounged the parts and
picked the best of the bunch to build the engine. Some cylinders had
different connecting rods than others (a LOT different), others had
different compression ratios. Ran smooth with good power for a long
time after that. Another anecdote (urban legend?) - when Continental
was trying to beef up their engines they introduced pistons with iron
top ring glands, certainly heavier than the all-aluminum pistons they
replaced. They approved servicing a single cylinder with the new
pistons even though it would upset the balance - at least they didn't
think the balance issue was a big one. Using what Continental does
as the guideline is, of course, a risky thing.
Certainly no one can argue that poor balance is a good thing, but I
just don't think the emphasis that seems to be put on balancing is
justified. What would I do? Certainly pick the rod bolts that are
supposed to be the most reliable (whichever one that is) regardless
of weight. I would match up the other parts the best I could with
the tools I had and then I would bolt it together and go fly.
Just another irreverent comment - a "good" aircraft engine will put
out about 200 hp from 360 cu. in. displacement, or 1.08 ft-lb per cu.
in. torque, and they are rated at the minimum power, not the average
of the population. That is very good and very close to what a good
automotive engine will produce. It is compromised because of the
compromises necessary to meet all the other requirements: The idea
is to build an engine that weighs the least, burns the least fuel, is
the most reliable and lasts the longest while being built for the
least cost. If I were starting from scratch there would be some
things I would change, but it wouldn't deviate a lot from the norm.
Gary Casey
>
> I am in the middle of overhauling a Lycoming IO-360-A1A for my
> RV-7A. It
> has come to my attention that there are 2 different rod bolts that
> will work in
> ....
> Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6
> grams at
> the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks
> like I have
> about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good
> (under 1 gram),
>
> and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A N766DH Flying 144 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Cc:
| From: | gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com |
>The factory recommends 1/2 ounce?
>Well, keep in mind these are the same people that give us oil burners,
>AD's on an engine that has not changed for over 60 years, 1/2 hp per cu.
in.
>And they still do not have it right.
>They essentially have a captive following that buys this.
>If they did not have that, they would have folded long ago.
They have the same design and a captive following because the FAA along
with our legal system makes competition unprofitable.
Gary AA1B 160
Cincinnati OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Good points Gary,
You got me to thinking! I'm an engineer, I ought to be able to figure this
out! (Never mind that I'm an electrical engineer!)
I calculated the imbalance force due to 3 grams at 2.177 inches (1/2 the
stroke of an IO-360) at 2700 RPM to be 2.98 pounds. This is the centrifugal
force which would cause the engine to vibrate. This comes from P=mv
2/r (from
my college physics book) after making all the conversions to metric and back.
Now, if I'm cruising at 2300 rpm at 60 percent of 200 HP, the average force
which must be exerted on the crank throw at 2.177 inches is 1510 pounds. (In
a 4 cylinder there is a power stroke every 180 degrees.) Actually the
pulses probably go to 2 or 3 times this number. This pulsing is what makes the
engine vibrate, or shake.
Your point is well taken.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 3/19/2006 8:21:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
glcasey(at)adelphia.net writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: Gary Casey
I'll cautiously take what is probably the unpopular side of the
discussion..
I don't understand the emphasis that gets placed on engine
balancing. These engines run relatively slowly and the perceived
vibration in airframe is usually dominated by the propeller. The
propeller imparts vibration from a number of sources - one is its
balance - the blades are at such a large radius that the slightest
variation will result in more vibration than can be expected by the
rotating parts of the engine. Second is the pitch variation from
blade to blade. Again, the slightest pitch error operating at such a
long lever arm will have a big effect on airframe vibration.
finally, the airflow into the prop is not uniform around the
circumference since it is affected by the airframe behind it as well
as the mounting angle of the engine.
The balance of either the reciprocating or rotating parts will have
essentially no effect on the durability or output of the engine -
combustion loads overwhelm any possible mismatch in weights. A
couple of anecdotes that add evidence, but of course don't prove the
point - a friend used to win drag races by building "dual
displacement" engines - the inspectors would always check the
displacement of the #1 cylinder so he would make the first crank
throw a shorter stroke than the other three - engines ran great. I
while back I helped one of my teenagers rebuild his turbo Chrysler 4-
banger. He didn't have any money so we scrounged the parts and
picked the best of the bunch to build the engine. Some cylinders had
different connecting rods than others (a LOT different), others had
different compression ratios. Ran smooth with good power for a long
time after that. Another anecdote (urban legend?) - when Continental
was trying to beef up their engines they introduced pistons with iron
top ring glands, certainly heavier than the all-aluminum pistons they
replaced. They approved servicing a single cylinder with the new
pistons even though it would upset the balance - at least they didn't
think the balance issue was a big one. Using what Continental does
as the guideline is, of course, a risky thing.
Certainly no one can argue that poor balance is a good thing, but I
just don't think the emphasis that seems to be put on balancing is
justified. What would I do? Certainly pick the rod bolts that are
supposed to be the most reliable (whichever one that is) regardless
of weight. I would match up the other parts the best I could with
the tools I had and then I would bolt it together and go fly.
Just another irreverent comment - a "good" aircraft engine will put
out about 200 hp from 360 cu. in. displacement, or 1.08 ft-lb per cu.
in. torque, and they are rated at the minimum power, not the average
of the population. That is very good and very close to what a good
automotive engine will produce. It is compromised because of the
compromises necessary to meet all the other requirements: The idea
is to build an engine that weighs the least, burns the least fuel, is
the most reliable and lasts the longest while being built for the
least cost. If I were starting from scratch there would be some
things I would change, but it wouldn't deviate a lot from the norm.
Gary Casey
>
> I am in the middle of overhauling a Lycoming IO-360-A1A for my
> RV-7A. It
> has come to my attention that there are 2 different rod bolts that
> will work in
> ....
> Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6
> grams at
> the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks
> like I have
> about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good
> (under 1 gram),
>
> and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A N766DH Flying 144 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
When I read my listing as it came over the internet, I see that the carat
symbol was deleted making it seem that I got the formula for centrifugal force
wrong.
I'll spell it out: centrifugal force equals mass times velocity squared
divided by radius.
Dan
In a message dated 3/19/2006 1:19:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Good points Gary,
You got me to thinking! I'm an engineer, I ought to be able to figure this
out! (Never mind that I'm an electrical engineer!)
I calculated the imbalance force due to 3 grams at 2.177 inches (1/2 the
stroke of an IO-360) at 2700 RPM to be 2.98 pounds. This is the
centrifugal
force which would cause the engine to vibrate. This comes from P=mv
2/r (from
my college physics book) after making all the conversions to metric and
back.
Now, if I'm cruising at 2300 rpm at 60 percent of 200 HP, the average force
which must be exerted on the crank throw at 2.177 inches is 1510 pounds.
(In
a 4 cylinder there is a power stroke every 180 degrees.) Actually the
pulses probably go to 2 or 3 times this number. This pulsing is what makes
the
engine vibrate, or shake.
Your point is well taken.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 3/19/2006 8:21:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
glcasey(at)adelphia.net writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: Gary Casey
I'll cautiously take what is probably the unpopular side of the
discussion..
I don't understand the emphasis that gets placed on engine
balancing. These engines run relatively slowly and the perceived
vibration in airframe is usually dominated by the propeller. The
propeller imparts vibration from a number of sources - one is its
balance - the blades are at such a large radius that the slightest
variation will result in more vibration than can be expected by the
rotating parts of the engine. Second is the pitch variation from
blade to blade. Again, the slightest pitch error operating at such a
long lever arm will have a big effect on airframe vibration.
finally, the airflow into the prop is not uniform around the
circumference since it is affected by the airframe behind it as well
as the mounting angle of the engine.
The balance of either the reciprocating or rotating parts will have
essentially no effect on the durability or output of the engine -
combustion loads overwhelm any possible mismatch in weights. A
couple of anecdotes that add evidence, but of course don't prove the
point - a friend used to win drag races by building "dual
displacement" engines - the inspectors would always check the
displacement of the #1 cylinder so he would make the first crank
throw a shorter stroke than the other three - engines ran great. I
while back I helped one of my teenagers rebuild his turbo Chrysler 4-
banger. He didn't have any money so we scrounged the parts and
picked the best of the bunch to build the engine. Some cylinders had
different connecting rods than others (a LOT different), others had
different compression ratios. Ran smooth with good power for a long
time after that. Another anecdote (urban legend?) - when Continental
was trying to beef up their engines they introduced pistons with iron
top ring glands, certainly heavier than the all-aluminum pistons they
replaced. They approved servicing a single cylinder with the new
pistons even though it would upset the balance - at least they didn't
think the balance issue was a big one. Using what Continental does
as the guideline is, of course, a risky thing.
Certainly no one can argue that poor balance is a good thing, but I
just don't think the emphasis that seems to be put on balancing is
justified. What would I do? Certainly pick the rod bolts that are
supposed to be the most reliable (whichever one that is) regardless
of weight. I would match up the other parts the best I could with
the tools I had and then I would bolt it together and go fly.
Just another irreverent comment - a "good" aircraft engine will put
out about 200 hp from 360 cu. in. displacement, or 1.08 ft-lb per cu.
in. torque, and they are rated at the minimum power, not the average
of the population. That is very good and very close to what a good
automotive engine will produce. It is compromised because of the
compromises necessary to meet all the other requirements: The idea
is to build an engine that weighs the least, burns the least fuel, is
the most reliable and lasts the longest while being built for the
least cost. If I were starting from scratch there would be some
things I would change, but it wouldn't deviate a lot from the norm.
Gary Casey
>
> I am in the middle of overhauling a Lycoming IO-360-A1A for my
> RV-7A. It
> has come to my attention that there are 2 different rod bolts that
> will work in
> ....
> Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6
> grams at
> the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks
> like I have
> about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good
> (under 1 gram),
>
> and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan Hopper
> Walton, IN
> RV-7A N766DH Flying 144 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Gentlemen;
This topic is far more complex than you believe.
I will not go into the finer details, but you are superficially bouncing
numbers
and quotes but not doing any correcting.
"good enough" is not good enough, "perfect" is.
Although not analogous, would you want a heart surgeon telling you:
"while I am in there, will do the least required"
When teaching machinery dynamics as part of my physics course, the text
was Machinery Dynamics by Holowenko.Check it out, and be surprised.
As far as durability is concerned, how long do you think an electric motor's
bearings will last if it was not in balance, or your aircraft gyro.
Forget RPM, it is either right or wrong, although geometrically progressive.
Vibration was mentioned. That is only a resultant indicator.
A number of factors can cause vibration, such as compression imbalance.
(just pull a spark plug lead while an engine is running)
Many other causes are culprits also, but too involved to discuss here.
If you are not going to do a perfect dynamic and kinematic balance to your
engine, why seek a way to avoid it?
No more from here.......
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Archie,
Is this subject so complex that only you can understand it? You asked
several questions in your post, but you are not interested in the answers.
First of all, what is your definition of perfect? It must be the accuracy
or resolution of your equipment. Apparently your scales only weigh to .01
grams. What if I needed my rods balanced to .001 grams, isn't that closer to
perfect than what you could handle?
Good enough is not perfect and neither is your work. You are very naive if
you think anything in this world is perfect. There is a very good reason why
Lycoming has built thousands of engines which were terribly out of balance
yet give perfectly (ha) satisfactory service in the field. That reason is
that they don't need to be perfect, only good enough.
Dan
In a message dated 3/19/2006 3:06:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
archie97(at)earthlink.net writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie"
Gentlemen;
This topic is far more complex than you believe.
I will not go into the finer details, but you are superficially bouncing
numbers
and quotes but not doing any correcting.
"good enough" is not good enough, "perfect" is.
Although not analogous, would you want a heart surgeon telling you:
"while I am in there, will do the least required"
When teaching machinery dynamics as part of my physics course, the text
was Machinery Dynamics by Holowenko.Check it out, and be surprised.
As far as durability is concerned, how long do you think an electric motor's
bearings will last if it was not in balance, or your aircraft gyro.
Forget RPM, it is either right or wrong, although geometrically progressive.
Vibration was mentioned. That is only a resultant indicator.
A number of factors can cause vibration, such as compression imbalance.
(just pull a spark plug lead while an engine is running)
Many other causes are culprits also, but too involved to discuss here.
If you are not going to do a perfect dynamic and kinematic balance to your
engine, why seek a way to avoid it?
No more from here.......
Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | carburated -> fuel injected |
Hello listers,
I was wondering, can a carburated Lycoming O-360-A4M 180 HP Penn Yan
conversion be converted to fuel injected?
I understand most cylinders have bosses for fuel injectors (plugged on the
carbureted models). Not sure if our engine has such bosses and how to check.
Thanks for any pointers.
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: carburated -> fuel injected |
Rumen,
Yes, you should be able to convert the -A4M to Fuel Injection. Look at a cylinder
around the intake port. You should see two plugs there. The upper plug is where
you would put in the Fuel Injector for that cylinder.
Perhaps one or more of your cylinders may have a primer nozzle installed in the
lower port of any given cylinder?
Good Luck,
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2(at)evenlink.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Engines-List: carburated -> fuel injected
Hello listers,
I was wondering, can a carburated Lycoming O-360-A4M 180 HP Penn Yan
conversion be converted to fuel injected?
I understand most cylinders have bosses for fuel injectors (plugged on the
carbureted models). Not sure if our engine has such bosses and how to check.
Thanks for any pointers.
Rumen
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Re: carburated -> fuel injected |
Thanks, Konrad.
I am told there are no such STC's on file (so we could look up what
components are needed), so how do we assemble a list of needed components
(besides the injectors)?
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Konrad L. Werner; Date: 02:10 PM 3/19/2006
-0700)
Rumen,
Yes, you should be able to convert the -A4M to Fuel Injection. Look at a
cylinder around the intake port. You should see two plugs there. The upper
plug is where you would put in the Fuel Injector for that cylinder.
Perhaps one or more of your cylinders may have a primer nozzle installed in
the lower port of any given cylinder?
Good Luck,
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: rd2(at)evenlink.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Engines-List: carburated -> fuel injected
Hello listers,
I was wondering, can a carburated Lycoming O-360-A4M 180 HP Penn Yan
conversion be converted to fuel injected?
I understand most cylinders have bosses for fuel injectors (plugged on the
carbureted models). Not sure if our engine has such bosses and how to check.
Thanks for any pointers.
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Hmm, this should be good . Think I'll grab a beer and watch...
Ed in JXN
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions
>
>
> Archie,
>
> Is this subject so complex that only you can understand it? You asked
> several questions in your post, but you are not interested in the answers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Okay, just for the fun of it let's keep this thread going. I think
there is no substantial argument that can prove that improved balance
can help durability. The combustion pressure pushing on a 5.25 dia.
piston results in a force of about 17,000 pounds, certainly orders of
magnitude more than any likely unbalance. However, the engine
balance can have an affect on accessories - notably alternator
mounting brackets.
How good does the balance have to be? Is perfection the only logical
goal? I don't think so - it should be good enough so that engine
imbalance doesn't add noticeable vibration to the airframe. Even if
it were perfect to imply that rotating imbalance will go to zero is
incorrect. A 4-cylinder opposed engine has a quite high secondary
yaw couple that can't be balanced. Even the 6-cylinder engines are
only balanced in first and second order modes - higher orders may not
be balanced (I don't know as most people stop analyzing after the 2nd
order). It's all a matter of priorities and I would put my efforts
somewhere else. Getting a dynamic prop balance after the engine is
running always seems like a good idea, although my last Cessna was
very smooth without it, so I never bothered. On the Cessna before
that I had dynamic balancing done whenever we had anything done that
could affect balance and even then it was never very smooth.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Archie, I have to point out that pulling a plug wire will not change
compression of that cylinder. It will certainly change the combustion
pressure, which does increase the amount of vibration. A few months back my
O-320 swallowed the #4 exhaust valve head. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on, I
can tell you! Careful balancing of reciprocating parts in any piece of
machinery contributes to longevity of the bearings as well as any
fatigue-sensitive parts. Engineers may be able to tell us the specific
numbers related to this, but any old backyard shade-tree race car bulder can
tell you the facts of reality.
Wes
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Cc:
| From: | gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com |
>Hmm, this should be good . Think I'll grab a beer and watch...
>Ed in JXN
Wow! I agree, this is interesting.
>First of all, what is your definition of perfect? It must be the
accuracy or resolution of >your equipment. Apparently your scales only
weigh to .01 grams. What if I needed my rods >balanced to .001 grams,
isn't that closer to
>perfect than what you could handle?
I have a few questions and I mean no disrespect I am just curious. If what
was necessary was .001 and you only had equipment that measured .01,
wouldn't you get different equipment?
I think in one of the original posts the balance question was brought up
because the shop that was doing the work was not trusted to remove metal
from the parts. I have not seen that in today's comments so my next
question assumes that it is not an issue. If you were balancing anything
on something that rotates what would be the reason to not balance it as
well as your equipment will allow? The result may not be perceived by your
senses but it could not have a negative effect on wear. You may not
achieve "perfection" but why set out to half-ass it?
Gary AA1B 160 N952GS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Gary,
I have done business with this shop before! I only wanted the weights of
the rods -- big end and small end, I didn't want to risk having them grind
strength away in the wrong place or otherwise ruin the rods. Search some on the
web and you'll see that several sites advise against removing weight from
Lycoming rods. My thinking was that I could match up the rods opposite each
other in the best pairs and not have to risk ruining them.
In my first post, I wanted to know what is considered good enough.
clip ---
Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6 grams at
the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks like I have
about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good (under 1 gram),
and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
---
Archie says that nothing less than perfect is acceptable. I know that
perfect is impossible to achieve, so I still want to know what is considered "good
enough."
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying (working on 2nd engine)
In a message dated 3/20/2006 12:36:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com writes:
I think in one of the original posts the balance question was brought up
because the shop that was doing the work was not trusted to remove metal
from the parts. I have not seen that in today's comments so my next
question assumes that it is not an issue. If you were balancing anything
on something that rotates what would be the reason to not balance it as
well as your equipment will allow? The result may not be perceived by your
senses but it could not have a negative effect on wear. You may not
achieve "perfection" but why set out to half-ass it?
Gary AA1B 160 N952GS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: carburated -> fuel injected |
In a message dated 3/20/06 9:28:04 AM, rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
>
> Contact your local FSDO and talk to them about your intentions.=A0 I think
> they will say you have to go through the ACO engineering and apply for an
> STC.=A0 It is highly unlikely they would do a field approval from a FSDO.
>
Actually, LyCon has taken one model and converted it to another during
overhaul. You still have the original tag, but, the paperwork shows what's been
done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Am still reading the thread, but will not comment any further regarding
this.
I will say that I own three balancing machines capable of weights of 1500lbs
to several ounces. I also have two analytical systems for checking and
locating
imbalance of rotating parts.
You are correct in bracket cracking, (also exhaust cracking), where proper
balancing of all rotating parts, (including alternator) contributes to
reduction
of such. Also, the propeller, correctly indicated earlier, is a major
culprit.
An interesting fact many may not be aware of, is that once everything is
perfect,
a simple removal and replacement of the prop will show a slight imbalance,
which would not be noticeable, but the instruments have picked it up.
BTW, I do not believe I mentioned that pulling a wire changes static
compression.
Obviously that is fixed. It will change resultant pressure due to lack of
combustion.
I cover all these aspects in my presentations to race shops, and EAA
chapters.
BTW, I am also a retired industrial engineer, college professor, currently
building racing engines.(with three world records), and have raced for over
thirty years.
Nuff said, no need to turn this into a novella.
Happy flying...
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions
>
> Archie, I have to point out that pulling a plug wire will not change
> compression of that cylinder. It will certainly change the combustion
> pressure, which does increase the amount of vibration. A few months back
> my
> O-320 swallowed the #4 exhaust valve head. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on, I
> can tell you! Careful balancing of reciprocating parts in any piece of
> machinery contributes to longevity of the bearings as well as any
> fatigue-sensitive parts. Engineers may be able to tell us the specific
> numbers related to this, but any old backyard shade-tree race car bulder
> can
> tell you the facts of reality.
>
> Wes
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
One last one:
Yes, one of my static scales has the ability to read .001
On a V-type engine the weight of oil in the crank throw
passages is incorporated in the bob weight formula.
Then there are certain instances when an engine will be overbalanced,
but that is another application...................
End of semantics...........
.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions
>
>>Hmm, this should be good . Think I'll grab a beer and watch...
>
>
>>Ed in JXN
>
>
> Wow! I agree, this is interesting.
>
>
>>First of all, what is your definition of perfect? It must be the
> accuracy or resolution of >your equipment. Apparently your scales only
> weigh to .01 grams. What if I needed my rods >balanced to .001 grams,
> isn't that closer to
>
>
>>perfect than what you could handle?
>
>
> I have a few questions and I mean no disrespect I am just curious. If what
> was necessary was .001 and you only had equipment that measured .01,
> wouldn't you get different equipment?
>
> I think in one of the original posts the balance question was brought up
> because the shop that was doing the work was not trusted to remove metal
> from the parts. I have not seen that in today's comments so my next
> question assumes that it is not an issue. If you were balancing anything
> on something that rotates what would be the reason to not balance it as
> well as your equipment will allow? The result may not be perceived by your
> senses but it could not have a negative effect on wear. You may not
> achieve "perfection" but why set out to half-ass it?
>
>
> Gary AA1B 160 N952GS
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Snip
" BTW, I am also a retired industrial engineer, college professor, currently
building racing engines.(with three world records), and have raced for over
thirty years."---------------------------------------
Just out of curiosity Archie.... What World Records do you personally
own...?
Best... Steve
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:37:19 -0500
Am still reading the thread, but will not comment any further regarding
this.
I will say that I own three balancing machines capable of weights of 1500lbs
to several ounces. I also have two analytical systems for checking and
locating
imbalance of rotating parts.
You are correct in bracket cracking, (also exhaust cracking), where proper
balancing of all rotating parts, (including alternator) contributes to
reduction
of such. Also, the propeller, correctly indicated earlier, is a major
culprit.
An interesting fact many may not be aware of, is that once everything is
perfect,
a simple removal and replacement of the prop will show a slight imbalance,
which would not be noticeable, but the instruments have picked it up.
BTW, I do not believe I mentioned that pulling a wire changes static
compression.
Obviously that is fixed. It will change resultant pressure due to lack of
combustion.
I cover all these aspects in my presentations to race shops, and EAA
chapters.
BTW, I am also a retired industrial engineer, college professor, currently
building racing engines.(with three world records), and have raced for over
thirty years.
Nuff said, no need to turn this into a novella.
Happy flying...
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions
>
> Archie, I have to point out that pulling a plug wire will not change
> compression of that cylinder. It will certainly change the combustion
> pressure, which does increase the amount of vibration. A few months back
> my
> O-320 swallowed the #4 exhaust valve head. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on,
I
> can tell you! Careful balancing of reciprocating parts in any piece of
> machinery contributes to longevity of the bearings as well as any
> fatigue-sensitive parts. Engineers may be able to tell us the specific
> numbers related to this, but any old backyard shade-tree race car bulder
> can
> tell you the facts of reality.
>
> Wes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Dan,
In all the fun we all ignored your original question - "how good is
good enough?" - for which there is probably no answer. At one
extreme you could just bolt the parts together and get what you get.
At the other extreme is perfection, which you won't get. I'm
certainly not an expert as to where you can remove material from
connecting rods, but I would suggest not removing material unless you
are sure there is no stress at that location. Regardless of what you
do, I propose that the difference between putting the engine together
with existing parts just matched as best you can (two heaviest rods
opposite each other, etc) and going for perfection will be
imperceptible. And it will have no effect whatsoever on power,
reliability or durability. Search for perfection someplace else.
Just my opinion.
Gary
>
> In my first post, I wanted to know what is considered good enough.
>
> clip ---
> Speaking of engine balance, what is considered good enough? Is 6
> grams at
> the big end of the rods really bad, or good, or what? It looks
> like I have
> about 3 grams worst case on the recip end. The crank is good
> (under 1 gram),
>
> and the piston/pins are only a couple of tenths apart.
> ---
>
> Archie says that nothing less than perfect is acceptable. I know that
> perfect is impossible to achieve, so I still want to know what is
> considered "good
>
> enough."
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A Flying (working on 2nd engine)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stein Erik Johansen <rv7a.norway(at)bluezone.no> |
| Subject: | Quick Build firewall forward package |
Hello engine-listers :-)
Engine installation is a time consuming part of the building prosess. Is there
a company that sell a "Quick Build" firewall forward package which would reduce
installation time? (like Eggenfellners subaru konversion firewall forward solution)
With all the probes, governor, wires and lines attached?
Regards
Stein Erik Johansen
RV-7A QB
Norway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
> In all the fun we all ignored your original question - "how good is
> good enough?"
Not to be the puryevor of doom and gloom, how about...
Crankcase cylinder deck height variations
between banks
Crankcase cylinder deck height variations
between cylinders
Crankshaft stroke variations between
journals
Connecting rod rotating weight (already
discussed)
Connecting rod reciprocating weight
Connecting rod length (pin CL to CL)
Piston weight
Piston dome volume
Piston wrist pin height
Wrist pin weight
Cylinder head volume
Cylinder intake and exhaust port airflow
Cylinder - installed height of intake and
exhaust valves
Courtesy of the Mattituck site (too lazy to type it myself). There's just a lot
more than rod weights to consider. Of course, all this may be overkill.
Shoot, give 'em a call at 800.624.6680 and see what tolerances they
use. May be enlightening....or discouraging. Your pick.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build firewall forward package |
Stein,
Take a look at Mistral Engines, out of Geneva. They are in Europe,
which should be an advantage to you, and they have a complete engine
system with all sensors and monitor included. You need to add your
own cooling and cowl, but there are good sources for those as well.
I'll forward that info. along if you have the interest.
http://www.mistral-engines.com
Or call Francois Badoux
011-41-22-797-43-23
On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Stein Erik Johansen wrote:
>
>
> Hello engine-listers :-)
>
> Engine installation is a time consuming part of the building
> prosess. Is there a company that sell a "Quick Build" firewall
> forward package which would reduce installation time? (like
> Eggenfellners subaru konversion firewall forward solution)
> With all the probes, governor, wires and lines attached?
>
> Regards
> Stein Erik Johansen
> RV-7A QB
> Norway
>
>
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
SteveT.Net
steve(at)stevet.net
805-569-0336 Office
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
In a message dated 3/21/06 5:40:46 AM, glcasey(at)adelphia.net writes:
> In all the fun we all ignored your original question - "how good is=A0
> good enough?" -
>
OK, so you've balanced your recip parts to .000000001 grams. Now, you go
fly. Fuel deposits (or carbon, or varnish, or oil accumulation on the bottom
of the piston, or ???) build up on the various parts until your balance is
reduced to, say, 1 gram. Was it worth all that aggravation?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Connecting rod/bolt balancing questions |
Are you saying the answer to my original post is 1 gram? Or, just having
more fun?
I still haven't gotten what seems like a good answer, except for some very
good advice from Jim Baker. The book is on it way, Jim. Thanks for that
advice. I hate to bother Mattituck for their trade secrets. I'm sure every shop
has their limits which they don't want the world to know. Its even hard to
tell what Lycoming's limits are -- they just use letter codes to group the
weights. I can't find anything that defines these weights. That would help.
This is a take-your-time project, so I don't need an instant answer. I will
wait another day or two for listers to reply. BTW, I have gotten some good
advice in private emails. Most people who reply privately are very
knowledgeable and don't want to suffer all the criticism that an on list reply
seems to
invite. I think its fun, too. Sorry, Archie, for getting a little excited
the other day. I'm sure you do very good work.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying -- working on "spare" engine
In a message dated 3/21/2006 2:34:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
TeamGrumman(at)aol.com writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: TeamGrumman(at)aol.com
In a message dated 3/21/06 5:40:46 AM, glcasey(at)adelphia.net writes:
> In all the fun we all ignored your original question - "how good is=A0
> good enough?" -
>
OK, so you've balanced your recip parts to .000000001 grams. Now, you go
fly. Fuel deposits (or carbon, or varnish, or oil accumulation on the
bottom
of the piston, or ???) build up on the various parts until your balance is
reduced to, say, 1 gram. Was it worth all that aggravation?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stein Erik Johansen <rv7a.norway(at)bluezone.no> |
| Subject: | Re: Quick Build firewall forward package |
Steve, thank for your reply.
I'll be happy if you could forward the info you mentioned.
The Mistral have a high "bare-engine" cost, but if you don't have to get to many
"accessories" it might not be so expensive all in all.
Thanks
Stein Erik Johansen
Tirsdag 21 mars 2006 18:06, skrev Steve Thomas:
>
> Stein,
>
> Take a look at Mistral Engines, out of Geneva. They are in Europe,
> which should be an advantage to you, and they have a complete engine
> system with all sensors and monitor included. You need to add your
> own cooling and cowl, but there are good sources for those as well.
> I'll forward that info. along if you have the interest.
>
> http://www.mistral-engines.com
>
> Or call Francois Badoux
> 011-41-22-797-43-23
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Stein Erik Johansen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello engine-listers :-)
> >
> > Engine installation is a time consuming part of the building
> > prosess. Is there a company that sell a "Quick Build" firewall
> > forward package which would reduce installation time? (like
> > Eggenfellners subaru konversion firewall forward solution)
> > With all the probes, governor, wires and lines attached?
> >
> > Regards
> > Stein Erik Johansen
> > RV-7A QB
> > Norway
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve Thomas
> SteveT.Net
> steve(at)stevet.net
> 805-569-0336 Office
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | List Behaviour & Attitudes |
> Snip <
..... Most people who reply privately are very knowledgeable and don't want to
suffer all the criticism that an on list reply seems to invite .....
> Snip <
I quite frankly miss the constructive input from some great people that are no
longer actively participating on these lists because of some other "experts" attitudes!
Perhaps these good guys now rather help from the background and only
give one-on-one advice, but forever withheld from the archives (where the info
would be most needed). How many people have been turned away by the offensive
etiquette sometimes displayed here. What a strange phenomenon?
And in regards to Archie F.: What a grand resource for all of us?
I have met and talked with him during Oshkosh, and he probably forgot more about
the subject of engine performance enhancements then I will ever know about them?
Ladies & Gentlemen, please lets practice some more class & discipline, ...instead
of offensive remarks about other peoples opinions about any given subject.
Thank you!
To be ARCHIVED !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engines-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/21/06 |
Dan Hooper,
Would it be appropriate if you posted your private replies here on the
engine balancing question, while deleting any personally identifiable information?
For those who replied privately to Dan, would you mind if he posted the
gist of the replies for all of us to read as long as it was not identifiable?
An acquaintance of mine built/raced largest class motorcycles
professionally, worked in the engine shop of one of the nationally well known
aircraft
rebuilders (saw engines coming in, built them, dealt with warranty problems,
etc.), currently builds all his own stuff, and his advice is that at the rpm
levels we are at with Lycoming 180's and for regular non-aerobatic flying, that
the "regular" (whatever that means, probably factory) limits are good enough.
He just laughed when I started talking about balancing combustion chamber
cc, rod length, etc.
On the other hand, an engineer at Powerflow told me that in order to get the
best out of their exhaust, to check the cam because the factory limits are
so loose some don't get the scavenging done even though within factory specs.
Skip Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: List Behaviour & Attitudes |
Too true!
Red
----- Original Message -----
From: Konrad L. Werner
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:03 PM
Subject: Engines-List: List Behaviour & Attitudes
> Snip <
..... Most people who reply privately are very knowledgeable and don't want to
suffer all the criticism that an on list reply seems to invite .....
> Snip <
I quite frankly miss the constructive input from some great people that are no
longer actively participating on these lists because of some other "experts"
attitudes! Perhaps these good guys now rather help from the background and only
give one-on-one advice, but forever withheld from the archives (where the
info would be most needed). How many people have been turned away by the offensive
etiquette sometimes displayed here. What a strange phenomenon?
And in regards to Archie F.: What a grand resource for all of us?
I have met and talked with him during Oshkosh, and he probably forgot more about
the subject of engine performance enhancements then I will ever know about
them?
Ladies & Gentlemen, please lets practice some more class & discipline, ...instead
of offensive remarks about other peoples opinions about any given subject.
Thank you!
To be ARCHIVED !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hand held GPS/NAV. |
Are any of you using, or have had, either of these units that would share
your opinions with me about them?
Does anyone want to sell their unit?
Lowrance AIRMAP 2000C
AvMap EKP 111C
AvMap EKP 1V
I would appreciate an immediate response, as we're going to replace the
"Texaco GPS" that we've been using in a few days.
Thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cory Emberson <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Feedback Requested (Alternative Engines) Kitplanes Magazine |
Hello all,
I would like to hear from you if you're a builder who has successfully
installed and flown an alternative engine in your homebuilt plane. I'm
compiling a builder's roundup for Kitplanes magazine, and am looking for
an installation that's flown for a minimum of 300 hours, and is
currently flying. Also, we will not address any rotary engines, since a
separate article will cover those engines.
For the builders that we profile, the magazine will also be able to pay
you $100 for the write-up. I'll be at Sun 'n Fun until late morning on
Friday (April 7), so if you fly in, I'd be happy to take the photos
there. If not, we would also need at least 2-3 good photos, including a
close-up of the engine and an overall shot of the aircraft. Additional
photos would be great, and all photos will be returned. If you have
digital photos, it is very important that they be high-resolution, at
least 300 dpi. I have a list of specific areas to address if you'd like
to participate, but we can handle that off-line. Please feel free to
contact me off-line at: bootless (at) earthlink (dot) net (my despammed
email address).
Thank you so much!
best,
Cory Emberson
Contributing Editor
Kitplanes Magazine
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Howes" <whitley(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | Filler tube for RV 4 |
The oil filler tube on my Superior XP-360 is too long and needs to be about an
inch shorter to clear the inside of the top cowling on my RV4.
Is there a shorter oil tube available, if not what adhesive works on Lycoming
plastic filler tubes.
Stan Howes U.K.
Upgrade your email with thousands of emoticons for free
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
| Subject: | Filler tube for RV 4 |
I cut a section out of my oil fill tube and used a piece of leftover
aileron pushrod as a sleeve over the cut section (fit mine perfectly!)
I then prosealed it all together and held it in place with a couple of
pull rivets on each side of the cut. Works like a champ!
-Mike Kraus
RV-4 Flying
RV-10 Hanger flying and working on the fuse and IP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stan Howes
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Filler tube for RV 4
The oil filler tube on my Superior XP-360 is too long and needs to be
about an inch shorter to clear the inside of the top cowling on my RV4.
Is there a shorter oil tube available, if not what adhesive works on
Lycoming plastic filler tubes.
Stan Howes U.K.
Upgrade your email with thousands of emoticons for free
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Wiki! |
Dear Listers,
I have added a new feature to the Email List Forums at Matronics called a Wiki. What's "Wiki" you ask? A Wiki is a website. You go to it and browse just like you would any other web site. The difference is, you can change it. You can put anything you want on this web site without having to be a web designer or even being the owner. You can write a new page just like writing an email message on the BBS. You don't need to send it off to anyone to install on the site. It is kind of like a Blog (weblog) in which anyone can post. Here is a great page on where the term Wiki came from and what it means in the context of a website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
So on to the new Matronics Email List Wiki... I've created this site for anyone
from any of the Email Lists to use. I envision that there are a great many
things that can be added to this new Wiki since there are always new and interesting
tidbits of useful information traversing the Lists.
Off the main Matronics Email List Wiki page, you will find a link called "Community
Portal". Here you will find more links to stubs for all the various Lists
found at Matronics (and a few other links). Brian Lloyd and others from the
Yak-List have already begun adding content in a number of areas. Bob Nuckolls
of AeroElectric fame has added a great article on "Ageing Aircraft".
I have discussed the new Matronics Email List Wiki with Tedd McHenry and Dwight Frye of the RV Wiki Site and they have decided to merge their site over onto the new Matronics Wiki server giving everyone a single source for information on RV building and flying! This migration will begin today and you should be able to find all of the content currently found at www.rvwiki.org moved over to the Matronics Wiki within a few days.
To make edits to the Matronics Wiki, you will need to have a login account on the
Matronics Wiki and I have disabled anonymous edits. This protects the Wiki
site from automated spam engines and other nuisances that could compromise the
data at the site.
Signing up for an account is fast and easy and begins by clicking on the "create
an account or log in" link in the upper right hand corner of any page. Note
that you do not have to have a login or be logged in to view any of the content.
The Matronics Email List Wiki is YOUR Wiki! It is only as useful as the content
found within. The concept of the Wiki is that the people the use it and update
it. If you've got an interesting procedure for doing something, MAKE A WIKI
PAGE ON IT! You can even upload pictures. Saw something interesting at a
flyin? MAKE A WIKI PAGE ON IT! Don't be shy, this is YOUR site to share information
with others with similar interests.
Here is a users guide on using the Wiki implemented at Matronics: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents This gives a lot of great information on how to get started editing pages.
And finally, here is the URL for the Matronics Email List Wiki:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Brian Lloyd has written an excellent introduction to Wikis on the front page.
I encourage you to read it over, then drill into the "Community Portal" and HAVE
FUN!!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Continental front crank seal sealant |
Hello Listers:
We are about to assemble a Continental O-200A (major overhaul) and were
wondering what modern sealant is recommended for the front crankshaft seal.
One engine builder has said Permatex 97 is what he uses. This looks fine
but appears to be a type of contact cement. This same builder also says he
uses Locktite 515 to join the case halves and no longer uses silk thread.
Any input would be appreciated. We could, of course, use what is mentioned
in the Continental overhaul manual, but we were hoping that in the last 65
years, something "slightly" better may have been developed, "Halomar" etc.
Thanks&Regards,
Randy L. Thwing,. Las Vegas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
I used Hylomar from Permatex with silk thread on a Continental about 11 years ago,
still pretty tight at 800 hours.
Red Hamilton
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Continental front crank seal sealant
Hello Listers:
We are about to assemble a Continental O-200A (major overhaul) and were
wondering what modern sealant is recommended for the front crankshaft seal.
One engine builder has said Permatex 97 is what he uses. This looks fine
but appears to be a type of contact cement. This same builder also says he
uses Locktite 515 to join the case halves and no longer uses silk thread.
Any input would be appreciated. We could, of course, use what is mentioned
in the Continental overhaul manual, but we were hoping that in the last 65
years, something "slightly" better may have been developed, "Halomar" etc.
Thanks&Regards,
Randy L. Thwing,. Las Vegas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
What did you use on the front crank seal????
> I used Hylomar from Permatex with silk thread on a Continental about 11
years ago, still pretty tight at 800 hours.
> Red Hamilton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
Same thing, let it tack up some before install.
Red
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Continental front crank seal sealant
What did you use on the front crank seal????
> I used Hylomar from Permatex with silk thread on a Continental about 11
years ago, still pretty tight at 800 hours.
> Red Hamilton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Lycoming flywheel pulley diameter |
I think that there are two flywheel pulley diameters for the 4 cyl Lyc, does anyone
know what they are?
TIA,
Red Hamilton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Continental front crank seal sealant |
Three lines of silk thread and halomar works real well on the case halfs...
Best... Steve
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Continental front crank seal sealant
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 19:04:30 -0700
Hello Listers:
We are about to assemble a Continental O-200A (major overhaul) and were
wondering what modern sealant is recommended for the front crankshaft seal.
One engine builder has said Permatex 97 is what he uses. This looks fine
but appears to be a type of contact cement. This same builder also says he
uses Locktite 515 to join the case halves and no longer uses silk thread.
Any input would be appreciated. We could, of course, use what is mentioned
in the Continental overhaul manual, but we were hoping that in the last 65
years, something "slightly" better may have been developed, "Halomar" etc.
Thanks&Regards,
Randy L. Thwing,. Las Vegas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming flywheel pulley diameter |
Hi Red,
I have two "ring gear supports". The one I would consider standard measures
9 3/4 inches on the outside with a 3/8 inch wide belt groove. This one is
marked 75030 ASSY.
I also have one with 2 pulleys. At the rear is one 8 3/8 inch on the
outside with a 1/2 inch wide groove. Just ahead of this groove is one that is
8
5/8 on the outside with a 3/8 inch wide groove. This one is marked LW15602
ASSY. This flywheel would not work on my IO-360-C1E6 with the front mounted
prop governor because the ID of the pulley interfered with the case.
These both are for an IO-360 with prop bolt/bushing holes about 3/4 inch
diameter.
Hope this helps. There are surely more flywheels than this out there.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 4/9/2006 10:57:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
redswing(at)mcn.org writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Red Hamilton"
I think that there are two flywheel pulley diameters for the 4 cyl Lyc, does
anyone know what they are?
TIA,
Red Hamilton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:05:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
s_korney(at)hotmail.com writes:
--> Engines-List message posted by: "steve korney"
Three lines of silk thread and halomar works real well on the case halfs...
Best... Steve
Do you mean Permatex HYLOMAR HPF Part No. 25249? This worked very well for
me with the silk thread.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
Pliobond works good.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Continental front crank seal sealant
>
>
> What did you use on the front crank seal????
>
>
>> I used Hylomar from Permatex with silk thread on a Continental about 11
> years ago, still pretty tight at 800 hours.
>> Red Hamilton
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
> Pliobond works good.
ThreeBond, as well.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
Hey Jim:
Threebond makes a lot of products, is this the one? From their site:
"ThreeBond 1521 is an all-round adhesive whose main component is chloroprene
synthetic rubber. It is widely used not only for soft materials such as
rubber and leather, but also for hard materials such as metals."
Regards.
Randy
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Continental front crank seal sealant
>
> > Pliobond works good.
>
> ThreeBond, as well.
>
> Jim Baker
> 580.788.2779
> Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental front crank seal sealant |
> Hey Jim:
> Threebond makes a lot of products, is this the one? From their
> site:
>
> "ThreeBond 1521 is an all-round adhesive whose main component
is
> chloroprene synthetic rubber. It is widely used not only for soft
> materials such as rubber and leather, but also for hard materials
such
> as metals."
Aiiieee....no! The 1521 is a contact cement.look for 1104 or 1211.
The 1104 is used on a lot of OEM assemblies from Japan to seal
crankcase halves.
http://www.threebond.co.jp/en/product/series/sealants/1100list.html
http://www.threebond.co.jp/en/product/number/index.html
I'd go with the 1104 if there aren't any large gaps. And I'd probably
not use any of the silicone based stuff. Knowing just how much of
the stuff extruded into the interior is always a worry and if any of it is
going to fall into the oil supply with deleterious effect. The 1104 is
pretty darn thin and is danged tough stuff. By no means the only
solution, just one among many tho.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
Anyone know how to tell if a Slick mag has impulse coupling or not? I
don't have the prop on yet so I can't turn the engine over and listen for
the tell-tale snap. I'd rather not remove the mag or turn the engine over
with the starter until the airplane is completely finished. Can I get
impulse coupling information from the Mag serial/model numbers or otherwise
figure this out by looking at the mag when installed on the engine? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Sooooo close to the finish
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
In addition to an extra spacer between the mag and accessory housing the
model # with tell you. You probably have a 4371 impulse mag and a 4370
non-impulse mag on the RH side.
Cliff A&P/IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 9:27 PM
Subject: Engines-List: Slick Mags
>
>
>
> Anyone know how to tell if a Slick mag has impulse coupling or not? I
> don't have the prop on yet so I can't turn the engine over and listen for
> the tell-tale snap. I'd rather not remove the mag or turn the engine over
> with the starter until the airplane is completely finished. Can I get
> impulse coupling information from the Mag serial/model numbers or
> otherwise
> figure this out by looking at the mag when installed on the engine?
> Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Sooooo close to the finish
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Remove from list |
Please remove this account from your list. Recipient is deceased.
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net> |
Unison lists mags with Lag/retard values in their publication at:
http://www.unisonindustries.com/docs/ConsolidatedAppData_L1318.pdf. This may help you identify IC units by the model number. If you can get the sheet that comes with a new mag, (L-1058-K) it does the same.
--------
Wes
N7337G
C172K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=29207#29207
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
test
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Engine mount bolts |
I'm installing my Lycoming and I'm not sure what kind of bolt to use
in the four engine mount isolators. I'm assuming a standard bolt and
nut with a flat washer and a star washer. Is that the right
combination? No locking nuts or no castle nuts?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steve korney" <s_korney(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Engine mount bolts |
Grade 8 bolts with castle nuts and cotter pins... Torque to proper
specifications for the mounts... There should be a spacer between the two
rubber mount halfs...
Best... Steve
----Original Message Follows----
From: Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Engines-List: Engine mount bolts
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:37:56 -0700
I'm installing my Lycoming and I'm not sure what kind of bolt to use
in the four engine mount isolators. I'm assuming a standard bolt and
nut with a flat washer and a star washer. Is that the right
combination? No locking nuts or no castle nuts?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Cowan/Lexy Cameron" <cowcam(at)pipcom.com> |
Has anyone any first hand (as opposed to rumor) knowledge about
these conversions like durability of gear box, power, weight
etc??
Thanks
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Thompson" <dave.thompson(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | John Deere Alternator & regulator |
Hi Guys, This is my first post.
I am collecting parts to build a Corvair using WW's manual. I plan to build
a 601XL. Anyway, I'm looking for a supplier for the John Deere alternator &
regulator. What tractor are they from?
Dave Thompson
dave.thompson(at)verizon.net
Westminster, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <rondefly(at)rtriano.com> |
| Subject: | John Deere Alternator & regulator |
That's easy, try John Deere
Ron Triano `, ()
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page10.html
http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page11.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Thompson
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Engines-List: John Deere Alternator & regulator
-->
Hi Guys, This is my first post.
I am collecting parts to build a Corvair using WW's manual. I plan to build
a 601XL. Anyway, I'm looking for a supplier for the John Deere alternator &
regulator. What tractor are they from?
Dave Thompson
dave.thompson(at)verizon.net
Westminster, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics BBS Forums |
Hello Listers,
I just wanted to send out a reminder to all of the Listers regarding the new-ish
BBS (Bulletin Board System) Forums that are available at Matronics for the Email
Lists. The BBS Forums give you Web-based access into the same email content
that is generated by the Email Lists. When an email message is posted to
any of the email lists, a copy of the message is also copied to the respective
List forum section on in the BBS Forums. By the same token, when a message is
posted within the BBS Forum interface context, it will also be posted to the
respective email list.
Basically, the BBS Forums give you yet another method of accessing the Matronics
Email List content. Some people prefer email, some prefer web forums; now you
can have it either way or both with the Matronics Lists!
You'll have to register for a login/password on the BBS Forum to _post_ from the
BBS, but you can view message content without registering for an account. To
Register for an account, look for the link at the top of the main BBS Forum
page entitled "Register". Click on it and follow the instructions. Site Administrator
approval will be required (to keep spammers out), but I will try to
get these approved in less than 24 hours.
If you haven't yet taken a look at the Matronics Email List content over on the
BBS Forum, surf on over and take a peek. Its pretty cool. The URL is:
http://forums.matronics.com
I want to stress that the BBS Forums are simply an adjunct to the existing Matronics
Email Lists; another way of viewing and interacting with the Matronics List
content. If you like Email, great. If you like Web Forums, great. If you
like both, great. Its up to you how you view and create your content.
You will also find a URL link at the bottom of this email called Matronics List
Features Navigator. You can click on this link at any time to find URL links
to all of the other great features available on the Matronics site like the Archive
Search Engine, List Browse, List Download, FAQs, Wiki, and lots more.
There is a specific Navigator for each Email List and the link for this specific
List is shown below.
Thanks for all the great list participation and support; it is greatly appreciated!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder! |
Dear Listers,
I have added two new email Lists to the Matronics Line up today. These include
a Continental engine List and a Lightning aircraft List:
===========
continental-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Continental-List
Everything related to the Continental aircraft engine. Sky's the limit on discussions
here.
===========
===========
lightning-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
This is an exciting new design from Arion Aircraft LLC in Shelbyville Tennessee. Pete Krotje has a very nice web site on the aircraft that can be found here: http://www.arionaircraft.com/
===========
Also, if you haven't checked out the new Matronics Aircraft Wiki, swing by and
have a look. Remember, a Wiki is only as good as the content that the members
put into it. Have a look over some of the sections, and if you've got some interesting
or useful, please add it to the Wiki! Its all about YOU! :-) The
URL for the Matronics Wiki is:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Enclosure Support |
Dear Listers,
Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the Matronics
Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity, capability,
and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using email these
days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the viewing and handling
of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month from people on the
various Lists asking why their posts of this or that picture didn't go through.
Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a few
Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary to
my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists relating
to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members have policed
themselves well with respect to the size of things they have posted.
Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair amount
of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the formats
are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and a generic
plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the time and
are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them from posting
to the Lists.
So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited enclosure
posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not only increase
the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better opportunity to filter
out the chaff.
Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules could
result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE COURTEOUS!
I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please police
yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures using
the guidelines I've outlined above.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How to install Landoll Balancer? |
Just picked up a used Landoll Balancer. Has anyone got any installation
information available? I have the copy of a sheet that shows pictures of the
components and tell what it does, but I'm looking for torque requirements of the
bolts and general installation information. This is the silicone fluid
balancer with aerobatic plate. Thanks as always.......
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Landoll Balancer? |
> (am assuming you are using a metal prop, as wooden props really do
not
need such a device).
> BTW, it is not a "balancer", as it balances nothing. It is actually a
"harmonic dampener".
> Catch my forums at OSH for what it actually does.
Opps: I believe it is the other way around: you need something
flywheel-like
up front to make up for lack of weight and inertia of a wood prop.
Something
like a Landoll dampener would not be necessary with a METAL (flywheel)
prop
as the weight and inertia is already there.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landoll Balancer? |
Actually Archie is correct, the device is a harmonic dampener, or to put
it different it absorbs alot of unwanted vibrations which in effect smo
oths out the power pulses. A balancer is usually a static action to corr
ect a shaking motion, the harmonic balancer is an active device doing it
s thing as the engine runs.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Michael" wrote:
> (am assuming you are using a metal prop, as wooden props really do no
t need such a device). > BTW, it is not a "balancer", as it balances no
thing. It is actually a "harmonic dampener". > Catch my forums at OSH f
or what it actually does. Opps: I believe it is the other way around: y
ou need something flywheel-like up front to make up for lack of weight a
nd inertia of a wood prop. Something like a Landoll dampener would not b
e necessary with a METAL (flywheel) prop as the weight and inertia is al
ready there. Michael
Actually Archie is correct, the device is a harmonic dampener, or
to put it different it absorbs alot of unwanted vibrations which in
effect smooths out the power pulses. A balancer is usually a static&nbs
p;action to correct a shaking motion, the harmonic balancer is an active
device doing its thing as the engine runs.
Ben Ha
as
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Michael" <c
ubflyr(at)comcast.net> wrote:
> (am assumin
g you are using a metal prop, as wooden props really do not need such a
device).
> BTW, it is
not a "balancer", as it balances nothing. It is actually a "harmonic dam
pener".
> Catch my fo
rums at OSH for what it actually does.&
nbsp;
Opps: I believe it is the other wa
y around: you need something flywheel-like up front to make up for
lack of weight and inertia of a wood prop. Something like a Landoll
dampener would not be necessary with a METAL (flywheel) prop as th
e weight and inertia is already there.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | wood prop vs metal with Landoll Harmonic Dampener |
Right: but it is NOT necessary with a metal prop. As you say, the
dampener
ABSORBS pulses which a wooden prop has difficulty with as the mass is
not as
great as a metal prop, thus there is less to absorb the pulses into. The
Harmonic Whatever is not needed with a metal prop; it is not necessary
with
a wood prop either but nice to have, especially the light ones on
experimental aircraft such as an RV.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
n801bh(at)netzero.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Landoll Balancer?
Actually Archie is correct, the device is a harmonic dampener, or to put
it
different it absorbs alot of unwanted vibrations which in effect smooths
out
the power pulses. A balancer is usually a static action to correct a
shaking
motion, the harmonic balancer is an active device doing its thing as the
engine runs.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Michael" wrote:
> (am assuming you are using a metal prop, as wooden props really do
not
need such a device).
> BTW, it is not a "balancer", as it balances nothing. It is actually a
"harmonic dampener".
> Catch my forums at OSH for what it actually does.
Opps: I believe it is the other way around: you need something
flywheel-like
up front to make up for lack of weight and inertia of a wood prop.
Something
like a Landoll dampener would not be necessary with a METAL (flywheel)
prop
as the weight and inertia is already there.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landoll Balancer? |
MessageI work with these on a regular basis, and can assure you the a
wooden prop will
absorb and dissipate orders of harmonics where a metal prop will not.
That is not to say it cannot be used, however.
The dampener may add some flywheel effect but why would anyone install
it for that
purpose? We are not incorporating it for flywheel effect. The purpose of
any dampener
is to absorb torque spikes which are generated in every internal
combustion piston engine.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Landoll Balancer?
> (am assuming you are using a metal prop, as wooden props really do
not need such a device).
> BTW, it is not a "balancer", as it balances nothing. It is actually
a "harmonic dampener".
> Catch my forums at OSH for what it actually does.
Opps: I believe it is the other way around: you need something
flywheel-like up front to make up for lack of weight and inertia of a
wood prop. Something like a Landoll dampener would not be necessary with
a METAL (flywheel) prop as the weight and inertia is already there.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maynard, Brad" <bk-maynard(at)ti.com> |
Some interesting reading about Alcohol in Fuel:
Note the info about oil & two strokes.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfg/waterphs.pdf#search='water%20pha
se%20separation
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Engine instrumentation |
Dave wrote:
I intend to have:
Tachometer
Oil Temp
Oil Pressure
EGT with Left / Right switch for the two hottest cylinders
Volts
Alternator Idiot light
Hourmeter
Dave: No one else said it so, what about cylinder head temperature? With
the air-cooled Corvair engine, even if you copy a proven pressure cowl
design, I would 'rank' CHT more important than an hourmeter, manifold
pressure or EGT.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Delamarter, Jon" <JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com> |
| Subject: | Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
To All:
I am new to the Matronics email list and would like to introduce myself. My
name is Jon A. Delamarter. I hold an A&P license and a degree in aircraft
maintenance from Spartan School of Aeronautics (Tulsa, OK). I have been
married for more than my adult life (since 19) and have the world's most
wonderful wife and the 4 most beautiful and intelligent daughters that God
ever created. (My dog's pretty smart too.) I have about 50 hours of dual
in my logbook but have not soloed due to a disagreement between me and Uncle
Sam regarding my medical. As a certified airplane freak and airport bum, I
might just hold some sort of record for "Most Types Flown Before Solo." I
am particularly proud of the fact that I have T-6 aerobatic instruction on
the first page of my logbook! My professional aviation career began upon
graduation from Spartan on December 17, 1999. In the short 6 years since,
I have enjoyed an unbelievably rewarding life. With the blessings of loving
family support, an excellent education, and an absolute dedication to
excellence, I have experienced career satisfaction and growth that I could
not have imagined. If you love this business, it will be good to you! If
you don't love it, get out. If I have learned one thing thus far, it is
this: It's always about the people! I have no idea how many of you will
read this email, but I want you to know something. You aviation folks are
my family. I am proud and humbled to be part of you.
Having said all that, and at the risk of sounding crassly commercial, I'd
love to tell you folks about what I'm doing now. As of February 1st of this
year, it has been my privilege to serve as manager of Lycoming's brand-new
experimental hot-rod shop, Thunderbolt Engines. As you know, the absence of
Lycoming's direct participation in the past has not prevented the dominance
of our brand in the experimental market. We owe this not only to those
designers who build their aircraft around our engine, but also and perhaps
even more so, to the inherent reliability and simplicity of our engines.
The bottom line is that, although many of you are willing to experiment with
different aircraft designs and construction techniques, few have the desire
to step away from the known quantity of a Lycoming engine.
In recognition of this fact, Lycoming began a journey down a new road last
year with the introduction of the kit program. This program is responsible
for the influx of new experimental Lycoming based engines being sold by 6
shops across the country. With this move, Lycoming formally acknowledged
the credibility of the custom engine for the common man.
On April 5th of this year, at Sun-'n-Fun in Lakeland, FL, Lycoming made
public the next step in its journey by unveiling Thunderbolt Engines.
Thunderbolt Engines exists to provide homebuilders, race pilots, and
competition aerobatic pilots with a factory engineered, factory built,
factory supported, factory guaranteed custom engine. In the brief span of
time since the announcement, we have been pleased to learn that the first
reaction from most of our customers upon learning about Thunderbolt Engines
is shock followed immediately by excitement. The most common comments have
been something like, "I'm so glad you guys are finally doing this. I've
been waiting a long time and really didn't expect it to happen." After
recovering from their initial surprise, many builders have eagerly shared
their ideas and concepts for customizing our engines. There are a
significant number of builders who are willing to pay a fair price for a
factory experimental engine. This core group understands the importance of
supporting the customization process with proper and adequate engineering,
quality, assembly, and testing protocol. Thunderbolt Engines is housed in
the ATC (Advanced Technology Center) here at Lycoming. The ATC is still
under development and will eventually consist of four build cells, static
display areas, an aircraft integration laboratory, a customer/employee
training facility, and offices. Once completed, the ATC will be available
to you for tours and training. We are currently operational and are
delivering engines. The intent is to construct a state-of-the-art facility
Advancement. In plain English, we are creating, through the ATC, a
knowledge pool. We encourage you to challenge us with your requests and
ideas. We are discovering that many of our customers know a lot about our
product. Through our involvement in the kit program, we have developed
relationships with individuals and companies that have successfully and
responsibly modified our engines for many years. Through our customer
satisfaction surveys, we are gaining accurate, real-time Voice of the
Customer (VOC) data. We have gained experience and customer exposure
through our support of Reno racing and competition aerobatics. In addition,
Lycoming has made significant additions to its engineering staff. These
folks come from various backgrounds and bring fresh perspective and skills
to the table. By leveraging the data gathered from all these resources,
(customers, kit shops, customer surveys, racing/aerobatics, engineering,
etc.), we are building the knowledge pool. This data not only accelerates
our development technically, it also allows us to focus on developing those
products that best fulfill the needs of the customer.
The development of a Thunderbolt engine begins and ends with the Voice of
the Customer. Many builders call us requesting pricing for a specific
engine. While we certainly provide that information, we also attempt to
glean as much information as possible regarding specific aircraft
application and desired performance. From that data, we are frequently able
to provide the builder with several options, some of which they may not have
known existed. Through this process, we accomplish two things. First, we
match the builder with a custom solution that best accomplishes their stated
goal. Secondly, and equally important, we demonstrate our commitment to the
customer's best interests, rather than pushing a particular product. Our
customers have expressed a great deal of satisfaction with this process and
have been quick to differentiate us from the competition in this regard.
Thunderbolt Engines are currently segregated into three series: Signature,
Extreme, and Competition. A Thunderbolt Signature Series Engine is
differentiated from a certified, production engine in several ways. Like
all Thunderbolt Engines, Signature Series engines are constructed in
dedicated build cells by two man teams. In addition to being team built,
Signature engines are internally balanced and will be configured to the
customer's exact specifications. Items that may be customized range from
major configuration changes such as crankcase or crankshaft to fuel systems,
ignition systems, sumps, induction components, and turbocharging. Customers
will also choose from appearance options such as engine color(s), chrome,
etc. Billet aluminum components such as the prototype rocker covers
displayed at Sun-'n-Fun are in development but not yet online.
Representative of this series would be the engine built last year for Mike
Melville, the world's first civilian astronaut. This engine was an
O-360-A4M configured for updraft cooling and incorporating an experimental
Ellison fuel system. Mike operates this engine in a Long-EZ. Thunderbolt
Signature Series engines will receive a 2-year warranty. This is a real
warranty with real value.
Thunderbolt Extreme Series engines incorporate all the features of the
Signature Series and continue to the next level in terms of performance
upgrades. These items may consist of mildly increased compression ratio or
boost levels, or other yet to be defined upgrades. Thunderbolt Extreme
Series engines will receive a reduced warranty, due to the expected types of
operational dynamics.
Thunderbolt Competition Series engines incorporate all the features of the
Signature and Extreme Series and continue to the maximum level of
performance. These upgrades may consist of dramatically increased
compression ratio or boost levels, water injection, and/or other yet to be
defined upgrades. Representative of this group would be the engines built
for Jon Sharp's Nemesis NXT and Mike Jones' Glasair III. Also
representative of this group would be the engine we just shipped to Extra
for the new Mike Goulian airplane. This engine is an AEIO-580-L1B5 with
very special cylinders, pistons, and sparkplugs. Once fully broken in, we
are expecting 340-350 hp @ 2700 RPM and 11:1 compression. Walter Extra
reports unbelievable climb from an extremely smooth-running engine.
Competition Series engines will be limited to highly experienced pilots and
will require a signed agreement from the customer limiting his right to sell
or change ownership of the engine. Any such change would require Lycoming's
approval. The purpose of this constraint is to prevent the sale of a 340hp
AEIO-580 to a 40hr. Cessna driver! These engines are all out performance
machines, have no representation of reliability, and carry no warranty.
Okay, enough for the blurb. Let's get down to brass tacks. At not quite 32
years of age, I am smart enough to know that I'm still wet behind the ears!
I do not pretend to know everything there is to know about aircraft engines.
However, I absolutely believe in Lycoming Engines and stand ready to support
you in any way possible. I am here to serve as the conduit between you, the
builder, and the full support of Lycoming's able staff of engineers,
technicians, and support personnel. I want you to know that I share your
enthusiasm for our sport and that I hope for the opportunity to speak to
each of you. I will be at Arlington, Oshkosh, and Reno. Please drop by or
contact me with your questions and ideas. I will make every attempt to
answer your inquiry personally and in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Jon A. Delamarter
Thunderbolt Manager
Lycoming Engines
(570)327-7115
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
In a message dated 6/22/06 4:49:15 PM, JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com
writes:
> A Thunderbolt Signature Series Engine is
> differentiated from a certified, production engine in several ways.- Lik
e
> all Thunderbolt Engines, Signature Series engines are constructed in
> dedicated build cells by two man teams.- In addition to being team built
,
> Signature engines are internally balanced and will be configured to the
> customer's exact specifications.- Items that may be customized range fro
m
> major configuration changes such as crankcase or crankshaft to fuel system
s,
>
Roller Rockers????
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mario Nolte <Mario.Nolte(at)post.rwth-aachen.de> |
| Subject: | Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Aren=B4t they standard even on the certified engines by now?
Kind regards
Mario
-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] Im Auftrag von
TeamGrumman(at)aol.com
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Juni 2006 07:06
An: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Betreff: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
In a message dated 6/22/06 4:49:15 PM, JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com
writes:
A Thunderbolt Signature Series Engine is
differentiated from a certified, production engine in several ways.
Like
all Thunderbolt Engines, Signature Series engines are constructed in
dedicated build cells by two man teams. In addition to being team
built,
Signature engines are internally balanced and will be configured to the
customer's exact specifications. Items that may be customized range
from
major configuration changes such as crankcase or crankshaft to fuel
systems,
Roller Rockers????
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flyv35b" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
No roller rockers are available. Just the new roller cam followers.
----- Original Message -----
From: TeamGrumman(at)aol.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
In a message dated 6/22/06 4:49:15 PM,
JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com writes:
A Thunderbolt Signature Series Engine is
differentiated from a certified, production engine in several ways.
Like
all Thunderbolt Engines, Signature Series engines are constructed in
dedicated build cells by two man teams. In addition to being team
built,
Signature engines are internally balanced and will be configured to
the
customer's exact specifications. Items that may be customized range
from
major configuration changes such as crankcase or crankshaft to fuel
systems,
Roller Rockers????
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Delamarter, Jon" <JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Roller cam/lifters are available as standard equipment at no additional
charge. I am unaware of any plans to introduce roller rockers.
Jon A. Delamarter
Thunderbolt Manager
Lycoming Engines
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com> |
| Subject: | Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
No, certified engines come outfitted with the accessories that the
original OEM requested for the airframe (starter, fuel system,
ignition.) One of the advantages of buying from an engine shop in the
field has always been the ability to set the engine up to the specs that
you as a builder want. For example, removing the Kelly starter and
replacing it with Skytec or B&C. Believe me, we've got several Kelly
starters sitting on the shelf from some of the first IO-390s due to
problems (either mechanical or fit related.)
Also note that several of the engine shops go to extra lengths to make
sure that when you purchase an engine the components are what they
should be (like reworking cylinders, especially the guides and
crankshaft balancing.) Some charge an additional fee, and some perform
the work as a standard item.
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa,OK 74115
(918) 835-1089 phone
(918) 835-1754 fax
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
<http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
________________________________
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mario
Nolte
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:55 AM
Aren=B4t they standard even on the certified engines by now?
Kind regards
Mario
-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] Im Auftrag von
TeamGrumman(at)aol.com
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Juni 2006 07:06
An: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Betreff: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
In a message dated 6/22/06 4:49:15 PM, JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com
writes:
A Thunderbolt Signature Series Engine is
differentiated from a certified, production engine in several ways.
Like
all Thunderbolt Engines, Signature Series engines are constructed in
dedicated build cells by two man teams. In addition to being team
built,
Signature engines are internally balanced and will be configured to the
customer's exact specifications. Items that may be customized range
from
major configuration changes such as crankcase or crankshaft to fuel
systems,
Roller Rockers????
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test and furnish..
Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company like Lycoming,
with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addressed that simple thing
years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts from breaking they
might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on this new line of ex
perimental engines the their response will be "_uckoff" ,,,,Their is som
ething wrong with in installation.. They will not stand behind their cer
tified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Delamarter, Jon" wrote:
ing.textron.com>
Roller cam/lifters are available as standard equipment at no additional
charge. I am unaware of any plans to introduce roller rockers.
Jon A. Delamarter
Thunderbolt Manager
Lycoming Engines
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test and furn
ish.. Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company like Lyc
oming, with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addressed that si
mple thing years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts from brea
king they might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on this new
line of experimental engines the their response will be "_uckoff" ,,,,Th
eir is something wrong with in installation.. They will not stand behind
their certified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
&nb
sp;"Delamarter, Jon" <JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com>&
nbsp;wrote:
--> Engines-List message posted by
: "Delamarter, Jon" <JDelamarter(at)lycoming.textron.com&
gt;
Roller cam/lifters are available as
standard equipment at no additional
charge.
I am unaware of any plans to in
troduce roller rockers.
Jon A. De
lamarter
Thunderbolt Manager
Lycoming Engines
<
BR>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Two companies tried that in aviation, and failed.
There are a series of parameters that do not directly apply to aircraft
use,
but for the most part, why re invent the wheel, when the racing industry
has been using a variety of these for about 50 years.
They are available in extruded aluminum, forged aluminum, and stainless,
fully rollerized, or bushed and roller tipped, and in any ratio desired.
(After correcting the ratio on a number of aircraft rockers, it is
obvious that
the factory does not pay close attention to this)
As far as strength, no contest here: Where an aircraft may have open
pressure
of approx. 300lbs, we run open pressures of around 1000 lbs.
Another significant advantage to the roller rockers is reduced valve
guide wear.
Not sure of HP gains on a slow turning ac engine, but might be
interesting to dyno each.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test and
furnish.. Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company like
Lycoming, with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addressed that
simple thing years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts from
breaking they might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on this
new line of experimental engines the their response will be "_uckoff"
,,,,Their is something wrong with in installation.. They will not stand
behind their certified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Friction is Friction...... but you already knew that Archie... Less fric
tion= more power. I have been into more "certified aircraft" then I ca
re to admit. In every instance I shake my head in amazement at how they
get away with such crude technology and machining tolerances. You can be
t most of the valve guide failures and premature wear are because of POO
R quality control during the machining process. That is exactly why I pr
oduce an auto engine conversion for experimental planes using the latest
and best parts available. I kinda chuckle at the ad where Thielert anno
unces the "new" technology of roller lifters. Gm's 53 and 71 series Detr
iot Diesels have had that stuff since the late 1940's. There is a fool b
orn every minute and most will end up buying a Lycoming or Cont thinking
it they are on the cutting edge of technology. Thank god for the experi
mental movement !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do not achive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Archie" wrote:
Two companies tried that in aviation, and failed.There are a series of p
arameters that do not directly apply to aircraft use,but for the most pa
rt, why re invent the wheel, when the racing industry has been using a v
ariety of these for about 50 years.They are available in extruded alumin
um, forged aluminum, and stainless,fully rollerized, or bushed and rolle
r tipped, and in any ratio desired.(After correcting the ratio on a numb
er of aircraft rockers, it is obvious thatthe factory does not pay close
attention to this) As far as strength, no contest here: Where an aircra
ft may have open pressureof approx. 300lbs, we run open pressures of aro
und 1000 lbs.Another significant advantage to the roller rockers is redu
ced valve guide wear.Not sure of HP gains on a slow turning ac engine, b
ut might be interesting to dyno each.Archie----- Original Message -----
June 24, 2006 2:12 AMSubject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Eng
ines
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test and furnish..
Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company like Lycoming,
with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addressed that simple thing
years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts from breaking they
might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on this new line of ex
perimental engines the their response will be "_uckoff" ,,,,Their is som
ething wrong with in installation.. They will not stand behind their cer
tified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Friction is Friction...... but you already knew that Archie...
Less friction= more power. I have been into more "certified aircraft"
then I care to admit. In every instance I shake my head in amazement at
how they get away with such crude technology and machining tolerances. Y
ou can bet most of the valve guide failures and premature wear are becau
se of POOR quality control during the machining process. That is exactly
why I produce an auto engine conversion for experimental planes us
ing the latest and best parts available. I kinda chuckle at the ad where
Thielert announces the "new" technology of roller lifters. Gm's 53
and 71 series Detriot Diesels have had that stuff since the late 1
940's. There is a fool born every minute and most will end up buying a L
ycoming or Cont thinking it they are on the cutting edge of technol
ogy. Thank god for the experimental movement !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do not achive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspow
erair.com
-- "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net>&nb
sp;wrote:
Two companies tried that in avi
ation, and failed.
There are a series of parameter
s that do not directly apply to aircraft use,
but for the most part, why re i
nvent the wheel, when the racing industry
has been using a variety of the
se for about 50 years.
They are available in extruded
aluminum, forged aluminum, and stainless,
fully rollerized, or bushed and
roller tipped, and in any ratio desired.
(After correcting the ratio on
a number of aircraft rockers, it is obvious that
the factory does not pay close
attention to this)
As far as strength, no contest
here: Where an aircraft may have open pressure
of approx. 300lbs, we run open
pressures of around 1000 lbs.
Another significant advantage t
o the roller rockers is reduced valve guide wear.
Not sure of HP gains on a slow
turning ac engine, but might be interesting to dyno each.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:1
2 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycomi
ng Thunderbolt Engines
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test
and furnish.. Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company
like Lycoming, with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addresse
d that simple thing years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts
from breaking they might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on
this new line of experimental engines the their response will be "_uckof
f" ,,,,Their is something wrong with in installation.. They will not sta
nd behind their certified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
&n
bsp;
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Casey <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
From the sound of some of the posts our friends at Lycoming and
Continental haven't been reading the technical literature or have
been asleep for the last 50 years or so. While they could perhaps be
more progressive than they have I'm not so sure that some of the
"easy" fixes make as much sense in aircraft engines as it sounds:
1. Roller-tipped rockers will reduce wear on the valve tip and will
reduce side loading on the valve. that is especially important for
engines with small-diameter stems, high spring loading and short-
radius rockers (such as when increasing the valve lift of an
automotive engine). Aircraft engines have relatively long rockers
and low spring loads, so I don't see any critical need. It would
reduce the wear and increase the life of the rocker arm (which now
usually last over 4,000 hours), but it would introduce other failure
modes. Aircraft engines are designed, as much as possible to have
soft failure modes, such as the wear-out of a component. A roller
tip, because of the higher contact forces, must be hardened and it
and its ancillary components could break, putting hardened steel
shrapnel into the engine. I don't think the increased horsepower
(which would be miniscule) would be worth the risk. The same is true
for roller follower, but these seem to be endorsed by Lycoming so
perhaps the potential failure modes are addressed; I don't know. I
would be reluctant to use needle-bearing rocker pivots for the same
reason.
2. One big advantage of roller followers is that they allow a
concave cam profile to be ground, increasing acceleration rates. If
the spring loads were increased this would have a positive impact on
the design of the cam profile, allowing a shorter overall duration
for a given breathing capability. This would provide measurable
improvements in BSFC, BMEP or both. Does anyone use concave profiles
with the roller followers? I doubt it - it requires much more
expensive cam grinding equipment. Is the power increase worth the
trouble of going to roller followers? One clue would be for someone
that changed to rollers to compare oil temperatures before and
after. Oil temperatures are a function of lots of variables, but any
friction savings that would result in a measurable power increase
would have to also result in substantially less heat going into the
oil. I'd be surprised if the gain were anywhere near 1 horsepower
per cylinder.
3. Possibly the reason Lycoming endorses roller followers is the
reduced probability of galling after extended periods of non-use.
This has been a chronic problem with the Lycoming high-mounted
camshaft and roller followers might be the only answer.
4. Aluminum rockers? Aluminum has a finite fatigue life, unlike
steel, so aluminum can be effectively used in drag engines and other
finite-life engines. I wouldn't use aluminum for this application in
an aircraft engine. This is especially true since the likely failure
mode is a fractured rocker, disabling one cylinder without warning.
4. One limitation to high valve accelerations is the length of the
pushrods and these apparently are small enough in diameter to be
prone to buckling. Very little that can be done without increasing
their diameter.
5. Broken crankshafts? Don't know the root cause, so I can't
comment intelligently. Certainly there isn't enough money in the
aircraft engine business to pay for exotic engineering tools that are
used in the automotive business, and weight sensitivity precludes
burying uncertainties in cast iron (the old saying is that doctors
bury their mistakes in the ground while engineers bury their mistakes
in cast iron). More careful control of process parameters is
probably the crutch that has to be used.
6. I can't comment on "machining tolerance", but aircraft engines
can swallow a lot of garbage. Often the first sign of cam wear is a
rough engine and inspection will show that the cam lobe is gone. For
some time the engine tolerated that much iron and didn't fail.
Fairly large clearances coupled with high-viscosity oil will allow
such things. Do we want to give up damage tolerance for being able
to use smaller crank journals or to increase the loading? Maybe not.
I really like the idea of using a high-tech automotive engine in an
aircraft and and did a lot of analysis. In the end I concluded that
I could get equivalent power and durability and almost equivalent
BSFC, but I couldn't avoid a 50-pound weight penalty. A big-bore air-
cooled direct drive engine is a pretty good match for most aircraft.
Gary Casey
>
> .....has been using a variety of these for about 50 years.
> They are available in extruded aluminum, forged aluminum, and
> stainless,
> fully rollerized, or bushed and roller tipped, and in any ratio
> desired.
> (After correcting the ratio on a number of aircraft rockers, it is
> obvious that
> the factory does not pay close attention to this)
> As far as strength, no contest here: Where an aircraft may have open
> pressure
> of approx. 300lbs, we run open pressures of around 1000 lbs.
> Another significant advantage to the roller rockers is reduced valve
> guide wear.
> Not sure of HP gains on a slow turning ac engine, but might be
> interesting to dyno each.
> Archie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Red Hamilton" <redswing(at)mcn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Archie,
If you ever do that please let us know.
Thanks,
Red Hamilton
----- Original Message -----
From: Archie
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
Two companies tried that in aviation, and failed.
There are a series of parameters that do not directly apply to
aircraft use,
but for the most part, why re invent the wheel, when the racing
industry
has been using a variety of these for about 50 years.
They are available in extruded aluminum, forged aluminum, and
stainless,
fully rollerized, or bushed and roller tipped, and in any ratio
desired.
(After correcting the ratio on a number of aircraft rockers, it is
obvious that
the factory does not pay close attention to this)
As far as strength, no contest here: Where an aircraft may have open
pressure
of approx. 300lbs, we run open pressures of around 1000 lbs.
Another significant advantage to the roller rockers is reduced valve
guide wear.
Not sure of HP gains on a slow turning ac engine, but might be
interesting to dyno each.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test and
furnish.. Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company like
Lycoming, with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addressed that
simple thing years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts from
breaking they might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on this
new line of experimental engines the their response will be "_uckoff"
,,,,Their is something wrong with in installation.. They will not stand
behind their certified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Archie" <archie97(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines |
Not likely to happen, inasmuch as I have lost interest and sticking
to race only engines. I would be curious as to any measurable
differences on the dyno, however.
I personally have no interest in developing roller rockers for aircraft,
but if so, would go with a stainless version rather than aluminum
for a number of reasons.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: Red Hamilton
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
Archie,
If you ever do that please let us know.
Thanks,
Red Hamilton
----- Original Message -----
From: Archie
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
Two companies tried that in aviation, and failed.
There are a series of parameters that do not directly apply to
aircraft use,
but for the most part, why re invent the wheel, when the racing
industry
has been using a variety of these for about 50 years.
They are available in extruded aluminum, forged aluminum, and
stainless,
fully rollerized, or bushed and roller tipped, and in any ratio
desired.
(After correcting the ratio on a number of aircraft rockers, it is
obvious that
the factory does not pay close attention to this)
As far as strength, no contest here: Where an aircraft may have open
pressure
of approx. 300lbs, we run open pressures of around 1000 lbs.
Another significant advantage to the roller rockers is reduced valve
guide wear.
Not sure of HP gains on a slow turning ac engine, but might be
interesting to dyno each.
Archie
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh(at)netzero.com
To: engines-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Lycoming Thunderbolt Engines
Geez,,, Roller rockers are pretty easy to fabricate, test and
furnish.. Cheap HP gains from them too.. You would figure a company like
Lycoming, with 60+ years of supposable R&D would have addressed that
simple thing years ago. Now,,, if they can get their crankshafts from
breaking they might go somewhere. You can bet if one does break on this
new line of experimental engines the their response will be "_uckoff"
,,,,Their is something wrong with in installation.. They will not stand
behind their certified engines.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming engine designations |
How do I tell the difference between a wide deck and a narrow deck O-360?
Which is preferable?
Is an O-360 A1A interchangeable with other "A1A" or is there more that I
need to know?
Thank you, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming engine designations |
Skip,
A narrow deck engine will have 'internal' splined nuts, or nuts that
will require a wrench that allows you to torque the nut from the inside
versus a standard hex nut configuration. Another way to tell is the
narrow deck engine will have retainer plates, 2 per cylinder. This is to
allow for a thicker torque surface. The wide deck engine does not have
these plates. The narrow deck engine has not been produced NEW for
several years now and are getting difficult to find.
Personally speaking, I prefer the narrow deck cases over wide decks
mainly because the 'thru' studs screw into the case halves versus 'body
fit' thu bolts as on the wide decks.
An 0-360 A1A is a parallel head carbureted engine whereas the IO-360 A1A
is a angle head. This being said, yes it is possible to convert one to
or from the other, but it's not very cost effective. There are several
parts that will need to be changed such as cylinders, push rods, push
rod tubes, rockers, baffles.
Allen Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
<http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:53 AM
How do I tell the difference between a wide deck and a narrow deck
O-360?
Which is preferable?
Is an O-360 A1A interchangeable with other "A1A" or is there more that I
need to know?
Thank you, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Danny Lawhon <dlawhon(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming engine designations |
Allen, one question, I have a narrow deck engine
that is low compression , 7.4 to 1 0320 that doesn't
have the plates , and the info I got (older engines)
was that only the upgraded (ie: 160hp) engines
needed the plates.. can you tell me if some of them
didn't have the plates ?
Danny..
--- BPA wrote:
> Skip,
>
>
>
> A narrow deck engine will have 'internal' splined
> nuts, or nuts that
> will require a wrench that allows you to torque the
> nut from the inside
> versus a standard hex nut configuration. Another way
> to tell is the
> narrow deck engine will have retainer plates, 2 per
> cylinder. This is to
> allow for a thicker torque surface. The wide deck
> engine does not have
> these plates. The narrow deck engine has not been
> produced NEW for
> several years now and are getting difficult to find.
>
>
>
>
> Personally speaking, I prefer the narrow deck cases
> over wide decks
> mainly because the 'thru' studs screw into the case
> halves versus 'body
> fit' thu bolts as on the wide decks.
>
>
>
> An 0-360 A1A is a parallel head carbureted engine
> whereas the IO-360 A1A
> is a angle head. This being said, yes it is possible
> to convert one to
> or from the other, but it's not very cost effective.
> There are several
> parts that will need to be changed such as
> cylinders, push rods, push
> rod tubes, rockers, baffles.
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Barrett
>
> Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
>
> www.barrettprecisionengines.com
> <http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of
> CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:53 AM
>
>
>
> How do I tell the difference between a wide deck and
> a narrow deck
> O-360?
>
>
>
> Which is preferable?
>
>
>
> Is an O-360 A1A interchangeable with other "A1A" or
> is there more that I
> need to know?
>
>
>
> Thank you, Skip
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming engine designations |
Danny,
Boy! You have an old style narrow deck engine. First series 140-150 HP
engines did not have the plates. Second series, or phase 2 narrow decks
did. These require longer deck studs to incorporate the plates. If I'm
not mistaken this is a Service Instruction and most crankcase repair
shops will upgrade the cases when they do the overhaul on your cases. If
they didn't and you want the upgrade, call them and ask for the longer
deck studs. I recommend the upgrade.
There was another short lived case series that no longer is in
production as well called the 'mid deck' but this is for another
discussion.
Allen Barrett
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Danny
Lawhon
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:48 PM
Allen, one question, I have a narrow deck engine
that is low compression , 7.4 to 1 0320 that doesn't
have the plates , and the info I got (older engines)
was that only the upgraded (ie: 160hp) engines
needed the plates.. can you tell me if some of them
didn't have the plates ?
Danny..
--- BPA wrote:
December 21, 2005 - June 27, 2006
Engines-Archive.digest.vol-an