Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:58 AM - Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? (Kevin Horton)
2. 03:48 AM - Re: Transponder (Dave)
3. 04:24 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
4. 04:49 AM - Noise in Panel (Deems Davis)
5. 05:58 AM - Re: Transponder (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:39 AM - Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? (PWilson)
7. 06:56 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Kelly McMullen)
8. 07:01 AM - Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? (Dave N6030X)
9. 07:12 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Nancy Ghertner)
10. 11:22 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL ()
11. 12:29 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
12. 12:37 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (John W. Cox)
13. 02:03 PM - Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? (Kevin Horton)
14. 02:42 PM - Re: strobe wiring (Ken)
15. 02:44 PM - Eeeeek! Another fear and question. (John Swartout)
16. 04:32 PM - Re: Eeeeek! Another fear and question. (Matt Prather)
17. 08:18 PM - Re: Eeeeek! Another fear and question. (John Swartout)
18. 08:26 PM - strange electrical failure in flight (Ron Patterson)
19. 08:35 PM - Re: Eeeeek! Another fear and question. (Dave N6030X)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
Kevin Horton
On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>
> My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
> multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
> better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
> holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
> ring to be accurate.
> Regards. Paul
> ===============
>
> At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>>
>> I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>> wing, it is
>> a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>> bit aft
>> of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>
>> I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>> O-Ring,
>> think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>>
>> Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>
>> How did you determine when it was correct?
>>
>> What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>
>> Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>
>> What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>> what was
>> O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>
>> Thx.
>> Ron Parigoris
>>
>> (I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave <dave@abrahamson.net>
Glad my one cent was useful to someone. Just to highlight the fact
that this great list includes the illuminati of electronics as well
as the cretini of homebuilding (me) -- and for TGIF comic relief, it
may be worth detailing my thought process regarding the strobe wiring
in a few sentences. Not knowing, and continually forgetting to ask
whether the GTX330 is a strobe/non-strobe type xponder, I went with
the seems-reasonable-to-me approach and picked the AK350 wiring
diagram (p.8A) that left pin 6 (strobe) unconnected. Later, seeing
that no altitude was being reported, and after checking that all the
A, B, and C wires were connected correctly, I figured the last
possible step was to connect the strobe wire to ground, as indicated
in the non-strobe version of p.8A's diagram. I figured it would
either work, or a puff of acrid smoke would emanate from the box and
I'd be out $150, which compared to the total cost of the airplane
would be an acceptable loss. So, that's how the mind of this
OBAM-building monkey worked in this case and no, this anecdote is not
indicative of my aeronautical decision making.
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Ron:
STOP talking to those "locals at the airport". They don't know what they are
talking about and you are propagating a HUGE misconception.
"I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at which the fuel
burns is a definite concern." That elusive term you don't know is called
OCTANE! And we are not talking about "Racing Fuels" ... Which some ARE ALCOHOL.
And from watching your Tach you should realize that the Lycoming and
Continental engines are NOT high RPM engines. They Red Line around 2700 RPM.
And to correct the other huge misconception you are spouting, " high octane
MoGas should not be used in a O-540s because it burns too fast" ... BULL DINKY!
The Higher the Octane the SLOWER the gas burns. I think that was covered in
primary flight training and I know it is covered in the 'P' training of A&P.
SO! Ron, and readers of Ron, do your homework. "Do not believe anything you
see and only half of what you read". Better yet, don't even believe me ... Do
Your Homework!
I HATE THE INTERNET
And hate is not a strong enough word. At the speed of an electron BS can be
spread all around the world. And remember BS is a fertilizer, some times it
does good but MOST of the time over the Internet it does bad.
There is a saying that goes: "If you say it long enough and loud enough even
a lie becomes true."
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
=======================================
In a message dated 9/21/06 11:27:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US writes:
> Octane rating is not the only thing one needs to be concerned with when it
> comes to fuel. I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at
> which the fuel burns is a definite concern. On huge displacement engines
> turning low RPMs, if you were to use a racing fuel designed for high RPM
> engines of the same octane you would most like run into problems. From
> what the locals at the airport say, high octane mogas should not be used
> in a O-540s because it burns too fast, and since the cylinders are the
> same as a O-360??
>
> On the other hand, using 100LL that is a slow burning fuel used in a 73CC
> 22HP (well over 11K) Yamaha YZ 80 engine that is in my self retrieving
> balloon kills performance and probably raises EGT to disheartening levels.
>
> On Rotax 4 strokes you can use 100LL, but it does raise the EGTs because
> it burns slower than high octane mogas, and some of that burn makes its
> way into the exhaust.
[Barry] DUH Ron ... 100 LL, IS High Octane Gas ... What do you think the 100
Stands for!
>
> A old timer said on old auto engines that didn't use aluminium pistons,
> used to loosen the distributor, and run up the engine and begin retarding
> the ignition, he said he would get the exhaust glowing, hence carbon would
> be burned off. Slow burning fuel does the same in a engine designed for
> fast burning fuel.
>
> Using a fast burning fuel in a engine designed for a slow burning fuel can
> cause detonation. Detonation raises temperatures, let it go and God forbid
> pre-ignition begins to occur.
[Barry] This was a question on the primary flight training ... Do you know
the difference between Detonation and Pre-Ignition? I don't think so, you have
been talking to "locals at the airport"!
>
> Ron Parigoris
=================================
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I'm building my panel, and have it to the point where I'm checking
things out on the bench (outside the a/c). Yesterday when checking the
audio/Com/Nav functions I noticed noise coming through both the pilot &
co-pilot headsets. I believe that the source/s of the noise
(antagonist?) are the cooling fans that are internal to the EFIS/MFD
systems that I have installed, as the noise is only present when these
systems are powered on, and the noise changes , i.e. becomes additive
when both systems are powered on. (It reminds me of flying the Baron
with the props unsync'd). I'd appreciate any insight on how to trouble
shoot this one. The Audio panel is a Garmin 340, all connections/wiring
is with shielded wires w/shields grounded to the back of the rack per
Garmins instructions.
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:46 AM 9/22/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave <dave@abrahamson.net>
>
>Glad my one cent was useful to someone. Just to highlight the fact that
>this great list includes the illuminati of electronics as well as the
>cretini of homebuilding (me) -- and for TGIF comic relief, it may be worth
>detailing my thought process regarding the strobe wiring in a few
>sentences. Not knowing, and continually forgetting to ask whether the
>GTX330 is a strobe/non-strobe type xponder, I went with the
>seems-reasonable-to-me approach and picked the AK350 wiring diagram (p.8A)
>that left pin 6 (strobe) unconnected. Later, seeing that no altitude was
>being reported, and after checking that all the A, B, and C wires were
>connected correctly, I figured the last possible step was to connect the
>strobe wire to ground, as indicated in the non-strobe version of p.8A's
>diagram. I figured it would either work, or a puff of acrid smoke would
>emanate from the box and I'd be out $150, which compared to the total cost
>of the airplane would be an acceptable loss. So, that's how the mind of
>this OBAM-building monkey worked in this case and no, this anecdote is not
>indicative of my aeronautical decision making.
I've stumbled a bit on AmeriKing's wiring digarams too. I
THINK the only error in the manual is the syntax of logic
hi versus lo on page 24. Note that every time you see a
un-connected pin labeled STROBE, its the TRANSPONDER pin,
not the encoder pin.
Every wiring diagram (and chart) shows the ENCODER STROBE
pin 6 hooked somewhere whether to some pin on the transponder
or ground. This conversation has been useful. I doubt that
I'll forget it again. Thanks!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static |
port?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
True. Just look at any spam can that has a pitot/static. They stick
out ahead of the leading edge. Not to far. Correct location is a no brainer.
Paul
=============
At 03:55 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
>If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
>was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
>would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
>static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
>pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
>very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
>will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
>angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
>
>Kevin Horton
>
>
>On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>>
>>My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
>>multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
>>better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
>>holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
>>ring to be accurate.
>>Regards. Paul
>>===============
>>
>>At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>>>
>>>I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>>>wing, it is
>>>a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>>>bit aft
>>>of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>>
>>>I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>>>O-Ring,
>>>think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>>>
>>>Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>>
>>>How did you determine when it was correct?
>>>
>>>What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>>
>>>Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>>
>>>What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>>>what was
>>>O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>>
>>>Thx.
>>>Ron Parigoris
>>>
>>>(I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Yup, quite right Barry.....except, there are far more errors concerning
mixture and overheating and detonation on the P part of the A&P test
than most anywhere outside the internet. It contains all the OWTs of the
'50s and '60s as right answers. I had to unlearn a lot of stuff, to
ensure I knew the FAA's correct anwer, regardless of scientific facts.
KM
A&P/IA
FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> HERE WE GO AGAIN!
>
> Ron:
>
> STOP talking to those "locals at the airport". They don't know what they are
> talking about and you are propagating a HUGE misconception.
>
> "I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at which the fuel
> burns is a definite concern." That elusive term you don't know is called
> OCTANE! And we are not talking about "Racing Fuels" ... Which some ARE ALCOHOL.
> And from watching your Tach you should realize that the Lycoming and
> Continental engines are NOT high RPM engines. They Red Line around 2700 RPM.
> And to correct the other huge misconception you are spouting, " high octane
> MoGas should not be used in a O-540s because it burns too fast" ... BULL DINKY!
> The Higher the Octane the SLOWER the gas burns. I think that was covered in
> primary flight training and I know it is covered in the 'P' training of A&P.
>
> SO! Ron, and readers of Ron, do your homework. "Do not believe anything you
> see and only half of what you read". Better yet, don't even believe me ... Do
> Your Homework!
>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static |
port?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Not necessarily. Here's one on a Mooney quite a bit back from the
leading edge of the wing.
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Mooney%20N6030X/Wing%20-%20Left%20Bottom.jpg
The static ports on this airplane are on the left and right rear
fuselage sides, tied together.
Dave Morris
At 08:36 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>
>True. Just look at any spam can that has a pitot/static. They stick
>out ahead of the leading edge. Not to far. Correct location is a no brainer.
>Paul
>=============
>At 03:55 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>>If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
>>was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
>>would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
>>static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
>>pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
>>very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
>>will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
>>angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
>>
>>Kevin Horton
>>
>>
>>On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>>>
>>>My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
>>>multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
>>>better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
>>>holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
>>>ring to be accurate.
>>>Regards. Paul
>>>===============
>>>
>>>At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>>>>
>>>>I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>>>>wing, it is
>>>>a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>>>>bit aft
>>>>of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>>>
>>>>I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>>>>O-Ring,
>>>>think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet??
>>>>
>>>>Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>>>
>>>>How did you determine when it was correct?
>>>>
>>>>What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>>>
>>>>Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>>>
>>>>What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>>>>what was
>>>>O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>>>
>>>>Thx.
>>>>Ron Parigoris
>>>>
>>>>(I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Nancy Ghertner <nghertner@verizon.net>
On 9/21/06 11:22 PM, "rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US"
<rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Octane rating is not the only thing one needs to be concerned with when it
> comes to fuel. I don't know the technocrat term for it, but the speed at
> which the fuel burns is a definite concern. On huge displacement engines
> turning low RPMs, if you were to use a racing fuel designed for high RPM
> engines of the same octane you would most like run into problems. From
> what the locals at the airport say, high octane mogas should not be used
> in a O-540s because it burns too fast, and since the cylinders are the
> same as a O-360??
>
> On the other hand, using 100LL that is a slow burning fuel used in a 73CC
> 22HP (well over 11K) Yamaha YZ 80 engine that is in my self retrieving
> balloon kills performance and probably raises EGT to disheartening levels.
>
> On Rotax 4 strokes you can use 100LL, but it does raise the EGTs because
> it burns slower than high octane mogas, and some of that burn makes its
> way into the exhaust.
>
> A old timer said on old auto engines that didn't use aluminium pistons,
> used to loosen the distributor, and run up the engine and begin retarding
> the ignition, he said he would get the exhaust glowing, hence carbon would
> be burned off. Slow burning fuel does the same in a engine designed for
> fast burning fuel.
>
> Using a fast burning fuel in a engine designed for a slow burning fuel can
> cause detonation. Detonation raises temperatures, let it go and God forbid
> pre-ignition begins to occur.
>
> Ron Parigoris
>
> hey Ron, is that why my old lawn mower is running better with some "dirty"
avgas I have at home?
Lory Ghertner
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Barry
"HERE WE GO AGAIN!"
I think an education on one or both of our parts is in order.
"Show me the first time, correct me the second time on the following":
Detonation is not anywhere near the show stopper that Pre-Ignition is.
Detonation is the faster, not orderly burning of a fuel mixture.
Combustion pressures are higher and combustion temperatures are higher
during detonation operations. Ping is detonation. The octane rating of
fuel is the ability of fuel to burn in a orderly manor, in other words not
detonate. The higher the octane rating, the higher the temperature and
pressure that can be reached before detonation occurs. I am not positive
on this, but am pretty certain on Mainland USA, the pump octane rating is
not figured the same as Aviation fuel is, I forget if Avgas is higher or
lower. Anyway for a short time detonation probably will not cause any real
harm. Now if you let it go on for long periods of time, things will begin
to heat up, detonation will become more pronounced. The burning of fuel
mixture during Detonation begins with a spark at the plug. Preignition is
the real show stopper. This is where for some reason the mixture ignites
way too far advanced. Could be a glowing piece of carbon, or leaving the
helicoil tab stick a bit too much into the cylinder, or just plain too
high a temperature. Piston moving up and fighting pressure now.
OK comments here??
OK so if we are straight that octane rating is the ability for a fuel to
not detonate, I don't think that is absolute takes into consideration the
speed at which the flame front will burn in an orderly fashion. Different
brews can have the same octane rating, but can burn at different speeds.
I read an article in some aviation Magazine a while back that alluded to
this. I have not conducted any tests myself to prove or disprove this.
I think you misconstrued my example of large displacement slow turning
motors and small displacement fast turning motors. Fair compression slow
speed huge displacement engines need a specific octane rating, yes, but if
the brew burns in an orderly fashion, but a bit too fast, you can get
excessive pressures and heat build up in the combustion chamber. In other
words if we took a O-540 tuned with the same compression ratio as a stock
engine to develop max HP at 7500rpm, 100LL would not be as effective as a
fuel with the same octane rating yet having a faster orderly burn.
Do you know of O-540s and or O-360s that have gone to TBO using mogas?? (I
am not sure there is a STC??)
My example of my 73cc screamer was an example on the other side of things,
it requires high test gasoline, yet when using 100LL, 100LL does not burn
fast enough to keep up with what is necessary. 100LL is probably higher
octane than mogas octane rating of 93, it unquestionably burns slower, and
not fast enough for the screamer. I tried it to deal with moGas going
stale.
O-300s have a Mogas STC, they were initial designed for 80 octane.
Listening to hangar talk, using MoGas in a O-300 actual lowers EGTs. This
is because it was said to burn a little faster. It is also said that it
will tend to detonate a bit easier, and going a little richer on the
mixture with MoGas (larger main jet) gives a bit more leeway and long term
success can be expected.
Comments here, I am only repeating what I heard on the O-300.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
And what does any of this have to do with the electrical system of an
airplane?
Dan Lloyd
40269
RV10E
Especially DO not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Barry
"HERE WE GO AGAIN!"
I think an education on one or both of our parts is in order.
"Show me the first time, correct me the second time on the following":
Detonation is not anywhere near the show stopper that Pre-Ignition is.
Detonation is the faster, not orderly burning of a fuel mixture.
Combustion pressures are higher and combustion temperatures are higher
during detonation operations. Ping is detonation. The octane rating of
fuel is the ability of fuel to burn in a orderly manor, in other words
not
detonate. The higher the octane rating, the higher the temperature and
pressure that can be reached before detonation occurs. I am not positive
on this, but am pretty certain on Mainland USA, the pump octane rating
is
not figured the same as Aviation fuel is, I forget if Avgas is higher or
lower. Anyway for a short time detonation probably will not cause any
real
harm. Now if you let it go on for long periods of time, things will
begin
to heat up, detonation will become more pronounced. The burning of fuel
mixture during Detonation begins with a spark at the plug. Preignition
is
the real show stopper. This is where for some reason the mixture ignites
way too far advanced. Could be a glowing piece of carbon, or leaving the
helicoil tab stick a bit too much into the cylinder, or just plain too
high a temperature. Piston moving up and fighting pressure now.
OK comments here??
OK so if we are straight that octane rating is the ability for a fuel to
not detonate, I don't think that is absolute takes into consideration
the
speed at which the flame front will burn in an orderly fashion.
Different
brews can have the same octane rating, but can burn at different speeds.
I read an article in some aviation Magazine a while back that alluded to
this. I have not conducted any tests myself to prove or disprove this.
I think you misconstrued my example of large displacement slow turning
motors and small displacement fast turning motors. Fair compression slow
speed huge displacement engines need a specific octane rating, yes, but
if
the brew burns in an orderly fashion, but a bit too fast, you can get
excessive pressures and heat build up in the combustion chamber. In
other
words if we took a O-540 tuned with the same compression ratio as a
stock
engine to develop max HP at 7500rpm, 100LL would not be as effective as
a
fuel with the same octane rating yet having a faster orderly burn.
Do you know of O-540s and or O-360s that have gone to TBO using mogas??
(I
am not sure there is a STC??)
My example of my 73cc screamer was an example on the other side of
things,
it requires high test gasoline, yet when using 100LL, 100LL does not
burn
fast enough to keep up with what is necessary. 100LL is probably higher
octane than mogas octane rating of 93, it unquestionably burns slower,
and
not fast enough for the screamer. I tried it to deal with moGas going
stale.
O-300s have a Mogas STC, they were initial designed for 80 octane.
Listening to hangar talk, using MoGas in a O-300 actual lowers EGTs.
This
is because it was said to burn a little faster. It is also said that it
will tend to detonate a bit easier, and going a little richer on the
mixture with MoGas (larger main jet) gives a bit more leeway and long
term
success can be expected.
Comments here, I am only repeating what I heard on the O-300.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Guys, get a copy of the October issue of Kitplanes Magazine $4,99 US,
before all of my RV-10 buddies do. Read Walter Atkinson's article
beginning on Page 35 with the Hand Grenade as a header - "Detonation and
Pre-Ignition". Or call him as the article says at (225) 925-2066. This
has very little to do with airplane electrical. Walter has done a
remarkable job on this subject. It is more clear that what was taught
in A & P school.
Repeating what is rumored or heard is far from resolution on this
important issue.
John Cox
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Barry
"HERE WE GO AGAIN!"
Comments here, I am only repeating what I heard on the O-300.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Can someone share experience tuning static |
port?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
If you put it one or more wing chord widths ahead of the leading
edge, it would probably be OK. But that implies a fairly long pitot
boom, which would be easily damaged, and fairly heavy. Not a common
choice now days.
If you have the skills to select a good location that is closer to
the leading edge, you could make a lot of money consulting. It is
not easy to predict a location close to the wing that will be
accurate. I've watched two different aircraft design teams try to
find good locations for static sources. Both teams had problems, and
spent a lot of hours doing trial and error flight testing, despite
the expenditure of many engineering man hours. One team also
invested in computational flow dynamics analysis, all for naught.
Kevin Horton
On 22 Sep 2006, at 09:36, PWilson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>
> True. Just look at any spam can that has a pitot/static. They stick
> out ahead of the leading edge. Not to far. Correct location is a no
> brainer.
> Paul
> =============
> At 03:55 AM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>> If the static port was installed well away from the airframe, so it
>> was actually sensing the free stream static pressure, if probably
>> would be quite accurate. But, the original poster is putting the
>> static port near the wing. Wings by design cause an increase in
>> pressure below them, and a decrease in pressure above them. It is
>> very difficult to find a location near a wing where a static port
>> will read correctly over the whole range of airspeeds and flap
>> angles. Thus the desire to tune the static port with O-rings.
>>
>> Kevin Horton
>>
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2006, at 23:59, PWilson wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PWilson <pwmac@sisna.com>
>>>
>>> My fluids book uses a static probe for wind tunnel testing that has
>>> multiple holes. This allows the pitot/static unit to operate with
>>> better accuracy at various angles to the wind stream. Like 10
>>> holes. The book also specifies the diameter. No suggestion for o-
>>> ring to be accurate.
>>> Regards. Paul
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> At 10:22 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>>> <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>>>>
>>>> I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the
>>>> wing, it is
>>>> a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a
>>>> bit aft
>>>> of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal.
>>>>
>>>> I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a
>>>> O-Ring,
>>>> think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the
>>>> bullet??
>>>>
>>>> Can someone share experience tuning static port?
>>>>
>>>> How did you determine when it was correct?
>>>>
>>>> What distance was neutral point for O-Ring?
>>>>
>>>> Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure?
>>>>
>>>> What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference,
>>>> what was
>>>> O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place?
>>>>
>>>> Thx.
>>>> Ron Parigoris
>>>>
>>>> (I posted to Europa group, no replies)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: strobe wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I'll leave your question for someone else but FWIW here's a comment on
strobe wiring.
I ran a ground wire out to the wingtips for the strobe power supplies
and then later realized that I'd have to insulate the power supplies
from the airframe to use it as the aeroflash circuit boards are grounded
to the metal case as well as the ground lead. Interestingly I do have
the faint whoop whoop whine in the headphones from the strobe. Too faint
to hear in flight and I suppose it does remind me to turn them off after
landing. The headset jacks are insulated and wired with shielded wire.
However both the intercom and VHF radio are grounded at the forest of
tabs and by their metal cases that are mounted in the metal airframe.
The forest of tabs is about 18 inches from the intercom but that is
apparently sufficient for the headset to pick up the whine from the
"ground loop" created there. Capacitors, filters, intercom volume,
turning off the intercom, nor a separate battery for the strobes
(grounded at the forest of tabs) has any effect. It doesn't appear to be
cross coupling picked up by other lighting wires in the wire bundle
as turning those on or off also has no effect. Next I'll likely try
temporarily insulating the intercom case (also electrically grounded to
its circuit board).
Ken L.
Tim Juhl wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl" <juhl@avci.net>
>
>I'm mounting the powerpacks for wingtip strobes in the wingtips of my
Zodiac XL. I plan to use shielded wire (grounded at one end.) My
question is whether there is any problem bundling the wires with wires
from a capacitance type fuel sender (0-5v). I wonder if there is any
possibility of generating fluctuations in needle readings when the
strobes are operating.
>
>Tim
>
>Do not archive
>
>--------
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>______________
>CFII
>Champ L16A flying
>Zodiac XL - Working on Flaps and Ailerons
>
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32
Heavy
Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to
the
E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations
independent of
battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness
of
two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
John
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
A couple of thoughts...
- Relays in some applications are less reliable than some solid state
equivalents in that application. Saying hard/fast that relays are less
reliable is probably not completely accurate.
- When relays fail, often it's by degraded performance.. You'll notice
that once in a while a relay will fail to snap in, or disconnect. You
exercise the controlling switch a time or two, and it starts to function.
You make the mental note "Hmmm, that xyz relay is getting flakey; better
check it out when I get back to the hangar." And you go on with your
flight.
- The chances of a having a particular, properly installed/applied relay
failing on any flight might be 1/10,000. The chances of having two
different similar relays fail on the same flight might be 1/10,000 *
1/10,000. A very unlikely possibility.
Regards,
Matt-
> Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
>
>
> Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
>
> components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
>
>
> Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32 Heavy
> Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
> path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to the
> E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations independent
> of
> battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness of
> two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
>
>
> John
>
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
I *assume* that while relays may be the "least reliable" of components, they
are still "pretty" reliable, else they would not appear in the Z-drawings.
But my point is that when you combine Z13/8 and Z32, the chances of the
E-bus not working in a main-alternator-failure situation are not your
hypothetical 1/10,000 * 1/10,000, rather they are increased to 1/5,000
because BOTH relays have to work, and if either one fails (1/10,000 * 2) you
are flying on the battery only, even though the SD-8 is fine. Usually Bob
endeavors to minimize the opportunities for a single component failure to
cause an emergency, and I wonder if he considers this daisy chain of "least
reliable components" in the Z13/8 + Z32 to pass muster.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Eeeeek! Another fear and question.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
A couple of thoughts...
- Relays in some applications are less reliable than some solid state
equivalents in that application. Saying hard/fast that relays are less
reliable is probably not completely accurate.
- When relays fail, often it's by degraded performance.. You'll notice
that once in a while a relay will fail to snap in, or disconnect. You
exercise the controlling switch a time or two, and it starts to function.
You make the mental note "Hmmm, that xyz relay is getting flakey; better
check it out when I get back to the hangar." And you go on with your
flight.
- The chances of a having a particular, properly installed/applied relay
failing on any flight might be 1/10,000. The chances of having two
different similar relays fail on the same flight might be 1/10,000 *
1/10,000. A very unlikely possibility.
Regards,
Matt-
> Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
>
>
> Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
>
> components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
>
>
> Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32 Heavy
> Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
> path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to the
> E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations independent
> of
> battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness of
> two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
>
>
> John
>
>
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | strange electrical failure in flight |
Hope someone has some ideas on how to troubleshoot an eletrical failure that I
don't understand. I have Bob's Essential Bus and Main Bus setup, one battery,
new plane (50 hours). In flight today I had an indication that I had a problem
when my main bus connected items shut down. I turned on the Essential bus, turned
off the Cessna type Master/Battery switch and continued on, landing uneventfully
as planned with Bob's system.
Then I pulled the cowl to troubleshoot the problem. the master powered up the
Main bus as if nothing happened. I started the engine and got 13.5 volts from
the ND Alternator regardless of RPM. When I switched on the E Bus, the charge
rate / output from the alternator jumped to 14.3. If I switched it off, the number
again drops back to 13.5 volts. No blown fuses.
Anybody have an idea of what happened and what I might want to do? Thanks in
advance.
Ron
RV-4 N8ZD
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Eeeeek! Another fear and question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
I think that's why it's called the Endurance Bus. So what if both
relays fail. If you've designed the system correctly, you have
sufficient battery to get to your destination, and you don't even
break a sweat.
Dave Morris
At 10:15 PM 9/22/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
><jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>I *assume* that while relays may be the "least reliable" of components, they
>are still "pretty" reliable, else they would not appear in the Z-drawings.
>But my point is that when you combine Z13/8 and Z32, the chances of the
>E-bus not working in a main-alternator-failure situation are not your
>hypothetical 1/10,000 * 1/10,000, rather they are increased to 1/5,000
>because BOTH relays have to work, and if either one fails (1/10,000 * 2) you
>are flying on the battery only, even though the SD-8 is fine. Usually Bob
>endeavors to minimize the opportunities for a single component failure to
>cause an emergency, and I wonder if he considers this daisy chain of "least
>reliable components" in the Z13/8 + Z32 to pass muster.
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>Prather
>Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:30 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Eeeeek! Another fear and question.
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
>A couple of thoughts...
>
> - Relays in some applications are less reliable than some solid state
>equivalents in that application. Saying hard/fast that relays are less
>reliable is probably not completely accurate.
>
> - When relays fail, often it's by degraded performance.. You'll notice
>that once in a while a relay will fail to snap in, or disconnect. You
>exercise the controlling switch a time or two, and it starts to function.
> You make the mental note "Hmmm, that xyz relay is getting flakey; better
>check it out when I get back to the hangar." And you go on with your
>flight.
>
> - The chances of a having a particular, properly installed/applied relay
>failing on any flight might be 1/10,000. The chances of having two
>different similar relays fail on the same flight might be 1/10,000 *
>1/10,000. A very unlikely possibility.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
> > Bob, your 9/13/06 post regarding LEDs says in part:
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally, relays are rated amongst the least reliable of
> >
> > components. It behooves us to limit their use where ever practical.
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay. That brings up a question. I'm planning Z13/8 with Z32. Z32 Heavy
> > Duty E-Bus Feed shows the use of a relay to energize the alternate feed
> > path. But Z13/8 also relies on a relay to supply the SD-8's output to the
> > E-Bus. That's two relays that must work for E-Bus operations independent
> > of
> > battery power. Is there a practical way to avoid the built-in weakness of
> > two relays in the E-Bus circuit?
> >
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|