Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:38 AM - Re: Re: Avionics (CloudCraft@aol.com)
2. 06:00 PM - Merlyn 320 Conversion (Larry Wokral)
3. 06:25 PM - (Larry Wokral)
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: RE: Avionics |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 07-Feb-05 11:15:17 Pacific Standard Time,
john@vormbaum.com writes:
> What are you saying, Keith? If I put me &5 new radios in the front, will
> the airplane adopt a permanent nose-down attitude?
>
Oh, only when your fuel load gets down to about 60 pounds.
Unless you've hung a weight back on one of the tail frames.
I just thought I'd take this chance to toss the idea out to some of the new
members/owners on the list that the original design incorporated a few hundred
pounds of avionics in the racks aft of the aft baggage bulkhead and that used
to by a Commander was never out of CG.
With those gone and the weight moving into the panel, it's a whole new world
in the balance.
So any of you big spenders / grilled cheese sandwich gourmets planning a new
panel, look very closely at your empty weight CG and what your condition would
be with pilot seats occupied and minimum fuel.
The factory trick (and I got Gary Gadberry to start doing this years ago) was
to place a lead weight on the aft tail frame -- unless it was occupied by a
flux gate, then it was a frame or two forward.
Just some more cheap food for thought.
Wing Commander Gordon
Life is not simple anywhere. Probably less so elsewhere.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Merlyn 320 Conversion |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Larry Wokral" <l.wokral@ix.netcom.com>
>Can you tell us more about the Merlyn 320 conversion? In the Mirage
installation, those engines were blamed for excessive vibration, oil
consumption and temperatures. How does it behave in the 500B?
Jimmy>
Scott Dickey, who also has one, described it here several months ago and
probably did a better job than I can. Here are the basics.
Hugh Evans calls it a "Merlyn 320 Shrike Conversion." The 500B, S, & U are
currently eligible for this new STC (#SA01212SE). Mine was the prototype,
although Scott's was completed first. The original engines are removed and
replaced with Lycoming TIO540AE2A(MC) engines. These are wide deck engines
with a 2,000 hr TBO that were originally rated at 350 HP. He buys them from
the company in Spokane that removes them from the Malibu's that change to
the turboprop STC. Mine had around 200 hours each since new. He then puts
new Millennium up exhaust cylinders on them and adds his single turbocharger
and exhaust setup. The Hartzell HC-C3YR-2UF/FC8468( )-6R props are required,
so they have to be purchased if the plane hasn't already been upgraded with
them previously. I elected to order them with the electric hot prop kit.
The turbo waste gates are throttle linkage controlled and, since the turbo
is mounted high, it requires no scavenge pump. The 70 amp alternators from
the Piper installation are reused as are several other items including
remote mounted oil filters, better air oil separators, the pressurized
magnetos, and the electric hot prop assemblies if requested. He installs all
new fire sleeved oil hoses and new engine lord mounts.
The engines are derated to 320 HP at 38"/2500RPM. The maximum prop RPM is
2500. 42" MP (maximum intermittent) is allowed up to 18,000'. This gives an
unofficial 15 more HP (approximate) for a high performance takeoff (in fact
the pop off valve is set to allow this extra boost). Since the engines were
originally rated at 350 HP, I don't expect any problem from doing the
42"/2500RPM takeoff, and I often do. The new single engine service ceiling
(at 7,200 lbs.) is 16,000'. Scott says he gets 200 KTAS in the upper teens
at 75% with about 36 gph. I haven't been up there yet, but I've been getting
over 170 KTAS down low on local flights at 26"/2200 RPM (about 60%) with a
burn of under 30 gph and TIT leaned to 1640 (about 65 ROP). The CHTs have
always been well under limits (although its been cold here), I've seen no
vibrations, and the engines seem to keep 9 quarts (when I put in more, it
blows it out).
The conversion includes a gross weight increase to 7,200 lbs. (up from the
stock 6,750 lbs.). The extra weight of the new components is about 100 lbs.,
so you actually get a net increase of about 350 lbs. You can also opt for
his 70 gallon fuel increase kit which takes the allowed gross weight to
7,400 lbs. (any weight over 7,200 lbs. must be in fuel). I have not yet
added this, but I'm considering it. His certification has some other options
too. I elected to take out the original fuel flow gauge and replace it with
a Shadin Digidata fuel flow/ADC as the new primary. I believe that Scott
went with a Shadin Micro Flow. Neither of these are approved by Shadin as
primary fuel flow replacements (simply due to the lack of demand), but Hugh
got them approved as options under his certification.
The new performance is really awesome compared to stock. My C177 Cardinal RG
was turbonormalized, and I had gotten used to flying high and from high DA
fields without much thought. I missed that ability with the Commander. I
first tried to get someone to do a simple turbonormalized system on the
stock engines, but didn't get any interest - even from Merlyn initially.
(Now, Merlyn does a turbonormalized system based on the work he did for the
320 conversion. He has installed 2 or 3 of those). After several discussions
with Hugh, he decided that a reduced version of his already STCd Merlyn 350
just might be a good idea. It all evolved from there.
Larry Wokral
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 |
|
1.16 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Larry Wokral" <l.wokral@ix.netcom.com>
>Sounds like a great panel. I'm thinking about the MX20 and GNS430
myself. What convinced you to go the 480 route?
Jimmy>
WAAS LNAV/VNAV and LPV approach capability. The price isn't much over a 530,
and it has a lot more capabilities. Now Garmin is supposed to add WAAS to
its 430 and 530 but at a cost of about $1,700 more. I figured why not just
go with the CNX80 (GNS480). The avionics shop I used said that the
installation cost is about the same for either.
Larry
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! --
|